- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 9,156
- Format
- 4x5 Format
Jo Average and Josie.on.film are buying from these resellers and they are getting hooked on the look of cinema film in s still camera.
I care that they don’t get their ideas quashed.
Jo Average and Josie.on.film are buying from these resellers and they are getting hooked on the look of cinema film in s still camera.These are in all likelihood the kind of parties EK is trying to put the thumb screws on, as they're likely to put a real dent into regular Ektachrome and C41 film sales. I don't believe for a minute they care all that much about the few Joe Averages who jump through the necessary hoops to respool a 400ft roll into 72 cassettes every other year for their own use. As long as they can divert a reasonable part of the clientele that now opts for "3rd party fancy schmancy brand name" respooled cine film back to their still film product lines, they probably have the arguments they need to convince Alaris they're not backstabbing their business partner.
demanding hand-holding from the manufacturer who wasn't recommending using the products in that way in the first place
It's not an outlandish idea, but keeping into account what @MattKing said, it's not likely to be a factor.Is this happening because of the sale of Alaris to private investors?
Does this happen? I've not seen any evidence thereof so far. Looks like many people turn to online sources to deal with the remjet removal etc, not so much the manufacturer.
Eastman Kodak is doing special runs of the ECN film for Cinestill - no remjet applied. They are big runs.
We all know, but how does that relate to what I responded to?
it is an example of how Kodak is supporting such a "non-recommended" use.
I don't think that's the kind of 'supporting' @Lachlan Young alluded to, at least that's not my interpretation. Does Kodak offer end-user/consumer support on Cinestill products in case people run into problems with them, and/or is Kodak pushed to provide this support by end users/consumers on any significant scale, and if so, is this the likely cause for Kodak's current attempts to curb the sale of motion picture film stock for non-cinematography uses?
When it comes to Cinestill film, I wouldn't be surprised if a large proportion of its end users haven't even figured out yet that it's Kodak film (not everyone spends too much time on forums talking about who makes what.)
I'm really skeptical about that. To me, it looks like a combination of:
* Let's get rid of small-scale / single roll buyers because of the high transaction cost incurred (with Kodak possibly reasoning "when we set up direct sales, we were expecting to be dealing with wannabe Chris Nolans who would buy at least a stack of 50 cans of 400ft with the budget they scraped together using a small inheritance and the generous donation of the owner of Pete's Prep Palace who happens to be their uncle; not Jack Jones living at 50 Aspen Crest in Sticksville, Iowa, asking us to sell him a single 400ft can and 'is there any possibility you guys cutting it into 4 equal lengths for me, please - oh and can I pay COD because our dishwasher died so this month we're a little tight?'")
* Let's move some of the 'rogue' motion picture film buyers who use this for still photography back to our more profitable still imaging films. After all, "those confectioning lines pay for themselves only if we're going to get some good use out of them!"
* Quite possibly: "Let's appease Alaris in their requests to limit 'misuse' of motion picture film for still photography", with Alaris potentially being egged on by the financial targets set with/by their new owners. I can very well imagine Alaris having approached Kodak with essentially the message "it's bad enough that the Cinestill thing is allowed per our contracts, but could you pretty please stop the rest of the bleeding - we're trying to run a business here and you're not helping the way it's been going lately."
Pure speculation on my end, of course. But not entirely silly, is it?
Is confectioning bound to entire master rolls? They can't / don't confection pancakes?I doubt they are making enough of it to divide the master rolls into two categories - one for still, the other for motion picture.
most likely order projections are critically analyzed before any coating happens.
Most likely Eastman Kodak - which is not in any way resourced or set up to deal with large numbers of small retail orders - decided that they will just feed the distribution chain for small volume motion picture customers.
E.g. direct sellers like B&H.
This is the B&H listing for 16mm:
View attachment 380571
Instead of caring to much of who buys their film Kodak better should offer bulk rolls cut at the width of MF film so I can make my own type 220 Ektachrome rolls.
I understand that they have to slit to either 16mm or 35mm. (super 8 is slit from 16 after perforating) and the slit film is not stored, and goes directly to the perforating room.Is confectioning bound to entire master rolls? They can't / don't confection pancakes?
You can order directly from Kodak in Europe by emailing EI-Order at kodak.com.
Maybe Eastman got a lawyer's letter from Alaris's new owners. Or maybe the new Alaris owners have just sat down with Eastman to make friendly arrangements that would benefit both companies over the arrangements they had when Alaris was run poorly in the past. Frankly, the new Alaris owners may also help Eastman become a better company in the process. I suspect we will see other arrangements change between the two companies.I don't think that's the kind of 'supporting' @Lachlan Young alluded to, at least that's not my interpretation. Does Kodak offer end-user/consumer support on Cinestill products in case people run into problems with them, and/or is Kodak pushed to provide this support by end users/consumers on any significant scale, and if so, is this the likely cause for Kodak's current attempts to curb the sale of motion picture film stock for non-cinematography uses?
When it comes to Cinestill film, I wouldn't be surprised if a large proportion of its end users haven't even figured out yet that it's Kodak film (not everyone spends too much time on forums talking about who makes what.)
I'm really skeptical about that. To me, it looks like a combination of:
* Let's get rid of small-scale / single roll buyers because of the high transaction cost incurred (with Kodak possibly reasoning "when we set up direct sales, we were expecting to be dealing with wannabe Chris Nolans who would buy at least a stack of 50 cans of 400ft with the budget they scraped together using a small inheritance and the generous donation of the owner of Pete's Prep Palace who happens to be their uncle; not Jack Jones living at 50 Aspen Crest in Sticksville, Iowa, asking us to sell him a single 400ft can and 'is there any possibility you guys cutting it into 4 equal lengths for me, please - oh and can I pay COD because our dishwasher died so this month we're a little tight?'")
* Let's move some of the 'rogue' motion picture film buyers who use this for still photography back to our more profitable still imaging films. After all, "those confectioning lines pay for themselves only if we're going to get some good use out of them!"
* Quite possibly: "Let's appease Alaris in their requests to limit 'misuse' of motion picture film for still photography", with Alaris potentially being egged on by the financial targets set with/by their new owners. I can very well imagine Alaris having approached Kodak with essentially the message "it's bad enough that the Cinestill thing is allowed per our contracts, but could you pretty please stop the rest of the bleeding - we're trying to run a business here and you're not helping the way it's been going lately."
Pure speculation on my end, of course. But not entirely silly, is it?
That's bad... I guess I'll try to order another roll even though I have almost a full one. It's not good...
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?