FYI Kodak : Directors rally to save film factory

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 2, 2014

This is what happensover and over and over againwhen there is no product guidance.

People sense they have no reliable information, so they fill in the vacuum with their own worst-case speculation born of fear of the unknown. Five million years of highly evolved human nature at work, exactly as intended by nature.

All of these battles, all of them, could be avoided by the simple expediency of reliable and realistic product guidance. When was the last time someone around here beat their heads against a wall ("God fuckin' damn it! Now I'm scared.") over the prospects for Harman's long-term survival? Can you even remember?

Like it or not, and I realize some vehemently don't, there's a tangible and very real reason for that...

Ken

RattyMouse · Aug 2, 2014

Ken Nadvornick said:
This is what happens—over and over and over again—when there is no product guidance.

People sense they have no reliable information, so they fill in the vacuum with their own worst-case speculation born of fear of the unknown. Five million years of highly evolved human nature at work, exactly as intended by nature.

All of these battles, all of them, could be avoided by the simple expediency of reliable and realistic product guidance. When was the last time someone around here beat their heads against a wall ("God fuckin' damn it! Now I'm scared.") over the prospects for Harman's long-term survival? Can you even remember?

Like it or not, and I realize some vehemently don't, there's a tangible and very real reason for that...

Ken

There's a lot of indirect guidance out there now with these recent announcements. It's all very clear to me now why Kodak (both Eastman and Alaris) has continually declined to voice strong support for film's future and that's because they know that the plan is to close up shop once production falls to an unsustainable level. The loss of movie film will drop production below that level and so then it is game over.

Every last chance to make a commitment is passed on. There is no other logical conclusion one can make given the recent news directly from Kodak.

Roger Cole · Aug 2, 2014

Ken Nadvornick said:
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

I don't think that's really true. If he gets a really good look he can also be definitive that it's a girl by what's NOT there.

And in any case the comparison here to Kodak utterly escapes me.

Xmas · Aug 2, 2014

RattyMouse said:
There's a lot of indirect guidance out there now with these recent announcements. It's all very clear to me now why Kodak (both Eastman and Alaris) has continually declined to voice strong support for film's future and that's because they know that the plan is to close up shop once production falls to an unsustainable level. The loss of movie film will drop production below that level and so then it is game over.

Every last chance to make a commitment is passed on. There is no other logical conclusion one can make given the recent news directly from Kodak.

You have just assumed that people are reading the OP and the embedded references?

The 15% increase across the board in cine Jan14 announcement of Oct 13 indicated reduced volume.

A 15% increase is like sending a kissogram to Judas.

Or the band changing tune to nearer my god to thee as they did on the TItanic.

Ektagraphic · Aug 3, 2014

RattyMouse said:
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?

Does anyone have a theory as to why Fuji still seems to be able to produce still film?

Sal Santamaura · Aug 3, 2014

Ektagraphic said:
Does anyone have a theory as to why Fuji still seems to be able to produce still film?

This doesn't justify being called a theory; it's just horse sense. The few remaining emulsions Fuji hasn't yet discontinued are being sold in volumes sufficient to make a profit the corporation deems adequate. That's all there is to it. When volume falls below the threshold, Fuji too will cease film production.

Manufacturing isn't a hobby, it's a business.

Xmas · Aug 3, 2014

They may be selling the last the last batch of mono off but still coating colour?

Roger Cole · Aug 3, 2014

A 14% or 15% increase in price is utterly meaningless to most of us. I use the best film for the job, not the cheapest - exception being sheet film where Kodak's prices are way more than 15% above the competition and the film simply isn't THAT much better.

RattyMouse · Aug 3, 2014

Xmas said:
They may be selling the last the last batch of mono off but still coating colour?

Fujfilm's annual report, released just a few days ago, makes no mention at all of Acros film. They mention their color films as part of their core technologies, but monochrome is completely missing.

Makes me wonder if the end is near for Acros.

PKM-25 · Aug 3, 2014

RattyMouse said:
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%?

I can only applaud Kodak and Hollywood film advocates for trying to protect a medium that no visual artist should lose as a choice. In terms of nuance, Kodak's entire film line stands as a unique product with a near faultless level of QC coupled with an offering of amazing technical mastery.

Successful creatives who have influence are listened to, it's not a country club or clique. They are a subset of innovators and disrupters who don't like excuses, rejoice in solving problems and rise above mere financial success to become significant.

This agreement gives Kodak some more capitol and above all, time to explore options for applications for Building 38....which under NDA I personally toured in 2009. It is also incredibly good press putting film in its entirety in a great new light. If film is still good enough for Hollywood, well then it is good enough for.....

One of the new applications for the coating line might be solar tech....

Flexible and thin film solar tech is rising fast since traditional glass sandwiched solar panels are heavy, rigid and store power robbing heat for longer periods of time. This is especially true of cases where panels have to be bolted flat for various reasons of being low profile. There are likely a myriad of prospects for new applications for building 38 on the Kodak board room table on any given day. Perhaps they will only coat film every other year while they use the heavily adapted equipment to service new technologies during the non-film coating years, so many fantastic new opportunities, brilliant problems to solve.

I come from incredibly humble beginnings, I have had to be a problem solver for many many years. If not taking no for an answer or not making excuses pegs me as having my head in a bucket of sand then so be it, add it to your yards long "music sheet" to play your computer's keyboard from.

Innovators need to be able to take criticism and I am more than happy to do that, it builds the character necessary to succeed.

Xmas · Aug 3, 2014

Roger Cole said:
A 14% or 15% increase in price is utterly meaningless to most of us. I use the best film for the job, not the cheapest - exception being sheet film where Kodak's prices are way more than 15% above the competition and the film simply isn't THAT much better.

The cine people need to buy reels of cine they run at 24fps... they subsidise your film if they don't buy more you don't buy any.

You have confused three other things.

HP5+ is better than trix or 5222 IMO and use.
If Trix was cheapest id use it cause the differences are so small.
I probably spend a larger % of income on film

The Kodak films curl annoyingly when dried too quickly certainly doublex does.

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 3, 2014

PKM-25 said:
I can only applaud Kodak...

Dan, credit where credit is due. That was an excellent post. Not only well written, but also with meat on the bone to seriously consider.

I may not always agree with you. But present your arguments and positions like that, and I will sit up, listen carefully, and take notes.

Ken

lxdude · Aug 3, 2014

PKM-25 said:
Flexible and thin film solar tech is rising fast since traditional glass sandwiched solar panels are heavy, rigid and store power robbing heat for longer periods of time. This is especially true of cases where panels have to be bolted flat for various reasons of being low profile. There are likely a myriad of prospects for new applications for building 38 on the Kodak board room table on any given day. Perhaps they will only coat film every other year while they use the heavily adapted equipment to service new technologies during the non-film coating years, so many fantastic new opportunities, brilliant problems to solve.

This is what I have been hoping for-- that they find new products to adapt their expertise and equipment to.

Xmas · Aug 3, 2014

PKM-25 said:
I can only applaud Kodak and Hollywood film advocates for trying to protect a medium that no visual artist should lose as a choice. In terms of nuance, Kodak's entire film line stands as a unique product with a near faultless level of QC coupled with an offering of amazing technical mastery.

Successful creatives who have influence are listened to, it's not a country club or clique. They are a subset of innovators and disrupters who don't like excuses, rejoice in solving problems and rise above mere financial success to become significant.

This agreement gives Kodak some more capitol and above all, time to explore options for applications for Building 38....which under NDA I personally toured in 2009. It is also incredibly good press putting film in its entirety in a great new light. If film is still good enough for Hollywood, well then it is good enough for.....

One of the new applications for the coating line might be solar tech....

Flexible and thin film solar tech is rising fast since traditional glass sandwiched solar panels are heavy, rigid and store power robbing heat for longer periods of time. This is especially true of cases where panels have to be bolted flat for various reasons of being low profile. There are likely a myriad of prospects for new applications for building 38 on the Kodak board room table on any given day. Perhaps they will only coat film every other year while they use the heavily adapted equipment to service new technologies during the non-film coating years, so many fantastic new opportunities, brilliant problems to solve.

I come from incredibly humble beginnings, I have had to be a problem solver for many many years. If not taking no for an answer or not making excuses pegs me as having my head in a bucket of sand then so be it, add it to your yards long "music sheet" to play your computer's keyboard from.

Innovators need to be able to take criticism and I am more than happy to do that, it builds the character necessary to succeed.

Alas Kodak management get prizes for incompetence they had the largest payout for wilful patent infringement for 20 years? 925 million USD...

Roger Cole · Aug 3, 2014

Xmas said:
The cine people need to buy reels of cine they run at 24fps... they subsidise your film if they don't buy more you don't buy any.

You have confused three other things.

HP5+ is better than trix or 5222 IMO and use.
If Trix was cheapest id use it cause the differences are so small.
I probably spend a larger % of income on film

The Kodak films curl annoyingly when dried too quickly certainly doublex does.

Yes, I understand that the cost becomes a lot more important when you run hundreds of feet. Most of us here are not cinematographers. I DON'T accept that "if they don't buy more you don't buy any" - maybe for Kodak in the current situation, but not in general. Does Ilford sell cine film? Not that I know of. I don't think Fuji does any more either. Adox and Foma may make some 16mm or sell a little 35mm black and white but I bet it's tiny compared to their still film sells.

I haven't "confused" anything. You almost certainly do spend a higher percentage of income on film, because I've not been able to photograph much for some time now and you seem to use a lot of film. Whether HP5+ or Tri-X is better is very subjective. I took like both and could use either. I love Ilford products in general but do prefer Tri-X and I'm willing to pay a little more for it. But if it were, say, double, then I wouldn't. I also have no curling problems with Kodak or any other film that I use, but then I don't use double-X. (And in fact shoot very little 35mm black and white these days.)

Roger Cole · Aug 3, 2014

Xmas said:
Alas Kodak management get prizes for incompetence they had the largest payout for wilful patent infringement for 20 years? 925 million USD...

If you are referring to the Polaroid suit about Kodak Instant they acted on the best legal advice, which still can't always predict how courts will act. They seemed to be on sound legal footing and the courts threw an expensive curve ball. I give them a pass on that. It was also a very long time ago and they were robustly profitable long after that. They were certainly mismanaged during the course of the sea change in the industry toward digital, but the Polaroid suit is irrelevant. Not like it did Polaroid any good, huh?

Prof_Pixel · Aug 3, 2014

Roger,

You are correct. The judge (on Polaroid's home turf) ignored all the technology involved (which was clearly different) and decided the case on the idea of a 'concept patent' - that is: instant photography.

Kodak and Polaroid leaders had worked out a settlement, but Eddie Land vetoed it.

Xmas · Aug 3, 2014

Prof_Pixel said:
Roger,

You are correct. The judge (on Polaroid's home turf) ignored all the technology involved (which was clearly different) and decided the case on the idea of a 'concept patent' - that is: instant photography.

Kodak and Polaroid leaders had worked out a settlement, but Eddie Land vetoed it.

Wrong

Yes Kodaks chemistry was different but Kodak had patented things in the past that were trivial to stop competition. That is why you patent.

Think Land tabled 12 patents and withdrew one, Kodak wiggled out of another and by 86 only seven remained current, when the judge told Kodak to stop.

Wilful means it was no accident.

Land asked for 10000 million judge reduced to 900 cause of mini labs damage to instant sales.

So Kodak paid 925 million after interest,
their lawyers
the design team instant
bought back all the cameras at retail
the design team c41

etc.

Some of which it did not need to do.

It would have been simpler buying out Land in 48 when he offered.

Kodak incinerated say 2000 million USD for management incompetence, note not technical...

The only way you can ignore a phrase in a patent is if you have prior art. Like had already sold a camera that spat out a print, or read a paper at an open conference.

RattyMouse · Aug 3, 2014

PKM-25 said:
I can only applaud Kodak and Hollywood film advocates for trying to protect a medium that no visual artist should lose as a choice. In terms of nuance, Kodak's entire film line stands as a unique product with a near faultless level of QC coupled with an offering of amazing technical mastery.

Successful creatives who have influence are listened to, it's not a country club or clique. They are a subset of innovators and disrupters who don't like excuses, rejoice in solving problems and rise above mere financial success to become significant.

This agreement gives Kodak some more capitol and above all, time to explore options for applications for Building 38....which under NDA I personally toured in 2009. It is also incredibly good press putting film in its entirety in a great new light. If film is still good enough for Hollywood, well then it is good enough for.....

One of the new applications for the coating line might be solar tech....

Flexible and thin film solar tech is rising fast since traditional glass sandwiched solar panels are heavy, rigid and store power robbing heat for longer periods of time. This is especially true of cases where panels have to be bolted flat for various reasons of being low profile. There are likely a myriad of prospects for new applications for building 38 on the Kodak board room table on any given day. Perhaps they will only coat film every other year while they use the heavily adapted equipment to service new technologies during the non-film coating years, so many fantastic new opportunities, brilliant problems to solve.

I come from incredibly humble beginnings, I have had to be a problem solver for many many years. If not taking no for an answer or not making excuses pegs me as having my head in a bucket of sand then so be it, add it to your yards long "music sheet" to play your computer's keyboard from.

Innovators need to be able to take criticism and I am more than happy to do that, it builds the character necessary to succeed.

First off, I am all for anything that saves film photography, so my heartfelt appreciation goes out to these 4 hollywood directors AND the bean counting studio execs who have made this happen. I would never have bet that bean counters would have had the stones to set out that kind of money to save something like film and I'm happy to be wrong.

The rest of your post contains some nice ideas about how to save building 38 and in theory, it makes good sense. But sadly the reality is far, far different. The time to set into motion plans that would expand the capabilities of Kodak's coating facilities was LONG ago. Developing new applications and new technologies is not a quick exercise. We only have to step back and look at Fujifilm and how they did it. How long did it take for them? Try 10 plus years.

Kodak execs are not stupid. They almost certainly looked at other options for building 38 long ago and declared it impossible to do economically. Otherwise, the motions would ALREADY be in place now for the conversion. 2015 is around the corner and there was no certainty that the movie contracts would be renewed. Due to that, the operation to convert HAD to be ready by 2015. Further, such massive undertakings are not conducted in secret. Kodak is a public company and the resources required to do something on that level would have to have had full disclosure. Fujifilm discussed their technology changes (and they were clearly visible with new businesses appearing all the time) during their conversion.

The facts show clearly that Kodak's film was set to close down (Kodak was trying to sell off building 38, clearly showing lack of interest in film's future), without this unbelievable move from Hollywood. But this is short term stuff, and there still isn't much time.

Hopefully the people like Tarintino try something else, more longer lasting that gets film out of building 38. That part is critical.

PKM-25 · Aug 3, 2014

Well that is your opinion Ratty, I don't agree with it at all.

kb3lms · Aug 3, 2014

Alternate Theory

Another thing to keep in mind is that Kodak has a new CEO. Perez, who drove the company into the ground during the digital transition, is gone. We don't know much about the new fellow other than that he is a silicon valley type. Is it possible he has been given the mission to make Building 38 sustainable? Maybe not stated as such but that's what it comes down to, right?

Kodak certainly has (or at least had but could get) the capability to engineer TFT films, touch screen films, solar panel films, or what ever type films. At one time they bought Verbatim to coat "film" for those products although it didn't go anywhere. Then again, time showed the decision to divest themselves of Verbatim a good one. Who buys floppy disks today?

But let's look at the Hollywood studios involved in this deal. One of them is Disney. Disney quite literally would not be in existence if it were not for Eastman Kodak. Kodak and Disney have had a symbiotic relationship for what, nearly 80 years? I personally knew people at Kodak whose job it was to carry out special projects for Disney. Kodak bent over backwards to help Disney pull off many of the projects that they have done. I can only imagine things were similar with the other studios.

Sure, there was lots and lots of money involved, but sometimes business relationships move past the purely money stage because the two together are greater than the parts AND personal and professional relationships are formed. Like people do, they will do things for each other when help is needed.

I see this current agreement being worked a little differently, maybe because I have been through a similar deal where I work. I think (and it is just my opinion because I certainly don't have any inside knowledge) that maybe the new CEO said something to the effect of: "Look Disney (or other studio), we've done business for many, many years. We supported you when you needed it. We bailed you out on "Snow White" when it nearly turned to dust. Now we need something: we need your support to keep this film manufacturing going or it isn't going to be an option for you any longer, Disney. Give us some breathing room by agreeing to buy enough film to help us keep things going while we (now without &$#@ Perez!) try to get get other products rolling through the factory and get up on our feet so we can keep this thing going." And so on.

Yes, business is business and the studios wouldn't do this forever, of course. But these deals do happen. Just an alternate theory, anyway.

RattyMouse · Aug 3, 2014

Interesting theory KB, and one I'd like to agree with. However, a few points stick out to me. First, Perez did *exactly* what Kodak's board wanted from him. He was richly rewarded and praised at every level. He, in no way, left Kodak under poor terms.

Second, I can't believe that Kodak is only now just investigating ways to keep their coating facilities intact and operating. All the time lines that we are fully aware of have been drawn up many years ago. The transition from one technology into anther is a very long term process. FAR longer than 2 years. We needed to see action on this years ago. Today there is no action, other than last second efforts to keep coating film.

It is possible that somehow, this additional 2 years might keep open the window of opportunity for this needed change, but I would not bet on that at all.

What I think we are seeing is the dying gasps of this product line and the efforts of some individuals who cannot (thankfully) let go of film.

There is no guidance at all from Kodak to support the theories that are abounding here. There are no financial figures, indicating efforts underway, to support the theories here.

Wishful thinking does not replace real, sustained, and ultimately successful efforts.

PKM-25 · Aug 3, 2014

PE, Prof Pixel or Bob Shanebrook, would one of you pleeeeease come on here and tell poor Ratty how tight lipped Kodak has always been about proprietary business information such as what he is speculating about?

PE, you were there the same day I was and I think we both know for reasons that serve no purpose here, those at EK who actually engineer both the production line and the products have been very active in looking at ways to repurpose the coating line in order to further monetize the facility......for quite some time.

RattyMouse · Aug 3, 2014

PKM-25 said:
PE, Prof Pixel or Bob Shanebrook, would one of you pleeeeease come on here and tell poor Ratty how tight lipped Kodak has always been about proprietary business information such as what he is speculating about?

PE, you were there the same day I was and I think we both know for reasons that serve no purpose here, those at EK who actually engineer both the production line and the products have been very active in looking at ways to repurpose the coating line in order to further monetize the facility......for quite some time.

Also, please explain how multimillion dollar projects are hidden from shareholders. That would be most interesting.

RattyMouse · Aug 3, 2014

PKM-25 said:
those at EK who actually engineer both the production line and the products have been very active in looking at ways to repurpose the coating line in order to further monetize the facility......for quite some time.

Thank you Dan. Your words above *exactly* emphasize my point. I agree with you, that Kodak has looked VERY hard for a long period of time for ways to save building 38. That we see nothing, absolutely nothing on this point, many years after such efforts show that there is no hope whatsoever.

Years and years of investigation and analysis, with nothing to show for it. Very sad but this is an inescapable truth.

That's real hard data, and this trained scientist knows that data like this speaks volumes about the future.

FYI Kodak : Directors rally to save film factory

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency