RattyMouse
Allowing Ads
I think archival, in the end, will win. It's much easier to store a reel of film than some sort of digital copy over the longhaul.
There will always be enough demand for film to keep some coating plant of some size operating at a profit. Kodak's size is the problem, not their product. Prices will perhaps go up although I don't know enough to know if that is unlimited. I think film prices will stabilize at the point where X's customers move to digital. So there they sit; making a certain amount of profit and employing a certain number of people: A nice little business to be in. A boutique business, like Leica perhaps. The scale is critical. It might just end up being a couple suppliers with neither of them being Kodak or Ilford.
Nobody here really knows how much film is being sold and nobody here (except for a few) knows how much film one needs to sell to keep a plant of size X running. Everyone is just talking through their hats.
What about the digital cinema percentage in India and China plus south Asian countries and Turkistan ? How is the american cinema overthere ?
Or do they use cd player and tv ?
Perez must be one unhappy man at the moment: Kodak is still alive.
Most silent films have disappeared. Flammable film stock did a lot of the in. Curiously the copyright office couldn't handle films in the old days so film companies sent them rolls of prints, one print for each frame. These can last 200 years.
+1god,please save tmax.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?