FYI Kodak : Directors rally to save film factory

[snapguy]

coat

I can put a coat of film on plastic or on glass plates or whatever all by my little lonesome. There was life and photography long before George Eastman and his Kodak came onto the scene.

 

[benjiboy]

I'm just going to continue buying as much kodak colour film as I can and freezing it.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I'm just going to continue buying as much kodak colour film as I can and freezing it.

Are you going to use it? Or are you just hoarding to keep it for a rainy day?

 

[RattyMouse]

I read that " they might only buy a few more years." not a done deal yet?

Fuji are shrinking like Kodak, they now only do one mono film Acros - the stills market is way small? A large part of Kodaks overheads are a big companies management, who are incompetent, it is not the machine that is 100% of the problem. A large fraction of films (production) cost is input raw materials.

Yes, but Fujifilm still coats color film even without motion picture film to support it. That has to say something doesn't it? We know that Kodak will end film production once the movie studios stop buying it. How can Fujifilm keep making color film without movie support?

 

[Roger Cole]

Yes, but Fujifilm still coats color film even without motion picture film to support it. That has to say something doesn't it? We know that Kodak will end film production once the movie studios stop buying it. How can Fujifilm keep making color film without movie support?

You keep saying that but there's no proof of it. As you say, Fuji does it.

 

[benjiboy]

Are you going to use it? Or are you just hoarding to keep it for a rainy day?

I'm using it, sparingly I have enough to last at the current rate for about five years.

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk

 

[RattyMouse]

You keep saying that but there's no proof of it. As you say, Fuji does it.

It is very clear from the recent WSJ article that this recent move to keep Hollywood buying Kodak film was an effort to keep Kodak in the film game and not close their plant. How can you not see that?

 

[RattyMouse]

Look at it this way. Building 38, we read, could produce 12 billion feet of motion picture film per year. It is now down to 500 million feet per year. Assume that Hollywood bails on film and goes 100% digital. Also assume, fairly I think, that motion picture film is 80% of that amount. Could Kodak operate a factory that has production capability of 12 billion feet/year at only 100 million feet? And I seriously doubt that 100 million feet of Portra and Ektar are sold each year.

Without Hollywood, building 38's days are numbered.

I wish someone knew about Fujifilm's infrastructure.

 

[kanamit]

Can Hollywood go 100 percent digital? In terms of shooting and projection sure, but what about archiving? I'll admit to not knowing much about the inner workings of the movie industry but maybe it's worth it to the studios to subsidize kodak just so they can safely archive films at a reasonable cost.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Can Hollywood go 100 percent digital? In terms of shooting and projection sure, but what about archiving? I'll admit to not knowing much about the inner workings of the movie industry but maybe it's worth it to the studios to subsidize kodak just so they can safely archive films at a reasonable cost.

Well, there was an artice that someone here linked to talking about that, the cost of archiving film is something like $50k a year (basically just take a few copies on film and freeze them) and archiving digital (becaues it's on multiple backups and formats in case of magnetic disc failure) was in the order of $1m.
But that won't stop them archiving digital, they'll just pay it and then cut costs elsewhere, most notably whoever devises plots these days seems to have already been the first victims of cost cutting.

 

[AgX]

Can Hollywood go 100 percent digital? In terms of shooting and projection sure, but what about archiving? I'll admit to not knowing much about the inner workings of the movie industry but maybe it's worth it to the studios to subsidize kodak just so they can safely archive films at a reasonable cost.

Why should they subsidize another ompany? Not a common procedure in capitalism...

And why Kodak when there are healthier manufacturers around?

Fuji for instance have left cine-archiving films in their production portfolio.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I'm using it, sparingly I have enough to last at the current rate for about five years.

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk

My dear Ben,
You just illustrated why Kodak is in the situation that they are now: too little people buying film, and those who buy it aren't using enough of it.

Besides, every time I see these "sent from my..." I'm just thinking that every time someone buys a new smartphone or other digital device in the western world, it is one more nail on the film coffin.
That's why I'm using about a brick of colour film every 2 weeks or so and don't own none of these smartphones.

 

[Xmas]

Eastman sold convenience 'you push the button we do the rest'.

His company lost the plot circa 1947 when they did not buy Land out.

Digital is more convenient, people designing web pages need to optimise for both Android and Apple, PCs are history.

Everyone cept Ricardo has a smart phone, some have tablets as well.

My phone is useless as phone (or camera) but magic for games... sigh

I can recall when my pocket money was obtained on Friday am from 04:00 to 06:00 pushing button B.

Subsequently I could afford to buy another box of 127 verichrome pan.

/Nostalgia alert...

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Everyone cept Ricardo has a smart phone, some have tablets as well.

Lol

 

[Roger Cole]

It is very clear from the recent WSJ article that this recent move to keep Hollywood buying Kodak film was an effort to keep Kodak in the film game and not close their plant. How can you not see that?

I read it, and I draw a different conclusion. That machinery can be used for a variety of types of coating, including touch screen film, not just photo materials. This is a measure to "forestall" closing it while they also develop those other markets. Develop those other markets to keep it open and they can continue coating photo film as well, probably even without substantial movie contracts.

I guess it's a matter of whether you see the sky as falling or want to wait and see if it's just the acorns.

 

[madgardener]

I read it, and I draw a different conclusion. <snip>

I guess it's a matter of whether you see the sky as falling or want to wait and see if it's just the acorns.

Over the last few years Kodak has burned a lot of its goodwill, combined with Kodak Alaris' statements that there is "no future in film", doesn't help things.

 

[PKM-25]

I read it, and I draw a different conclusion. That machinery can be used for a variety of types of coating, including touch screen film, not just photo materials. This is a measure to "forestall" closing it while they also develop those other markets. Develop those other markets to keep it open and they can continue coating photo film as well, probably even without substantial movie contracts.

I guess it's a matter of whether you see the sky as falling or want to wait and see if it's just the acorns.

Exactly, perception and basis for opinion without absolute facts are a personal choice, so Ratty and others choose to paint the words "The Sky" on a 4x8 foot sheet of plywood, toss it in the air and then run around trying to catch it.....constantly.

I think Kodak is doing a great job at releasing otherwise confidential information right when they know they can, not when it is up in the air floating alongside Ratty's sheet of plywood. I see this as great news since *all* Kodak still and motion films are coated on that line, including the black and white products. So until I hear otherwise from Kodak, it is game on, keep shooting.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Hmm... I haven't activated my cell phone in about two years. I have little need for it since I can no longer work and don't drive much anymore. Even when I did, it was a very basic phone that only did voice and text... and I never texted. I have MagicJack which costs me $1.67 per month. I have practically no use at all for a cell phone camera/video and if I did need a convenient point-and-shoot imaging device, I have a ten-year-old CoolPix 4500 I can use. Besides, those folks who constantly fiddle with their cell phones while "supposedly" visiting with friends or "supposedly" parenting their kids are addicted to those devices and they neglect their friends and family. I just don't get it...

Film is a waning medium but it won't "die" for many years. We may eventually be forced to mix our own emulsions and chemistry from scratch but that will just make truly "hand-made" photos more appealing and valuable to collectors.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

The situation with Eastman Kodak and film-related customer market guidance is logically analogous to the situation with parents-to-be during a sonogram procedure.

If the technician pauses during the examination and immediately asks "Do you guys want to know the baby's gender?" he's already spilled the beans, even if you say no. It's a boy. Think about that for a moment and it will make sense.

If there were any lingering uncertainty, his offer of additional information would never have been made in the first place. He would have remained totally silent.



Ken

 

[Xmas]

Exactly, perception and basis for opinion without absolute facts are a personal choice, so Ratty and others choose to paint the words "The Sky" on a 4x8 foot sheet of plywood, toss it in the air and then run around trying to catch it.....constantly.

I think Kodak is doing a great job at releasing otherwise confidential information right when they know they can, not when it is up in the air floating alongside Ratty's sheet of plywood. I see this as great news since *all* Kodak still and motion films are coated on that line, including the black and white products. So until I hear otherwise from Kodak, it is game on, keep shooting.

No sale EK upped cine 15% Jan14 so I will buy Kentmere, Forma or Orwo which ever cheaper, zero brand loyalty.

For big studios film is small fraction of a movie budget but for smaller users it is more significant and some will either have to stop or use digital instead. Either of these options is not good for EKs volume.

They stopped Plusx, 3200,... cause of volume...

If you use a Kodak film Id stock up the fridge.

Fuji only do Acros in mono?

 

[MattKing]

Over the last few years Kodak has burned a lot of its goodwill, combined with Kodak Alaris' statements that there is "no future in film", doesn't help things.

I don't think I have ever heard anything from Kodak Alaris that says this. I think that they have always said that there is a future, as long as film remains profitable.

If the new arrangement between the movie studios and Eastman Kodak is sufficiently long term, I expect Kodak Alaris will be able to make longer term plans, and possibly even start to say some things that are more likely to make most of us at least slightly more comfortable with the situation.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Fuji only do Acros in mono?

It seems so. I don't know what is the production status of Neopan 400CN (C-41 B&W). Silverprint still has 400CN on its online shop.

 

[RattyMouse]

I read it, and I draw a different conclusion. That machinery can be used for a variety of types of coating, including touch screen film, not just photo materials. This is a measure to "forestall" closing it while they also develop those other markets. Develop those other markets to keep it open and they can continue coating photo film as well, probably even without substantial movie contracts.

I guess it's a matter of whether you see the sky as falling or want to wait and see if it's just the acorns.

The needs of the touch screen market are being met today, without any help at all from Kodak. A facility as massive as building 38 needs immense throughput to maintain viability. Entering into a well satiated market is not going to do it.

 

[RattyMouse]

Exactly, perception and basis for opinion without absolute facts are a personal choice, so Ratty and others choose to paint the words "The Sky" on a 4x8 foot sheet of plywood, toss it in the air and then run around trying to catch it.....constantly.

I think Kodak is doing a great job at releasing otherwise confidential information right when they know they can, not when it is up in the air floating alongside Ratty's sheet of plywood. I see this as great news since *all* Kodak still and motion films are coated on that line, including the black and white products. So until I hear otherwise from Kodak, it is game on, keep shooting.

The article clearly states that Kodak was on the lookout for a way to save their film production. Kodak wanted Hollywood to essentially buy them out. They took a pass on that and so we only have a short term deal.

What happens if Hollywood walks away? The vast majority of Kodak's customer base goes with it. No one with a reasonable mind can expect a facility like building 38 to exist on a couple million feet of film per year. NO one. If you want to live with your head firmly buried in the sand, so deep that your ass can't be seen, that is all up to you. But don't chastise us who can see the reality that is there, plain for EVERYONE to see.

I have been in hundreds upon hundreds of manufacturing facilities and know clearly that these plants *NEED* volume to maintain efficiency. I have seen plants get shut down because they could only operate at 70% efficiency. You really think Kodak is going to keep building 39 opened going at 1%?

 

[MattKing]

First time I've used the "Ignore" function in years. It is invigorating!