Kodak reports---

I believe that most of these 4x6 -and bigger prints are still RA4/C-type. Smaller shops are converting to other processes but most (specially bigger shops) print on RA4, so it's usual to see "Kodak Royal" or "Fuji crystal archive", though these other processes are slowly taking over.
So, aside of competing with the other brands that offer Ink & Paper, they are competing with themselves?

i'm not knocking EK, i hope they stick around until i am old and grey ..

according to their ads, their printers consume ink that costs way-less than the other printers.
every time i feed my printer ink
it costs me over 100$ the kodak printer ink cost a fraction of that
i think they refer to the high ink prices as a conspiracy

i gotta stop watching so many cartoons, but i just can't!
john

Perez has to go. Utter failure. Very sad... kodak, imo, have the best film in the business.

CGW said:

Maybe Kodak should consider getting into the banking business.

Click to expand...

...or out of it, more likely. Time to quit trying to make money by shuffling money around, and start making it by selling physical products.

2F/2F said:

...or out of it, more likely. Time to quit trying to make money by shuffling money around, and start making it by selling physical products.

Click to expand...

I can hear the giant vampire squids of Wall Street laughing all the way up here!

I like Kodak's product just as I liked Polaroid's.

Sadly, Kodak is the next Polaroid.

There's another issue raising it's head which could have a more positive effect on Kodak's film division. There's now growing debate about the future of 3D cinema and whether it'll survive.

It wouldn't be the first time that stereo & then 3D technology has had a short burst of enthusiasm only to fade away into the background. The first 3D films were actually about 90 years ago although there were early experiments.

Ian

I think that Kodak's biggest mistake was not actively targeting the digital RA-4 market. Where I am, 80-90% of the digital RA-4 is held by Fuji CA. If they were selling paper to Walmart, Rite Aid, and everyone else, I think they would be in a much better position than they are in now.

When I see a Noritsu printer loaded with Fuji paper, I know something went wrong.

I hope 3D doesn't impact film sales. I already think it's (3D) a massive gimmick used by production houses because their movies are terrible, would be the icing on the cake if shitty movies in 3D, in a way, help to kill film.

I don't mind headaches from darkroom chemicals. I do mind headaches from crappy movies!

rphenning said:

I hope 3D doesn't impact film sales. I already think it's (3D) a massive gimmick used by production houses because their movies are terrible, would be the icing on the cake if shitty movies in 3D, in a way, help to kill film.

Click to expand...

The problem is that 3D has already impacted film sales that's why there's such a large drop.

Ian

I think iMovie will be a greater threat to film than 3D.

I doubt the kids watching the cartoon network today will ever own a device called a "camera"----nor will they know what RA4 or C41 is.I am pretty sure they'll know what a hologram is.

Two weeks ago I saw a leaflet of my local cinema. It's got 8 screening theaters (2 are 3D) and of the 8 films advertised one said near the title "analog". I wonder if it means that they have converted all their theaters to digital except that one. Last time I went there, there was still film.

I've heard comments that 3D might be just an strategy to convert the theaters to Digital.

If I'm not wrong, the drop was mostly on positive film, Eastmancolor, the one used for screenings.

The way I read it, the report does not say that film operations are not profitable. It says that revenues declined 25% (which is the expected yearly decline rate, the problem is when the decline will stop) the part "[hit by volume declines] and surging costs for silver and aluminum" does not make sense IMO as costs for silver and aluminium can affect profits, not revenues. Should have said "hit by volume declines" simply, supposing Kodak did not change pricing that is.

The photographic film, photofinishing and entertainment film unit posted a $3 million operating loss tells us how that division performed overall, but does not disaggregate between film, photofinishing and entertainment film. It is possible that photofinishing creates operating losses > $3 million, and so that the other two subdivisions have positive operating profits.

When browsing Kodak information I find it always difficult, or impossible, to find separate data for "film" and "non-film" activities.

In any case, we live in dire economic straights and even the soundest business can go down temporarily. Economy will recover. Film can easily become profitable again for Kodak next years, even supposing it is not today.

The figure I would be interested in is the decline in revenue for film products. We'll look for a decline in the yearly decline percentage, e.g. for some signs of stabilisation of the market to certain film volumes.

I actually would not be surprised if film consumption begins increasing again. Film is perceived as "expensive" in relation to digital (besides "impractical"). This very moment, "expensive" stuff don't sell. When the economy improves again, I think that people will use more film, both amateurs and professionals.

Fabrizio

Ian Grant said:

It wouldn't be the first time that stereo & then 3D technology has had a short burst of enthusiasm only to fade away into the background.

Click to expand...

Remember "Quad"? A total flop in the market, no one wanted to pay for the extra speakers. Twenty years later, everyone wants surround sound, needs new speakers, receivers, disc players, everything. For decades, Phone Co. tried to sell videophone service, no one wanted it. Service quality was awful and only worked if you knew someone else who had it too. Now people do video skype over the net. Who the hell knows with these things? But I've seen a few of the new 3d movies, and while it's a huge improvement over the b-movies of the 1950s, most of the movies are not. The effect might be better but it doesn't actually make the movie better. But Hollywood thinks it needs these things to compete with HD TVs and Netflix and everything else. Just making movies that are worth paying to see seems to be passe now.

Ian Grant said:

There's another issue raising it's head which could have a more positive effect on Kodak's film division. There's now growing debate about the future of 3D cinema and whether it'll survive.

Click to expand...

Regardless of the debate on 3D, it is already too late, cinemas are going digital and the pace of converting is increasing.

For example the three biggest cinema chains in the USA are all going digital and depending on who you believe will be almost fully digital by the end of 2012. Most large chains now have agreements with Sony, Barco etc to supply projectors for any new openings. A good example of this was back in September 2010 when Vue Cinemas here in the UK and across Europe announced that they had reached a deal with Sony to install Sony CineAlta 4K digital projectors across its entire network of 600+ cinemas.

If 3D film production ended today, cinemas will still continue to go digital. When it comes to duplication and distribution, production companies and cinemas prefer the lower cost options. That’s one of the reasons why the majority of films that are edited on a computer are then mastered again to film at 2K and not 4K.

That is the problem facing the EK motion picture side, customers use it as they have to, not necessarily because they really want to. Digital is changing that, look what has happened to 16mm usage, and the same is now starting to happen to 35mm.

The continued trend to digital in cinema is also evident from the actions of the makers of movie cameras, when was the last time Panavision or Arri released a new film camera, I am pretty certain there have not been any in the last three years. They have released lots of new digital products though.

I honestly can't think of anything which is going to realistically come up which will stop and reverse this trend in cinema, and before someone mentions it, digital cinema in China is taking off too...

The next few years will be very interesting for industry observers, and possibly sad for many film users.

jrhilton said:

Regardless of the debate on 3D, it is already too late, cinemas are going digital and the pace of converting is increasing.

Click to expand...

I think that was the driver all along. Forcing cinemas to replace projectors. Or should I say giving the theaters an incentive to replace them.

When it comes to duplication and distribution, production companies and cinemas prefer the lower cost options.

Click to expand...

And it was cheaper for the cinemas to have their old film projectors. More expensive for the distribution companies for sure. But if the cinemas are told they have a product which they can charge an extra couple bucks for, and they need that product to stay competitive... Now the studios can save on the distribution.

jrhilton said:

before someone mentions it, digital cinema in China is taking off too...

Click to expand...

I'd guess that means Bollywood would not be far behind. Isn't India still the world's largest producer of films?

jrhilton said:

If 3D film production ended today, cinemas will still continue to go digital. When it comes to duplication and distribution, production companies and cinemas prefer the lower cost options.

Click to expand...

Agreed. It's all about the money, and in the money arena digital wins.

Counting on the movie industry to continue to support film is pretty much futile. 3D is crap in my book but digital in general will likely take over, eventually. The bottom line is that a company like Kodak will probably quit film within 5-10 years, as it's just not cost effective for them to continue to simply supply a few hardcore users. On the bright side, when a big company goes, smaller ones pop up, pick up the slack, and flourish. There will always be enough film shooters to support a focused, smaller business, that can manage to be profitable and prosper. Living without Tri-X certainly doesn't thrill me and it would certainly be more of a heart-breaker than Kodachrome, but life will have to go on.

Kodak could also spin off the film division and run it as a boutique, niche market, and take some cues from Ilford, Rollei, etc. There are still ways to make money there but probably not in their current situation.

MaximusM3 said:

Kodak could also spin off the film division and run it as a boutique, niche market, and take some cues from Ilford, Rollei, etc. There are still ways to make money there but probably not in their current situation.

Click to expand...

I think that for reasons obscured from us, and likely never to be revealed, this isn't an option for them.

michaelbsc said:

I think that for reasons obscured from us, and likely never to be revealed, this isn't an option for them.

Click to expand...

They need the profits the film division makes to pay Perez - $12.6 million in 2009.

Ian

I hope kodak as a company will survive. I really like their positive and negative and black and white films. I hope if kodak fails that some other company will buy their film business end and keep making colo as well as black and white films. If film dies all together I will retire photography as my main art medium and I wiil devote my time completely into drawing and painting and perhaps I will start taking lessons into wet plate photography. The digital camera will only be used as a supporting tool for orther art mediums. In the mean time I will shoot as much film as I can, and for certain, it will be a lot kodak film. Enjoy while it lasts. Digital does nothing for me . It is just more convenient, although, I think personally that computers and downloading images and keeping up with storage space is more of a hassle than it is worth it. All we can do is keep shooting film and spread the word.

Happy shooting.

I remember a friend who works in the computer industry predicting to me that different technologies such as computers, photography, the internet, TV, telephones, cinema and home entertainment, would all eventually merge.

This was only about ten years ago, and it all sounded rather far-fetched then...but it's certainly proving correct much sooner than expected!

(on the possibility of a "Boutique Kodak" spinoff)

michaelbsc said:

I think that for reasons obscured from us, and likely never to be revealed, this isn't an option for them.

Click to expand...

I don't think the reasons are "obscured from us"---they've been discussed here frequently. When your infrastructure is scaled for extremely-high-volume production, it's somewhere between "difficult" and "impossible" to ramp down to boutique scale.

Assuming film sales don't stay at a level that justifies continued production at Kodak's scale, it kind of seems like the best outcome is that they spin off their formulae and some of their considerable "secret sauce" knowledge to an operation built from the ground up to run at a smaller scale. I don't know who that would be, though.

-NT