Shocked at how much bulk TMY-2 costs

[koraks]

I only have questions and suspicions.

Well, it all started with a blame game, and it sure wasn't me who initiated that. But I'm glad that you've moved on to the more sensible approach of asking questions. Some progress, at least.

Have a nice weekend.

 

[Radost]

Well, it all started with a blame game, and it sure wasn't me who initiated that. But I'm glad that you've moved on to the more sensible approach of asking questions. Some progress, at least.

Have a nice weekend.

Ok
SO your version is that Kodak is not trying to capitalize on the resurgence of film and on their monopoly marketplace. In fact It is their fiduciary duty to do so.
If is the case Kodak need to change their leadership. The shareholders deserve better.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There are all kinds of potential variables. Price gouging on Kodak's end is probably not one of them. One elephant in the room is the fact the ran completely out of 35mm canisters for nearly a year, and needed to find and new source, and also probably had to undertake a significant new machine investment over the switch.

Also, amateur label films tend to be stored and distributed quite differently from professional ones, and are not held to the same tight standards of performance at time of purchase. That's always been the case. Who knows where or when that Vision 3 product was packaged, or what distribution channel was involved.

Linking an $82.95 price for a 5pk of E100 120 film is hardly a fair comparison to a single roll 35mm price. B&H's prices are often the lowest when they have abundant fresh inventory, but then they drastically raise it when they are running out, until they get in another big order. That happens with printing paper too, not just film. Maybe it's so they'll at least have something on hand for sake of their dedicated pro customers. I don't know. But it's been their policy for a long time. But still, you're comparing apples with oranges.

 

[Radost]

There are all kinds of potential variables. Price gouging on Kodak's end is probably not one of them. One elephant in the room is the fact the ran completely out of 35mm canisters for nearly a year, and needed to find and new source, and also probably had to undertake a significant new machine investment over the switch.

Also, amateur label films tend to be stored and distributed quite differently from professional ones, and are not held to the same tight standards of performance at time of purchase. That's always been the case. Who knows where or when that Vision 3 product was packaged, or what distribution channel was involved.

Linking an $82.95 price for a 5pk of E100 120 film is hardly a fair comparison to a single roll 35mm price. B&H's prices are often the lowest when they have abundant fresh inventory, but then they drastically raise it when they are running out, until they get in another big order. That happens with printing paper too, not just film. Maybe it's so they'll at least have something on hand for sake of their dedicated pro customers. I don't know. But it's been their policy for a long time. But still, you're comparing apples with oranges.

The 120 film is not to be taken in consideration. It’s just on the same screen.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Those are relatively minor differences in price. I was a professional buyer for 40 years. Unless selling price is fixed by contract (rare), every dealer is free to set its own price based on what they paid, and whether they're willing to lose money on that product or not. Some camera stores might use film as a "loss leader" just to make them appear to be generous, while highly marking up less conspicuous items; or they might sell it at cost to keep up with the big boys. Then there's been all this recent pandemic disruption to the supply chains.

But all of that is independent of the bigger question of what exactly you are trying to compare. There have been plenty of instances over the decades when some third party got ahold of large volume of basically liquidated old film inventory, or a second-quality run of it, and then resold it cheaper too. And just because it's nominally the same product doesn't necessarily mean it performs the same.

 

[Don_ih]

The whole 100' bulk film spooling vs 400' bulk film spooling thing is total bs and should be regarded as such. But they're still free to charge whatever they want to for the film.

 

[mshchem]

Kodak is just maximizing profits. 100 ' bulk rolls are 1/1,000,000,000th of 1% of film sales. I bet they can spool a year's worth of 100' reels in 4 or 5 hours.

Oh for the good old days. The only cheaper Kodak option is Double X movie film.

Ilford rocks great film

 

[MattKing]

Kodak is just maximizing profits. 100 ' bulk rolls are 1/1,000,000,000th of 1% of film sales. I bet they can spool a year's worth of 100' reels in 4 or 5 hours.

Boy that single operator (on the more than 50 year old machine that requires a fair bit of manual intervention they need to use for this) must be really energetic!

 

[Radost]

The whole 100' bulk film spooling vs 400' bulk film spooling thing is total bs and should be regarded as such. But they're still free to charge whatever they want to for the film.

Indeed they are. Nobody questions that. Even though this country was build on challenging monopolies.

 

[Radost]

Here is an important question:
Do you think the cine film sales more feet per year then still film ?

 

[MattKing]

Here is an important question:
Do you think the cine film sales more feet per year then still film ?

Probably.
And here is a question - how much of the cost of a 35mm cassette of film comes from the film itself?
We already have good reason to know (courtesy of Ilford) that with 120 film, it costs the film companies more to buy the backing paper than it costs to make the film that goes with it.

 

[mshchem]

Boy that single operator (on the more than 50 year old machine that requires a fair bit of manual intervention they need to use for this) must be really energetic!

I hear what you are saying. Kodak spooling 100 foot rolls, having someone take the finished roll put it in a bag, put it in a can, tape the can shut etc . Versus an automatic machine. Bulk rolls have such a tiny market.

 

[MattKing]

Actually, the slitting line is different (slower and more manual), the perforating is different (operator handling is more manual), and that isall before it is delivered to the old 100' spooler. The 100’ spooler is a manual process that hasn’t changed much in 50 years. The operator sits there coring, cinching down and then running 100’ lengths from a 3000’ to 3200’ long perforated slit one at a time. Every step is manual other than the motor that drives the film through the spooler and counter. The process is slow and labor intensive compared to any other process (including 120 format) because the operator has to do so many things including roll tape down, wrapping, canning and then tape sealing & labeling the cans once in white light.

 

[Radost]

Actually, the slitting line is different (slower and more manual), the perforating is different (operator handling is more manual), and that isall before it is delivered to the old 100' spooler. The 100’ spooler is a manual process that hasn’t changed much in 50 years. The operator sits there coring, cinching down and then running 100’ lengths from a 3000’ to 3200’ long perforated slit one at a time. Every step is manual other than the motor that drives the film through the spooler and counter. The process is slow and labor intensive compared to any other process (including 120 format) because the operator has to do so many things including roll tape down, wrapping, canning and then tape sealing & labeling the cans once in white light.

And when you do 400’ and 1000’ feet is somehow different and 3 times cheaper???

 

[MattKing]

And when you do 400’ and 1000’ feet is somehow different and 3 times cheaper???

No frame numbers for one - just key codes. And those integrated motion picture finishing machines are as fast/efficient/automated as the machines that slit, perforate and spool into 35mm cassettes.
The 100 foot loads are in a legacy format that the modern equipment cannot be made to produce. And their volume is so miniscule that it would never be economic to invest in machines for the 100 foot loads that would, through speed and automation, materially lower costs.
It is similar, in many ways, as the situation for 220 film, except that the 100 foot load machine is still working.
One of the other factors that affects this is that the slitting and perforating parts of the process are a leftover from the days when they were mainly used for high volumes of motion picture projection print stock. Those volumes contributed some economies of scale, the benefits of which were shared in part by the 100 foot loads sold in relatively high quantities into the school photo and identification photo markets, where cameras with 100 foot load magazines were often employed.
Historically, 100 foot loads were never directed to individual hobby users or students trying to save money. The small amount of product that made it into the retail environment serving those types of users was just a fortunate byproduct of the commercial high volume users' needs. None of that high volume use remains. And of the relatively small number of users who currently buy 100 foot loads, only a small percentage would be willing to deal with 400 foot or 1000 foot loads instead.

.

 

[Craig]

And when you do 400’ and 1000’ feet is somehow different and 3 times cheaper???

When it's done on different machinery that is fully automatic, yes.

 

[Radost]

When it's done on different machinery that is fully automatic, yes.

So how hard it is to load some portra rolls on the cine machines ?
I would take some portra 400 400’
feet for 1$ a foot. I don’t care the perforation is different.

 

[Radost]

I don’t think frame numbers add 3 times the price.

 

[koraks]

SO your version is that Kodak is not trying to capitalize on the resurgence of film and on their monopoly marketplace. In fact It is their fiduciary duty to do so.
If is the case Kodak need to change their leadership. The shareholders deserve better.

Of course Kodak try to make as much money as possible based on what demand there is for their product and their competitive position. Every company will do this. But that doesn't mean there's price gouging involved. Not all situations where prices increase constitute gouging. Price gouging can actually never apply to film since it's not a necessity (as has been pointed out before in this thread).

As to cine vs still film: it's very well possible (even likely) that the margin per square foot on cine film is significantly lower for Kodak than for still film products - apart from the various other factors already mentioned that can easily result in a higher retail price for the latter. I can also very well imagine that the willingness to pay of still photographers happens to be higher than that of movie production houses. But since Kodak is evidently struggling to make ends meet and to reach a minimal total volume of operations required to survive, both cine and still film (and a host of different products families and markets served by EK!) are co-dependent in order to build that critical mass.

Would they "move" some of the profitability of still film over to cine film (assuming it's in fact distributed that way to begin with), demand for the cine product would slump, total film volume would drop and they're back in deep problems again. This is also why your earlier statement that it would be OK for you that the stills business would go belly up as long as the cine business remained afloat, was such bogus. If either business collapses, it's likely that both will.

Talking about shareholders: it's indeed a small miracle that EK so far has avoided being bought up by something like KKR or Blackstone, split up to have the (likely) more profitable electronics and printing businesses divested into new entities and the whole film business cordoned off into a tomb where it can die off by itself. I do suspect that annual shareholder meetings te pretty stressful for EK's CFO and their staff, as they do have to repeatdky convince shareholders that it's defensible that there is next to no return in their investment. Apparently there's a favorable combination of the attitude and expectations of these shareholders and the narrative/strategic perspective offered by EK execs. Btw, I'm sure some of this is actually hinted at in their annual reports; I haven't bothered to go through them, but it might be educational. Provided you're trying to understand the situation instead of condemn it outright. So I guess it's not going to happen.

 

[Radost]

).

As to cine vs still film: it's very well possible (even likely) that the margin per square foot on cine film is significantly lower for Kodak than for still film products - apart from the various other factors already mentioned that can easily result in a higher retail price for the latter. I can also very well imagine that the willingness to pay of still photographers happens to be higher than that of movie production houses. But since Kodak is evidently struggling to make ends meet and to reach a minimal total volume of operations required to survive, both cine and still film (and a host of different products families and markets served by EK!) are co-dependent in order to build that critical mass.

Literally this is the point I am making. . The price is set by the willingness of the consumer to pay it.
Thank you for agreeing with me.

 

[koraks]

The price is set by the willingness of the consumer to pay it.

Not just that, but willingness to play is a factor.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

On parts we agree, but like I said right at the start: it's the tone and conclusion I disagree with, at least in part.
I also don't like the rhetoric device of putting words into people's mouth. I think it's impolite and rather annoying. One reason in particular why I don't like this, is because you make it seem we're in agreement, while I only went along partly in your line of reasoning to show the complexities behind your seemingly simplisitc assumptions. It's this short-sightedness I will never agree with.

 

[Radost]

Not just that, but willingness to play is a factor.




On parts we agree, but like I said right at the start: it's the tone and conclusion I disagree with, at least in part.
I also don't like the rhetoric device of putting words into people's mouth. I think it's impolite and rather annoying. One reason in particular why I don't like this, is because you make it seem we're in agreement, while I only went along partly in your line of reasoning to show the complexities behind your seemingly simplisitc assumptions. It's this short-sightedness I will never agree with.

You should run for office.
Everybody who can read and comprehend English can see my earlier post and while not as eloquent as you saying exactly the same thing.
But I don’t want to get in to screen shot argument especially not with Moderator.
You are right I am wrong.

Occam's razor is the main conclusion most of time.

 

[Don_ih]

"Labour intensive" does not mean "difficult". That someone has to actually work to make the product shouldn't be noteworthy.
What is significant is that their main target market does not use bulk rolls.

Really - it's too hard to do? Just a few years ago, they sold 200' Vision stock on core. They don't sell it anymore probably because no one was buying it (what good is 200 feet of movie film?).

Better: 14 years ago, they sold all their Vision stock at 100' lengths:

And the price didn't reflect any particular difficulty doing it.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

As far as I'm concerned if Kodak "pulls the rope too much" it breaks. Nobody will buy their products anymore in favor of much cheaper competitors products.
It's already happening. It shoud happen more? Yes. Definetly.
I hope the demand for b&w and color films will substantially shrink in the near future so to force the manufacturers to lower their prices.

 

[koraks]

But I don’t want to get in to screen shot argument especially not with Moderator.

I would not settle a disagreement by somehow invoking moderator privileges. I may disagree with you (or anyone), and vehemently at that, and it will be no different than a disagreement between any two random people on the forum.

Everybody who can read and comprehend English can see my earlier post and while not as eloquent as you saying exactly the same thing.

I think there are distinct differences between our arguments, the depth / nuance of them, and their intent, and that these differences go beyond just formulation. Let's leave it at that, since the above exchange suggests that we're done exploring the subject matter and the tendency to making things personal is emerging.