The end for Kodak?

[SilverGlow]

Agreed. And what Kodak should be doing is cashing in on that reputation. Rather than spending to try to make a new one based on products that could take a decade to get a foothold.

Seems to me the best way to put the film brand to rest is to make a formal commitment to provide certain products for 5 years. This is not a commitment to keep prices constant, on the contrary. But it is a reaffirmation that they see need for their product and they will stand by it. That would stop the migration to other brands and raise funds for more orderly scaledown.

Probably too late for this approach though

Longer term, Kodak needs a company like Apple or RIM to help them get into the social network arena, they are going to be absolutely screwed if they keep throwing investment into print-at-home media.

Very short term, I don't see why they couldn't land a big fat contract to provide printers to public schools or such. I am a card-carrying free-market Libertarian, but when it comes down to keeping people's jobs and preserving our competitiveness, this is what it takes. This is now an issue of national defense, the way I see it.

Ayn Rand would say "Bye, bye Kodak".

Saving jobs that the market cannot save is to tamper with the free market, and in the long run, does no one any favors. This country does not need one more subsidized company.

 

[keithwms]

This country does not need one more subsidized company.

Again, I am as pro-free-market as they come, but at some point we'll be back in the alphabet soup of the 1930s, looking for any job we can find, if we don't quickly act to preserve what little sci & tech manufacturing base that what we have.

And my suggestion is not to create a handout for Kodak. A contract such as I describe is not a subsidy. A contract would be configured to pay market price for what Kodak does, and the bid would be competitively reviewed. And if Kodak's printer offerings do indeed represent a big potential cost savings for government, then it is totally appropriate for agencies to look at that and proceed with an investment in all due haste.

 

[Ian Grant]

We need to see how things pan out. I was reminded today while taking my mother to the opticiansd that Kodak have many other market segments.

A surge of 3D films last year obviously impacted movie film stock sales but at the same time the industry is realising that film may be a bettr way to archiv films than digital.

What's really needed from our point of view is new owners of the coating division who retain an interest in film and allow the division to thrive again. More importantly a new sales & distribution structure needs to be put in place. Visiting two shops selling colour & B&W films this week there was no Kodak to be seen, and that's in the UK.

Ian

 

[SilverGlow]

We need to see how things pan out. I was reminded today while taking my mother to the opticiansd that Kodak have many other market segments.

A surge of 3D films last year obviously impacted movie film stock sales but at the same time the industry is realising that film may be a bettr way to archiv films than digital.

What's really needed from our point of view is new owners of the coating division who retain an interest in film and allow the division to thrive again. More importantly a new sales & distribution structure needs to be put in place. Visiting two shops selling colour & B&W films this week there was no Kodak to be seen, and that's in the UK.

Ian

There is no better way to archive a motion picture then to digitize it. A motion picture has an exceedingly better chance of surviving the coming ages in digital form. Archiving of motion pictures is not going to be a boon for film.

It matters little how keen an interest the coating division has in film. What matters more is what the buying public and potential market for film think. The film industry needs to find a way to provoke desire for film in the public.

 

[SilverGlow]

Again, I am as pro-free-market as they come, but at some point we'll be back in the alphabet soup of the 1930s, looking for any job we can find, if we don't quickly act to preserve what little sci & tech manufacturing base that what we have.

And my suggestion is not to create a handout for Kodak. A contract such as I describe is not a subsidy. A contract would be configured to pay market price for what Kodak does, and the bid would be competitively reviewed. And if Kodak's printer offerings do indeed represent a big potential cost savings for government, then it is totally appropriate for agencies to look at that and proceed with an investment in all due haste.

It seems to me such a contract might help save Kodak, but will it stimulate the market toward Kodak printers? I doubt it. Without the buying public creating demand for Kodak products, government contracts aren't going to help them. And besides, what if HP or some other brand competes for the contract, and they come in lower/better? Now where does that leave Kodak?

i think we all might have to just face facts; that Kodak might not be saveable. I would guess that the film business unit will be spun off or sold off and only in the form of an independent autonomous business can Kodak film survive and be profitable, but only as a boutique/specialty type concern (selling very high priced products in low volume).

 

[Bertil]

Just a real shame. I've always been a Kodak fan and supporter. One would be hard pressed to find better products of such consistent quality. Just a shame.

Nothing wrong with consistent quality with Ilford and Fuiji – sorry Kodak friends !(though one among them! Bought 25 rolls 120 TMY (( and 25 rolls 120 Acros 100 this afternonen)))

If just ONE company could produce, say, a set of (50)-100-400 ISO reasonable B/W film emusions, and say one reasonable set of 100-200 (400) ISO neg colour film (slide filme is history, I suppose) to a, in same sense, reasonable price (*) , that wouuld be enough – the rest WE CAN DO OURSELVES!
/Bertil
(*) In Europa we pay roughly 3x US price for fuel, and we can live with that, and we also drive cars.

 

[zsas]

A few weeks ago Fuji sues Kodak re digi patents, today Kodak sues Fuji re digi:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Kodak-Alleges-Patent-bw-3998406584.html?x=0

 

[keithwms]

It seems to me such a contract might help save Kodak, but will it stimulate the market toward Kodak printers? I doubt it. Without the buying public creating demand for Kodak products, government contracts aren't going to help them. And besides, what if HP or some other brand competes for the contract, and they come in lower/better? Now where does that leave Kodak?

It's not a long term solution, I am just saying that govt work might help them pick up some of the pieces, spin them off, and remain solvent. As for HP and the other printer companies, Kodak claims to have a much lower cost solution. If that's true then this'd be the thing.

Anyway that was just one example of the kind of approach that I think is needed to help Kodak... but not necessarily film. Film is not going to save Kodak, but they can save their film brands for a few more years and throw their longtime customers a little bone, if they so choose.

 

[Neanderman]

Just a small reminder that, sadly, this has been going on for a while:

Changing focus : Kodak and the battle to save a great American company. Swasy, Alecia. Times Business, c1997.

Ed

 

[Ian Grant]

There is no better way to archive a motion picture then to digitize it. A motion picture has an exceedingly better chance of surviving the coming ages in digital form. Archiving of motion pictures is not going to be a boon for film.

It matters little how keen an interest the coating division has in film. What matters more is what the buying public and potential market for film think. The film industry needs to find a way to provoke desire for film in the public.

Actually they are talking about archiving Digital movies on film

Ian

 

[bdial]

Maintaining a digital archive through changing technologies can become a massive and massively expensive undertaking when the scale is large.
Making copies of every digital film to new kinds of media every 5 - 10, maybe 15 years will cost owners of those archives 10's of thousands, and more likely 100's of thousands of $'s, Pounds or Euros.
Certainly, maintaining a film based archive isn't cheap either, but it's not subject to quite the same technology churn that digital technology is.

 

[keithwms]

Meanwhile, Fuji cleverly introduced a new line of film-based archiving devices...

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/press/news/display_news?newsID=879745

 

[pollux]

I think we are pretty fucked for film photography in general if they can't find an investor willing to take the brand and move the plants and machinery for 35mm and 120. all those psyop TV adverts saying if you buy the D4 etc your photos will be great, and look like the stock photos in the ad.

 

[keithwms]

Does anyone want to hazard a (realistic) guess to a worst case and best case scenario for Kodak?

Best: chapter 11 to stave off immediate debt, spin off divisions that outside investors perceive to be viable, sell patents, and maintain a core business.

Worst: chapter 11 and then liquidate everything to the highest bidder under the supervision of a court.

...and for film shooters as a group:

Best: Kodak goes and their film market share goes to companies that can extract more profit per unit sold. Prices remain fairly stable.

Worst: Kodak goes and takes out all the remaining local processing with it, raising the effective cost of using film beyond the reach of newcomers. At that point, only those with film projects underway and good stocks of film and chems will be financially viable.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Re: Archiving - Digital is the worst possible medium for archiving anything due to the fugitive nature of the digital copy either on DVD or magnetic disk. Also, digital archiving easily costs 10x that of film archiving. This has been proven and discussed here on APUG many times.

Look it up!

PE

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I am still a big fan of reala, which available in 120 size.

Reala in 120 and in 35mm are very different films.

 

[keithwms]

Reala in 120 and in 35mm are very different films.

Please say more. I have been shooting it in 120 and have been very happy, don't have experience with it in 135.

 

[lxdude]

There is no better way to archive a motion picture then to digitize it. A motion picture has an exceedingly better chance of surviving the coming ages in digital form.

Yer kiddin', right?
Film originals are archived as color separations on B+W stock which has an ISO certified life of several hundred years, properly stored. All data will be there. There will not be the problems with archaic digital formats or bits and bytes going poof. They do not need to be re-copied to stay in good shape or keep up with hardware or format changes. They are actual images, not code, which will be reproducible by whatever methods exist at the time.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Reala in 120 and in 35mm are very different films.

Please say more. I have been shooting it in 120 and have been very happy, don't have experience with it in 135.

I think they are actually very similar films so much so I'd hazard they are the same film.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Please say more. I have been shooting it in 120 and have been very happy, don't have experience with it in 135.

Maybe I'm wrong with the newer 120 Reala? Only a few years ago the 120 Reala was flatter and more a portrait film and the 35mm Reala was based on Superia technology with more contrast and saturation....

 

[Steve Smith]

They are actual images, not code, which will be reproducible by whatever methods exist at the time.

They rely on that new fangled technology of shining a light through them.


Steve.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Used to call that a Kodak Moment.

Oh my gosh! A one-line posting that I actually have the patience to read.

 

[OzJohn]

Yer kiddin', right?
Film originals are archived as color separations on B+W stock which has an ISO certified life of several hundred years, properly stored. All data will be there. There will not be the problems with archaic digital formats or bits and bytes going poof. They do not need to be re-copied to stay in good shape or keep up with hardware or format changes. They are actual images, not code, which will be reproducible by whatever methods exist at the time.

Technicolor originals may be archived as B&W separations but I doubt that anything originated on neg colour stock like Eastmancolor would be.

Those who argue against digital archiving of images tend to overlook that, once scanned, it is possible to periodically copy large digital archives entirely without human intervention ie there is no expensive labour cost and the cost of magnetic storage media continually reduces. Yes, some random errors will be introduced over time mostly at the pixel level but rarely to a degree that would be visible after the application of error correction algorithms.

Does anyone believe that a spool of valuable MP film or file of B&W negatives has never been irrepairably damaged by water, fire or other misadventure? Please don't forget when arguing against it that a digital archive of anything can exist identically in any number of locations and for that reason alone it is the ultimate back-up. OzJohn

 

[Ian Grant]

OzJohn what matters is that films will be archived often in more than one way. What's also important is that they are archived with copies at different locations.

Yes disasters do happen and so that's taken into account. Film is just one way movies are archived now for posterity. Too much has already been lost because no-one gave a proper thought to it many years ago.

So the movie industry is now archiving on film, even wholely digital movies, and like digital there can be many copies.

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

George Eastman House and other Museums archive film as color separation as do many motion picture studios. As I said earlier, the costs are much lower for analog duplication. Set up a printer and let fly! Digital often requires format changes from generation to generation whereas film does not.

As for 120 vs 35 in the above about Reala, you must remember that you may be seeing a difference in micro vs macro contrast in images at the same magnification. I have posted several times on this before.

PE