Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Industry News' started by mshchem, Oct 28, 2017.
It doesnt. Read the most recent quarterly report.
I happened to see an interview with Spielberg this morning. It was about his new film, The Post. He talked about choosing film rather than digital for the project. He called digital “science” and film “chemical magic”. Mentioning grain, he said it gave the images life, as the grain appeared to move in each frame. I got the sense he really likes shooting film.
Nolan is the guy who used IMAX Cameras to shoot "Dunkirk" and he and his friends do promote film origination for ongoing motion Picture work. Besides some direct sales for Kodak, there is also a halo effect for all film origination both movie,television as well as still Photography.
Need a Jeff Bezos league billonaire to buy the whole works, spin off the film, buy out Alaris. Then work out a duopoly deal with Harman. Harman could make Kodak black and white papers, Ilford black and white papers. Ilford could still produce their own films. Kodak and Alaris and Ilford combined could focus on some sort of analog mass appeal consumer product. A Nuevo Instamatic, square pictures. 12 and 20 exposure cartridges, RFID tagged. You shoot it, drop it in a mailbox, UPS etc, no mailer, just toss the cartridges into the mail. It's all prepaid when you buy the film, the cartridges know who you are, and to send you back your pictures and negatives. The scans go to the cloud. You could use the cloud to order crops, enlargements etc. But unlike the Apple phone universe, Kodak sells you PERMANENCE, you get real pictures, negatives, slides. I have slides that started before I was born in 1956. I can literally see MY LIFE.
That's the case for film, and if the masses don't use it, then kiss it goodbye.
Happy Holidays to all this Season, Mike
How about just building 38, it appears to be lumped in with consumer inkjet in the press release of the report::
The problem with Building 38 is that it's vastly over sized. Kodak needs nowhere near that level of production capacity. It's not just a little oversized, it is massively oversized. Because of this, the efficiency of that facility is just abysmal, killing profits. A secure future for film needs an optimized production facility. Thankfully Ilford is far more efficient than Kodak and so is not in such a precarious situation.
The first post holiday trading day for Kodak was not good, dropping another 3.0% Was there bad news?
Wait until January when the first 10 million rolls of Ektachrome are sold.
I keep reading the thread title as being about Kodak stock developing tanks.
Have you ever actually been in the facility?
After signing an NDA and been flown out to do so, I toured the facility and what you say is not the case. It’s a large building but the tech exists for scaling and multi-tasking.
Just in terms of the automation and robotics alone, it is a far more efficient coating line than any other.
I can't help but think that the Kodak film division/business will come out of all this OK. Look for something like the Ilford deal. A privately held company??? Who knows. All I know is magic happens at Kodak.
Again- Kodak offered up their film division for sale in 2012. No one took them up on it. Kodak shopped it around because Kodak long ago wrote off the film business. They have no interest at all in being a film company. Read glassdoor.com and see what Kodak employees write about the company. It isnt pretty.
Kodak hung out the FOR SALE sign on their film business. They made it very clear that it was there for the taking. Some Hollywood execs even considered it but took a pass, just like everyone else.
In 2014, when Kodak fell 90% short of their expected film production and layed off 100 staff in Rochester, it was again floated that Kodak would sell of their film business to private equity. Here's a clip:
"The more likely scenario, Conboy says, is that Kodak will look to sell its existing film manufacturing operation to a smaller group, perhaps a private-equity firm. If that were to happen, Conboy expects that manufacturing would continue in the same location with the same employees. "For that to be possible, there would have to be someone out there who believes that enough motion-picture film revenue can be generated that it's worth paying up for that business," he said. "The only reason I can see for Kodak to keep that business would be if no other entity sees the potential to pay for it, thinking they could run it more profitably. But I don't think Kodak wants to be in the business in the long run, because there's not enough revenue there." (source: http://www.studiodaily.com/2014/10/after-more-layoffs-kodaks-film-business-may-be-in-jeopardy/)
Again Kodak management does not want to be in the film business. Everyone out there knows this. They have stated countless times it's not their core business. It's a distraction from their printing business.
Yet they have not been able to find a buyer for it. Why is that?
Gee it sounds like the death of film all over again. The sky is falling and we will all be killed.
No, just Kodak. Film will be just fine.
Sure, let Kodak sell off their film business, that would be great. It would need to be called Eastman Kodak. The rest of the businesses could be absorbed by the competition. Get rid of the existing top management. Merge Alaris with Kodak. Sell the daylights out of some consumer products.
Bring out Brownies and Instamatics . Remember the Polaroid Big Shot, with type 669 Polaroid film it was magic. Instax is a goldmine. Kodak and Alaris together could do something that would make a bundle.
Possibly the asking price was more than anyone was willing to pay.
In the real estate world it is said that you can sell anything if you offer a low enough price. Businesses are not quite like real estate, but this idea is probably at least partly valid for businesses as well. I conjecture that one difference is that some businesses might be worth less than $0.
This article was posted at the beginning of 2017. The author nailed it big time. His analysis of Kodak's financial situation led him to conclude that Kodak was in very deep trouble and vastly overrated by the market. In the 12 months since it's publication, Kodak's stock has dropped 80%. Anyone who followed his advice made a LOT of money shorting Kodak stock. Reading the article paints a very very dire situation for Kodak and illuminates yet again how Kodak management sold off a profitable business.
"In 2016, the company decided to divest the PROSPER unit, which is part of the Enterprise Inkjet Systems segment. This is somewhat puzzling, since revenues for the unit grew by 40% on a comparable quarterly basis and 12% on a YOY basis.
Kodak will maintain its VERSAMRK product, which is not only less advanced technologically but also under rapid decline from a price and volume perspective, according to management. It's also unclear why the company is divesting PROSPER, since it has features that can lead to stable and recurring revenues."
The metrics used by this author (Z-Score, 75% accurate) predict a bankruptcy for Kodak in 12-18 months with Jan, 2017 as time zero.
The latter: AgfaPhoto had to sell their seemingly most valuable, most modern asset as scrap metal.
A precipitous drop in Kodak's stock this morning, dropping an immediate 2.5% on the open. Kodak is now only 8 cents away from falling below $3/share.
Kodak has fallen -8.5% this week alone.
The shorts and the bears are taking control of this stock.
Edit: $3.05 on heavy volume.
I dont know how AgfaPhoto could have gone bankrupt in less than 1 year from launch. That seems amazingly suspicious. That company was set up to fail. Was AgfaPhoto a public company?
Just stop, PLEASE just STOP already!!!
We need a break from this!
Go find a slightly more socially acceptable new hobby or something like poking your neighbor in the eye with a stick.
Sean PLLLLEEEEAAAASSSSEEEE make him stop!!!!!!!!!!!
Nobody is making you read the thread. Is it like watching a train wreck: you just can't take your eyes off of what is happening? Just avert your vision.
The fact that a big part of your track record on here and the places you are banned from stems from constant negative narrative and just brings the whole of this niche craft down more than you realize.
This is not a forum sub-section that is hidden from google searches or views of those who are considering trying out film for the first time. A few weeks ago I had a student of mine ask me and the class if she should bother with film at all since it seems to be going away and cited this thread.
Aside from buying the product, the way the chips fall for any film making company is largely out of the hands of those who frequent here so it is rather sad and even depressing to know that this minute by minute monitoring of this even exists on a place like this site which is what one would hope to be a champion of keeping the craft alive.
When Sean vowed to revamp the site in regards to many things, I made a good sized donation to the cause of improving it and more importantly, vowed to direct young people who are in the program of academia listed below to this site.
I feel I can no longer do this and at the beginning of this next semester will actually tell them to avoid it as will I.
It’s not as simple as not reading it, the fact it goes on and on sickness me and I have to find another way and venue in which to funnel young people into the craft of shooting film and printing it.
Sounds like you are having a problem dealing with reality. RattyMouse is just reporting the facts. Kodak stock is tanking. Hard to ignore if you are a film aficionado.
Hard to get new people to try it too since the word Kodak may as well be the word Film it self and this is what they find. I am not sure what you spend your time doing but aside from my actual career as a photographer, I give back by mentoring and facilitating the promotion of film use any way I can.
That includes investing what is at this point over $200K in providing what will be an inspired space for people to do the work. It’s not about my take on reality, it is about making a positive contribution to this craft and it’s ability to thrive and you do that best with strength in numbers and by being positive.