• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

FYI Kodak : Directors rally to save film factory

Status
Not open for further replies.

What's worse? An internet addiction where one enjoys the discourse or an internet addiction where one submits themselves to discourse that they hate?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree, it's ruining the site. I have a few people on ignore because of this, sometimes I look at a thread like this and most of a page is blank because all the posts are those few endlessly pontificating.
 
Michael W said:
I agree, it's ruining the site. I have a few people on ignore because of this, sometimes I look at a thread like this and most of a page is blank because all the posts are those few endlessly pontificating.
Click to expand...

A few comments:

1. You are surprised when people discuss the film industry in an industry forum?
2. You keep coming to threads that discuss topics you don't enjoy?
3. You agree that a posting limit of less than 10 posts per day is just fine?
4. Do you realize how many people will be capped with a limit so low?
5. You are using the appropriate tools (ignore) yet are still complaining.
 
What exactly was Kodak's or Fuji's marketshare worldwide, or at least in the major markets that constituted say 80% of sales?

BTW, Ratty, that is a pretty good of Fuji to communicate on future availability - especially in these times where future obsolence is built in.
 
mrred said:
Why is this thread still going? It was a timely topic in 2011, not relevant now.
Click to expand...

Did you even read the thread before posting this question?

The original post in this thread refers to an article published in the Wall Street Journal announcing that "a coalition of studios is close to a deal to keep Eastman Kodak Co. in the business of producing movie film."

This article was published July 29, 2014. Which is a long way from 2011.

And it likely has a direct bearing on the future of Kodak still film production. Which is about as timely and relevant as a film-related industry topic can be...

:confused:

Ken
 
Ratty,

Information given out is NOT proprietary. We give out information all the time.

The information that matters, is never released until we are ready. Not even to employees, who do not have a need.

The info you see about the "grand plan", is what we let you see. On the rare occasion where real proprietary info gets out, there is a hunt for the leak, and punishment for those involved. As in legal consequences. Yes you can be subject to civil and criminal action.

I have to renew my ethics, and corporate info protection, training annually. Perhaps it is my lack of trainability, or that the company is just really serious about what gets into the wind.

Kodak will not say anything about building 38 until they want to. Whether or not they have any plans for it.

All the speculation here, won't move anything an inch.

Personally, I don't care what they do with it. I shoot B&W. As long as I can get that, I'm good. I do not have the vision left to tell one emulsion from another. Well maybe some of the odd ball stuff...
 

I dont get it man. What is it about some tortured souls who have issues with *other* people discussing the state of the film industry? This is a very timely and relevant discussion and several here are getting all bent out of shape about a thread that they voluntarily read and voluntarily posted in!!

Is it OK that I burst into large format threads and try to get them closed down because I dont like this topic?

WHO forces people to read threads that they dont like, have no interest in and dont want to see?

Color me confused.
 
Not sure if its related, but off I go to load up on 120 Kodak, my way to aid!
 

It is a normal syndrome it is called 'shooting the messenger'.
 
There's messengers, then there are those spouting opinion as messages, repeatedly, at the top of their lungs, at 3 AM in the town square (metaphorically.)
 
Roger Cole said:
There's messengers, then there are those spouting opinion as messages, repeatedly, at the top of their lungs, at 3 AM in the town square (metaphorically.)
Click to expand...

And who is shouting at the top of their lungs here? I hope you are not suggesting I am, because nothing could be further from the truth.
 
analoguey said:
What exactly was Kodak's or Fuji's marketshare worldwide, or at least in the major markets that constituted say 80% of sales?
Click to expand...

Do you mean by coating area for cine and stills?

Or just still?

Cause cine and still have gone up and down 'independently' so as well as 'which' there is 'when'.

And although the title is about movie camera film in the past the distribution film for cinemas was larger volume than camera film.

Now days some cinemas will use digital distributed movies so camera distribution ratios are altering.

eg subjectively

In the UK 50-60 the great majority of stills was mono and Kodak had lions share from Ilford.
60-70 mono remained the same volume and split but colour expanded a lot and Ilford had a very
much smaller fraction cause they withdrew from colour.
Negligible Afga no Fuji until post 61...

Cine was large in distribution copies 50-60 but reduced 60-70. Cinemas folded big time.
 
Roger Cole said:
There's messengers, then there are those spouting opinion as messages, repeatedly, at the top of their lungs, at 3 AM in the town square (metaphorically.)
Click to expand...

Life is about distinguishing the politicians from prophets.
 
Thanks Ken for the complete article. My 2¢ worth that this shows that film is becoming an art medium. Scorsese is a fine art director that has huge cultural influence. But most feature films released is just entertainment and not a cultural artifact that doesn't has long lasting value. The sad thing is that most feature length movies are not fine art probably won't not be shot on film. It's like chefs in fine dining restaurants that want to us organic and local ingredients. It's unconventional and expensive. Fast food restaurants probably won't spend the extra money on better ingredients. The consuming masses for the most part doesn't care if it's organic or humanely raised. Back to movies. I think the cost of film stock, processing and prints is not a huge part of the budget of a feature film anyway.
 
Beautiful words from Scorsese. Every director should be penning letters of support like this.

Spielberg, Coppola, where are you??
 
RattyMouse said:
Beautiful words from Scorsese. Every director should be penning letters of support like this.

Spielberg, Coppola, where are you??
Click to expand...

Sofia Coppola too! LeVar Burton?
 
so how do we get into this sort of filming? do we use any vintage film camera? is there a sort of 1900's hollywood quality film cameras still available that accepts modern film?
 
Mainecoonmaniac said:
I think the cost of film stock, processing and prints is not a huge part of the budget of a feature film anyway.
Click to expand...

True but the (ie most) small budget films may be on a shoe string budget sufficient to be dependent on recans and short ends.

Kodaks accounts for 1st quarter '14 comment that volume of film and bubble jet had reduced.

http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Kodak...Builds_in_Strategic_Technology_Businesses.htm

They omitted to mention a price increase.
 
aRolleiBrujo said:
so how do we get into this sort of filming? do we use any vintage film camera? is there a sort of 1900's hollywood quality film cameras still available that accepts modern film?
Click to expand...

Just buy one of these: http://www.ebay.com/itm/ARRI-Arriflex-235-w-IVS-Video-Asssist-4Batteries-Charger-Used-/360398971419


That is a current camera, in that it is still listed as current on Arriflex's website, although I am not sure whether they are actually manufacturing it.

Here is something older and a bit more heavy duty (the camera, not the model): http://www.ebay.com/itm/PRICE-CUT-o...ional-film-cameras-ZEISS-PRIMES-/261084733044
 

Hmm, I was looking somewhere in the $100 range. xD
 
aRolleiBrujo said:
so how do we get into this sort of filming? do we use any vintage film camera? is there a sort of 1900's hollywood quality film cameras still available that accepts modern film?
Click to expand...

No you use a hybrid camera that looks just like a 1960 Arri but has video output. The director has a web book and watches repeated dry run throughs. Then does a take 1 with film running with a high confidence that it will be good.

Saves a lotta film does not need a rush cept for soup validation.

You rent an Arri 400 foot 5222 about 220 $ US.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register