Kodak Reintroduces Ektachrome.

[AgX]

Big companies like Kodak are to big to fail.

Nobody cares for Kodak, they are just a shadow of their former self.

 

[SilverShutter]

I guess a big issue with Kodak is they can't adapt to the modern world because they are already too far behind, but also can't reinvent past products because they are too clunky and losing money constantly. So they are stuck trying to figure out what to do, and products like Ektachrome or the Super 8 camera are a result of this, a company that does not define itself, a super 8 camera that costs too much on a market that does not need it, a positive slide film when everyone knows E6 is on the verge of dying.
IMO Kodak should cancel both these projects if its not too late and streamline their production, they are a niche now and they should behave like one. Ilford for example knows this and has used it to its benefit.

 

[MattKing]

The film part of Eastman Kodak isn't the reason for the potential 2nd bankruptcy, because it is essentially irrelevant to most of their business plans.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I bet Jesus carried a Contax.

Mmm. And Nachos.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-...sus-loves-nachos-graffiti-trademarked/9521210

 

[Ste_S]

I guess a big issue with Kodak is they can't adapt to the modern world because they are already too far behind, but also can't reinvent past products because they are too clunky and losing money constantly. So they are stuck trying to figure out what to do, and products like Ektachrome or the Super 8 camera are a result of this, a company that does not define itself, a super 8 camera that costs too much on a market that does not need it, a positive slide film when everyone knows E6 is on the verge of dying.
IMO Kodak should cancel both these projects if its not too late and streamline their production, they are a niche now and they should behave like one. Ilford for example knows this and has used it to its benefit.

Does anyone know what the production lines are like for Portra and Gold/Ultramax ? Have they managed to re-boot the production for these to a level that's profitable in today's (niche) market for film ?

 

[trendland]

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.

A 5 : 1 ratio was the illusion to simple tv news production with film (before video). Executive producers wanted to see not more than 6 :1 = 6 minutes film raw material for 1 minute TV news. Some editors got a ratio of 6 :1 but mostly 8 : 1 was also quite OK. At 12 : 1 - 15 :1 they
got a call to come directly to the chief. (because of the costs).
I heard about some editors were fired at 20 : 1.... (it was never caused from camera operators they should be able to work 1,5 - 2 : 1.)
Todays video television news are working with ratios of 20 - 40 : 1 (or higher) everything is allowed.
But your ratio you mentioned with film is with low budget production?
A class films often have a lenght of
4,5 hours, 5,5 hours.....Coppola was nearly bunkrupt on filmworks to Appocalypse Now due to final version of more than 8 hours and highest ratios.
So you have a ratio of 6 : 1 with special scenes sometimes 3 :1 / 4:1
because of great expensive effort (not from the film costs) and the rest is on the play of the actors and the director. 12:1 / 8:1 / 16 :1....
But don't forget the final lenght of a cinema movie. Best results in filmwork have a nearly double lenght. (The film should be in the near of 100min. and the cutting version has 185 min) so it comes to a final post production (and much of deleted scenes).
The meaning to the ratio is factor 2 - 4 (because you have to realize the concern of the final version)
So if you are just regarding the lenght of the film you know from cinema you may count in real ratios of 24:1 / 16:1 / 32:1 / (with factor x2 - from ratios given above.

with regards

PS : Coppola was co - producer and spent some private money he earned from "The Godfather" (nearly 2 million bucks) into production. But the studios cut the budget as they realized Coppolas ratio went higher and higher and he was going to burn their full money.
(ratio much over 100:1)
PPS : He gave the full rest of his private money including his house, the insurance of his mom and the money for his childs (education fond) into his crazy filmwork.
And he got his money back (with factor x 25.....)

 

[RattyMouse]

The film part of Eastman Kodak isn't the reason for the potential 2nd bankruptcy, because it is essentially irrelevant to most of their business plans.

That is correct. Film is such an afterthought to today's Kodak that it never even gets mentioned to investors, aside from a few sentences about motion picture film. P3200 nor the upcoming Ektachrome did not get mentioned even once during the last earnings call.

Kodak's extreme level of debt and stock issues are what is driving the company towards a second bankruptcy. That and the failure of the printing business to gain the needed earnings.

 

[trendland]

That is correct. Film is such an afterthought to today's Kodak that it never even gets mentioned to investors, aside from a few sentences about motion picture film. P3200 nor the upcoming Ektachrome did not get mentioned even once during the last earnings call.

Kodak's extreme level of debt and stock issues are what is driving the company towards a second bankruptcy. That and the failure of the printing business to gain the needed earnings.

Are you realy sure of that...????

with regards

PS: Dead Link Removed

 

[RattyMouse]

Are you realy sure of that...????

with regards

PS: Dead Link Removed

Yes. Very sure. I read the transcript long before you posted it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The film part of Eastman Kodak isn't the reason for the potential 2nd bankruptcy, because it is essentially irrelevant to most of their business plans.

Yes, for example they sold off the Commercial and Government Systems which has the highest return on investment and was a very profitable cash cow to make short term money at the expensive of future profit.

 

[cmacd123]

Yes, for example they sold off the Commercial and Government Systems which has the highest return on investment and was a very profitable cash cow to make short term money at the expensive of future profit.

is that not the Kodak way, sell off the future because it does not fit the current plan?

 

[AgX]

A 5 : 1 ratio was the illusion to simple tv news production with film (before video).
At 12 : 1 - 15 :1 they got a call to come directly to the chief. (because of the costs).

Todays video television news are working with ratios of 20 - 40 : 1 (or higher) everything is allowed.

And I always thought time is money too...

 

[RattyMouse]

is that not the Kodak way, sell off the future because it does not fit the current plan?

Brutal.

 

[trendland]

And I always thought time is money too...

A typical tv news filmwork today is done within 3 - 4 sometimes 6 hours.
During this time hardworking camera operators (expose) 1 hour sometimes 70 - 80 minutes video. The news report often has just 2min. = ratio 35 - 40 : 1.
Incompetance is the watchword in most of such teams. And competance cost money (tv is allways done with armies of trainees)
with regards

PS : In the past they exposed 7239 (Video News Film) that was real expensive.

 

[Photo Engineer]

is that not the Kodak way, sell off the future because it does not fit the current plan?

Sounds like the US government.

PE

 

[NJH]

I used to a work for a firm that did the same. They sold off the most commercially viable IMHO part of the business to a German company as they were desperate for the cash. It still surprises me how many people didn't see it for what it proved to be (a company that was only heading in one direction).

 

[NJH]

Back on topic I am fingers and toes crossed both for the return of Ektachrome and for Kodak getting through this next round of financial strife. The survival of colour film quite literally depends on it now, given Fuji's clear desire to pull stumps on analog photography.

 

[wblynch]

There's always hope that a white knight might relieve Kodak of their film burden and purchase all the assets. The new owners could then concentrate on film, paper and coated products. Kodak will be free to sell inkjet printers (their true love), and AA batteries.

 

[Cholentpot]

There's always hope that a white knight might relieve Kodak of their film burden and purchase all the assets. The new owners could then concentrate on film, paper and coated products. Kodak will be free to sell inkjet printers (their true love), and AA batteries.

I just broke up with inkjet and moved on to laser. Sure, she's not as pretty but she's much easier to deal with. Much less drama.

 

[lantau]

I just broke up with inkjet and moved on to laser. Sure, she's not as pretty but she's much easier to deal with. Much less drama.

You mean there are Enlargers with friggin 'L.A.S.E.R.s' on their heads?

 

[wblynch]

You mean there are Enlargers with friggin 'L.A.S.E.R.s' on their heads?

 

[faberryman]

You mean there are Enlargers with friggin 'L.A.S.E.R.s' on their heads?

I think he is talking about having his prints made commercially using a Lamda laser printer. C-prints instead of inkjet. Not sure why you would want to move to something less archival, but maybe he likes the palette. Unfortunately, you give up the wide variety of papers available for inkjet when you go that route.

 

[cmacd123]

You mean there are Enlargers with friggin 'L.A.S.E.R.s' on their heads?

it is right on the wild "fronter"

 

[Cholentpot]

I think he is talking about having his prints made commercially using a Lamda laser printer. C-prints instead of inkjet. Not sure why you would want to move to something less archival, but maybe he likes the palette. Unfortunately, you give up the wide variety of papers available for inkjet when you go that route.

Nope, just need a printer for documents. Been using inkjet because I was lazy and broke. Now I can mark new printer as a tax write off so I'm all cool with getting something I want. It does decent B&W prints.

 

[bvy]

Finally some news?