Kodak Reintroduces Ektachrome.

[keenmaster486]

If I am ever a billionaire someday, my pet film projects will all use film. I promise.

But see, it's going to take big customers like that to keep Kodak making film. Without the directors who insist on using film, Kodak will have a great deal of trouble.

 

[RattyMouse]

Ektachrome was due to be released by Kodak during the 3rd quarter of 2017. Here we are, a month way from the half way point in 2018 and no film in sight. Not even a release date.

Is 2018 even still in the cards?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Must keep Ektachrome thread longer than Kodachrome thread

 

[trendland]

Yeah - Schwartzman (ASC) shot roughly 150.000 feed of it - mostly at Hawai location (Jurassic World).
And one 1000ft can is about $2100,-. For sure he got a special price from Kodak.
with regards

 

[trendland]

So it's eating a 24 shot roll of film every 2 seconds. Still using more film in an hour than I've used in my whole life.

That new 65mm has the classic vertical film run. And the standard transport frequency for such filming is 24fps and not 48. And also the gate is of the smaller type.

Thus this camera is compared to his 65mm Imax cousin a lesser film-eater ...

And if it would run horizontal we would talk about the IMAX format.
with regards
PS : I got such IMAX coppy (a part of a double perforated full film ) 1990. Years later I bought my first IMAX still camera
(6 x 7)........

 

[RattyMouse]

Must keep Ektachrome thread longer than Kodachrome thread

Gonna be hard if the film never reappears, which is looking rather likely.

 

[trendland]

... and probably ten times (or more) the amount of film shot than that which we see in the final product.

60 times more......... but you should know ~ 350.000 bucks is not a great sum (for original camera film - we don't care about the costs of developing and coppies now)
In concern of a 100. million budged.


with regards

 

[trendland]

We all should turn to cinematography. It would give the industry quite a boost.
Our own funding provided ...

The percentage of film working (cinema) seams to come not more less now. The most losses Kodak had noticed were beween 2008 - 2012 ~ 60% of cinefilm has gone firstly (same period as Cinestill offered first still films - right?)
Today it seams to be around 3 - 5 % of film work - the remaining part of 100% 2004.
But the more problem is coming from cinema projection - that is 100% digital today (or not ???)
And to each camera film you had a need of min. 400 - 600 koppies in the past........that is gone meanwhile

 

[RattyMouse]

The percentage of film working (cinema) seams to come not more less now. The most losses Kodak had noticed were beween 2008 - 2012 ~ 60% of cinefilm has gone firstly (same period as Cinestill offered first still films - right?)
Today it seams to be around 3 - 5 % of film work - the remaining part of 100% 2004.
But the more problem is coming from cinema projection - that is 100% digital today (or not ???)
And to each camera film you had a need of min. 400 - 600 koppies in the past........that is gone meanwhile

Thank you Captain Obvious.

 

[keenmaster486]

I'll say again, at the rate they are going it's a very real possibility that they will go bankrupt again before they release anything new.

 

[trendland]

We all should turn to cinematography. It would give the industry quite a boost.
Our own funding provided ...

The percentage of film working (cinema) seams to come not more less now. The most losses Kodak had noticed were beween 2008 - 2012 ~ 60% of cinefilm has gone firstly (same period as Cinestill offered first still films - right?)
Today it seams to be around 3 - 5 % of film work - the remaining part of 100% 2004.
But the more problem is coming from cinema projection - that is 100% digital today (or not ???)
And to each camera film you had a need of min. 400 - 600 koppies in the past........that is gone meanwhile

[QTUOTE="RattyMouse, post: 2075989, member: 53414"]Thank you Captain Obvious.[/QUOTE]
The plesure is still ob my side

 

[RattyMouse]

I'll say again, at the rate they are going it's a very real possibility that they will go bankrupt again before they release anything new.

That may or may not be true, but even if the Ektachrome comes this year, it will not give a meaningful bump to EK's revenues or profits.

 

[trendland]

I'll say again, at the rate they are going it's a very real possibility that they will go bankrupt again before they release anything new.

Yeah - everything is P O S S I B L E keenmaster 486 - also a scenario that Israel will bomb Iran's atomic facilitys directly (before Kodak is bringing out New Ektachrome)....??
But what is realistic ?
with regards

PS : Kodak isn't going to get buncrupt in the near future! !!
PPS : The evidence is given by yourself : It is allmost the opposite what will happen - and the fact that so many people talk about Kodak bunkruptcy is showing that this will not happen.

 

[RattyMouse]

Yeah - everything is P O S S I B L E keenmaster 486 - also a scenario that Israel will bomb Iran's atomic facilitys directly (before Kodak is bringing out New Ektachrome)....??
But what is realistic ?
with regards

PS : Kodak isn't going to get buncrupt in the near future! !!
PPS : The evidence is given by yourself : It is allmost the opposite what will happen - and the fact that so many people talk about Kodak bunkruptcy is showing that this will not happen.

Who is going to give Kodak the money they need (hundreds of millions of dollars) but do not have in 2019 to repurchase their class A shares?
Who?

 

[lantau]

Who is going to give Kodak the money they need (hundreds of millions of dollars) but do not have in 2019 to repurchase their class A shares?
Who?

Maybe the same guys, who fund shale oil?

 

[RattyMouse]

Maybe the same guys, who fund shale oil?

Shale oil is a very profitable business. Why would they throw their money away on a dying company?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Shale oil is a very profitable business. Why would they throw their money away on a dying company?

Sometimes the facts are uncomfortable.

 

[RattyMouse]

Sometimes the facts are uncomfortable.

Very true. Many here will have to get comfortable to these facts as we get closer to 2019.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
But see, it's going to take big customers like that to keep Kodak making film. Without the directors who insist on using film, Kodak will have a great deal of trouble.

Who are the directors that choose film and how many of them are there? Is there a trend underway? I am asking this question sincerely, because I don't follow what is happening in cinema.

When Three Kings was released, I went to see it in the theater because Ektachrome was used (to good effect, I think).

 

[lantau]

Shale oil is a very profitable business. Why would they throw their money away on a dying company?

If you believe that then I have a Kodachrome coating line to sell to you. It shows how perception directs investment flows. Kodak is a money looser and everyone knows because 'film is dead'. The shalers have a nice story how the business is going to come around.

A sample quote from a nice article about the state of the play: https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/05/...olution-losing-billions-continental-resources

<< And he has a point. In 2017 Continental Dead Link Removedon interest expenses, which is approximately 155 percent of its 2017 adjusted net income generation. When you can’t even pay the interest on your credit cards, you are broke. >>

But they can keep raising cash from bond sales (Wall Street makes money on the fees, no matter what). It won't be so easy for Kodak, unfortunately. But maybe there are some film lovers on Wall Street, who can find willing idiots for a modest fee. More likely than the return of Kodachrome. Who knows...

 

[RattyMouse]

If you believe that then I have a Kodachrome coating line to sell to you. It shows how perception directs investment flows. Kodak is a money looser and everyone knows because 'film is dead'. The shalers have a nice story how the business is going to come around.

A sample quote from a nice article about the state of the play: https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/05/...olution-losing-billions-continental-resources

<< And he has a point. In 2017 Continental Dead Link Removedon interest expenses, which is approximately 155 percent of its 2017 adjusted net income generation. When you can’t even pay the interest on your credit cards, you are broke. >>

But they can keep raising cash from bond sales (Wall Street makes money on the fees, no matter what). It won't be so easy for Kodak, unfortunately. But maybe there are some film lovers on Wall Street, who can find willing idiots for a modest fee. More likely than the return of Kodachrome. Who knows...

This article is ridiculously out of date. Oil today is $71/barrel and going up. Shale is immensely profitable at these levels.

 

[RattyMouse]

Who are the directors that choose film and how many of them are there? Is there a trend underway? I am asking this question sincerely, because I don't follow what is happening in cinema.

When Three Kings was released, I went to see it in the theater because Ektachrome was used (to good effect, I think).

Kodak said revenue from motion picture film was up 18% in the last quarter, so either they are selling more film or charging more money for the same amount of film sold last quarter.

 

[cmacd123]

That 65mm camera will go though more film in a week of shooting than everyone on APUG combined goes through in a year. Shooting at 48fps? That's two rolls of film a second. Maybe more film in a day than everyone here on photrio uses in a year.

even "normal" 4 perf 35mm movies churn though stock at 90 feet a minute. And a 7 to one or 10 to one shooting ration is not unheard off. a 120 Minute movie ends up with 10,800 feet of finished negative and if they managed to keep it to a 5 to 1 ratio, used 54,000 feet of film to get their.

more "special" stock is used for effects and such.

65mm NON-IMAX is 5 perf rather than 4 so it churns up 112 ft a minute IMAX at 15 perfs is more like 300 ft a minute. the folks who work at what is left of Kodak must let out a cheep every time a new movie is announced to be using film capture.

 

[Cholentpot]

even "normal" 4 perf 35mm movies churn though stock at 90 feet a minute. And a 7 to one or 10 to one shooting ration is not unheard off. a 120 Minute movie ends up with 10,800 feet of finished negative and if they managed to keep it to a 5 to 1 ratio, used 54,000 feet of film to get their.

more "special" stock is used for effects and such.

65mm NON-IMAX is 5 perf rather than 4 so it churns up 112 ft a minute IMAX at 15 perfs is more like 300 ft a minute. the folks who work at what is left of Kodak must let out a cheep every time a new movie is announced to be using film capture.

I just want some short ends...

 

[Kino]

I'm doing my part at work. Typically, we expose and develop between 10 to 40 thousand feet of b&w negative, fine grain and positive Kodak and ORWO B&W 35mm stock a week. It depends on a lot of factors, but we try to preserve at least a feature film a week.

The most film stock I ever ordered at once was 5 million feet back in 2001.

Those were the days...