PDA

View Full Version : Kodak/Hollywood film commitment



civich
6-Feb-2015, 06:26
Is this new? Doesn't mention black and white film though I know there is still some interest in B&W movie making:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/02/05/kodak-hollywood-film-supply-deals/22945259/

Sal Santamaura
6-Feb-2015, 10:00
Is this new?...Yes. While announced quite a while ago, the agreements (except for the one with Disney) hadn't been executed until Wednesday. Since the studios declined to buy Eastman Kodak's Bldg. 38, its only remaining production coating line, that facility would have followed all its others to the scrap heap if these agreements didn't pan out.

Since Kodak Alaris' current exclusive supplier of film, both black and white and color, is Eastman Kodak, and Eastman Kodak depends on motion picture film production to keep Bldg. 38 financially viable, the large format Kodak-branded films members here use would cease to exist when Bldg. 38 did. It is not known whether Kodak Alaris might seek to source the still film products it currently markets elsewhere if that happened. If "TMX," TMY," "320TXP," "PORTRA" and "EKTAR" were "revived" under those circumstances, they would most likely bear little resemblance to films carrying the same names today.

Note that the Eastman Kodak spokesman quoted in that article, while declining to comment on duration of the agreements, did say that as a result of them film production would continue for "years." In light of the plural form, anyone willing to pay the prices can count on Kodak large format film availability for at least two more years. :)

Drew Wiley
6-Feb-2015, 11:41
I don't know how you make that determination. Things like Portra, Ektar, and TMax are very popular products. It's a more dicey question whether the sheer
square footage of sheet film begins to offset the volume per unit sales of roll film, however. Kodak still commands the lion's share of color neg film, worldwide.
But there are volume users of even sheet film we never hear about on a forum like this. So I have no idea how big a footprint movie film is in relation to the overall picture. Around here the viewpoint is kinda skewed because it's still a holdout for mom n' pop art film theaters. In fact, Rbt Redford attempted to buy the
big restaurant lot right across the st from my office to create a big W coast film gig magnet. But the zoning for a restaurant held firm. The new Pacific Film archive bldg further up the street is still under construction and is obviously an obscenely expensive undertaking. Have no idea yet what its emphasis will be. One thing about artists in general, whether you're talking about either still or moving content, is that once you tell them they can do something a certain way any longer, they'll instantly rebel. Oil painting didn't end when fast-drying acrylic pigments appeared on the market.

toyotadesigner
6-Feb-2015, 14:50
"Film has long been — and will remain — a vital part of our culture,"

Good news. A vital part of Kodak's culture. If it is 'culture', it is worth any effort to keep it alive like old castles.

OK, I have to admit that I am using Fuji films because of larger availability in Europe, but it is always good to have two large players in the field.

Sal Santamaura
6-Feb-2015, 16:23
I don't know how you make that determination. Things like Portra, Ektar, and TMax are very popular products...Easy. "Very popular" in 2015 doesn't translate to anywhere near the sales volume for which Bldg. 38 was designed. Even with all the coping changes Eastman Kodak has made as the film market shrunk since it built that behemoth.


...So I have no idea how big a footprint movie film is in relation to the overall picture...It's the predominant portion of Bldg. 38's output. Had the studios, their arms twisted by prominent directors, not agreed to purchase minimum quantities of motion picture film from Eastman Kodak, there would have been no economically viable way for Bldg. 38 to continue operating. Even considering possible ancillary work like display touch screen coating. The line is just too big.

Sal Santamaura
6-Feb-2015, 16:24
Good news. A vital part of Kodak's culture...It's not clear whether that quote refers to Kodak's or society's culture. So, maybe good news. :)

toyotadesigner
7-Feb-2015, 02:15
It's not clear whether that quote refers to Kodak's or society's culture. So, maybe good news.

But you read the linked article?

David Karp
7-Feb-2015, 09:16
The article talks about a "transition." That could be a transition to zero film at some point. Or perhaps if they can make enough off of this deal, a transition to a more "right sized" facility.

Sal Santamaura
7-Feb-2015, 09:46
But you read the linked article?Yes I did. Why do you ask?

toyotadesigner
7-Feb-2015, 13:51
Quote from the linked article:


"Film has long been — and will remain — a vital part of our culture," Kodak CEO Jeff Clarke said in a statement.

I assume that if a CEO make this statement, he means the company and not some kinky society.

brucetaylor
7-Feb-2015, 14:47
I just hope they keep it going for awhile. I wish I had the numbers, but I believe the largest use of film before the switch to digital projection was for movie theater prints. A movie print is about 10,000 ft of 35mm, and studios/labs made thousands of prints for each release. I was at the Deluxe lab in L.A. where they made prints a couple of years before the switch-- I've never seen so much film! The camera negative used to make a film was maybe 150,000 ft, a tiny percentage compared to the prints. The big fear for those who loved film capture was the demise of the projection print, we had doubts they would continue to manufacture it. Well, we shall see.

Sal Santamaura
7-Feb-2015, 18:08
...I assume that if a CEO make this statement, he means the company and not some kinky society.What could possibly cause you to include "kinky" as an adjective before "society?" I was referring to society in general, as in motion picture film being part of general society's culture for the last century or so.

With respect to your assumption, CEO-speak is well developed and often intentionally ambiguous. I wouldn't assume anything about a quote that's so open to varying interpretations. :)

Drew Wiley
10-Feb-2015, 10:11
Given Kodak's long history of vague and broken promises, I wouldn't put too much faith in a press release. That fact doesn't make me pessimistic, just realistic.
It all depends what filmmakers and theaters themselves choose to do. There's a bit of a backlash at the moment to the hegemony of a just handful of big movers
& shakers pushing pure digital, but if it's enough to tip the scales only time will tell. I depend on Kodak for color neg films as well as TMax products. If necessary I
could hoard a decade of color supplies in the freezer. If all that fails, well, black and white darkroom products will probably be available for a long time. But at that point I might be pushing up daisies anyway.

Sal Santamaura
10-Feb-2015, 10:38
...It all depends what filmmakers and theaters themselves choose to do...Filmmakers, yes, or at least the studios they have any influence over. Theaters, no. That ship has sailed. Release print film is already essentially dead.

Drew Wiley
10-Feb-2015, 12:24
Hard to say. Several theater venues have recently sprung up around here that partially specialize in film projection - and they're NOT in low-rent neighborhoods!
In other words, somebody cares enough to put hard money behind them. It's tricky to extrapolate our usual counterculture here with larger trends. But it might be getting cool to do something to poke an eye in the establishment. Look what happened to all of Lucas' master plans for this area. Even he got the boot, despite all his financial momentum and local political influence. Artists are known for that kind of thing. Say they HAVE to present their work digital, and they'll do the opposite. But whether or not release print film ever revives is obviously less important of something maintaining the commercial threshold of viability for the coating lines in general. But once again, I'd be curious if this new Pacific Film Archive has any local influence in that direction, or if they're just going to cave in to the Paintball Arcade mentality themselves. They're mothballing a very sizable museum for the sake of that venue, and gosh knows how many tens of millions of bucks are going into the new site. Good for art? I don't know yet. I sure as heck can't be good for UC students seeing their tuition going up and up,
while a distinct fortune of UC funds are being spent on something like that. But the same thing could be said for the football stadium.

Sal Santamaura
10-Feb-2015, 13:48
...Several theater venues have recently sprung up around here that partially specialize in film projection...it might be getting cool to do something to poke an eye in the establishment...An irrelevant pimple on the complexion of worldwide digital projection in multiplexes. The masses see anything digital, including theater projection, as "cool."


...whether or not release print film ever revives ...Release print stock, which was the lion's share of Kodak's film production, will not revive. It's for all commercial intents and purposes gone, just like 8x10 color film. If a handful of users are willing to pay much more than they did even a few years ago, these things might continue in production for a while. But only at a tiny fraction of the volume that they once rolled out of factories.


...obviously less important of something maintaining the commercial threshold of viability for the coating lines in general...This thread is about Eastman Kodak's Bldg. 38 facility, not coating lines in general. There is but one production coating line in that building and none anywhere else at Eastman Kodak. Eastman Kodak tried to sell Bldg. 38 to the studios. The studios declined. Then, after arm twisting by celebrity directors, the studios agreed to purchase a certain amount of motion picture stock, for at least two more years, whether they use it or not. If, within the duration of those agreements, Eastman Kodak can successfully use Bldg. 38's coating line to manufacture other products, and sales of those products are sufficient to cover facility overhead after the Hollywood agreements expire (assuming non-renewal), Kodak Alaris may be able to keep purchasing still film from Eastman Kodak. Otherwise, or if Kodak Alaris decides before then that still film volume is inadequate, there will be no more Eastman Kodak-manufactured still films available. All the wishful thinking in the world doesn't change reality.

Drew Wiley
10-Feb-2015, 14:32
I thought I was a pessimist, Sal. Now I'm beginning to wonder. You sure seem to have an "infallible" crystal ball at times, but I'm not convinced that one has
been invented yet. Kinda like predicting the weather. But I'd hardly call anything "irrelevant" in this neighborhood. After all, it is where the digital steamroller
came from to begin with. And if the masters of the monster themselves have a nostalgic eye from time to time. ... Some of these guys could hypothetically buy
Bldg 38 and all the trimmings with pocket change if they wanted to, and could even afford to subsidize it for some philanthropic/guilt/tax-write-off motive or whatever. The sky isn't falling yet. I'm not dumb. I do own a freezer, if that gives you a clue.

jp
10-Feb-2015, 17:21
My movie theater nostalgia is bad sound and dirty and poorly focused projection. Digital is thus an improvement. If Kodak goes away archivists could record color separations to ilford bw film and still have something archival. Minimal optimism here from someone who errs on the side of optimistic.

brucetaylor
10-Feb-2015, 18:19
Before you get too down... I just read that Kodak UK is currently offering complete production packages (film/cameras/processing/scanning) on a sliding scale to independent UK producers with budgets up to 10 mil UK sterling, to ensure competitive pricing with digital capture. Apparently if it's successful they will roll it out in other countries. Actually a bit of good news! I also imagine studios will at least archive on film-- there are not currently any economical digital options for this.

Sal Santamaura
10-Feb-2015, 21:22
I thought I was a pessimist, Sal. Now I'm beginning to wonder...A pessimist is never disappointed, only pleasantly surprised. :)

Actually, I feel more like a realist than a pessimist. And your posts, Drew, have never conveyed pessimism. Rather, they tend toward the optimistic/wishful. :D

Drew Wiley
11-Feb-2015, 09:53
Digital projection is all about driving independent theaters out of business by forcing them to invest in very expensive new equip they can't really afford, and thereby establishing an oligarchy of just a few massive studios. Everybody knows this. Sure, you get rid of some lint and flickering on the reel. But quite a few folks simply dislike the look of digital projection. Economically, all the big bucks are geared to teenage action flicks in multiplexes anyway. I got talked into
seeing one of those. Sat around forever waiting thru endless digital ads for more upcoming digi flicks. Guess they wanted you to buy as much popcorn and soda as possible in the interim. I have to wear earplugs in those venues because the volume is so high that the ears hurt. Great place to catch a virus too. If you've seen one multiplex or shopping mall, you've seen em all anyway. Most of the seriously acted films have to been seen in small venues, cause they're the only ones who do show them. Not that I'll help. Far rather be hiking somewhere with my view camera. If I have to be trapped indoors on a rainy day, it will be in
the darkroom. Do I sound pessimistic yet? But the mere fact that someone like Redford was scraping big bucks to set up a big alt movie venue literally a stone's
throw from where I'm sitting right now (by failed due to zoning), shows that the Lucas types aren't in charge of just everything. And it's interesting to hear some
of the Park City feedback on this same subject. But the evil empire is going to be undercut on the margins by low-budget flicks taken with DLSR's. That obviously
won't help with the volume of real film either. But it is nice to see any reflex of variety. Like I said, artistes tend to rebel. Tell them film is dead, and ....

Randy Moe
11-Feb-2015, 10:50
Given the affordable quality of low end LED big TV's. I no longer will go to any theater. As Drew says, the filth, disease and obnoxious viewers have made them unpleasant. They are also expensive.

I make better popcorn at home and can pause for washroom breaks.

I am pretty sure malls and movie theaters are history soon. I buy nearly everything online.

I do support live acting in Chicago's plentiful small theaters. Analog actors that seem so life like...

Leszek Vogt
8-Jul-2015, 17:18
Many of the new productions employ Red, Alexa or similar digi equipment. Only few producers and directors still insist on the quality of 35mm film (color or b&w) these days. Film is expensive in numerous ways. I mean, not just the daily's or copies for edit. Those that work on it (loading into mags) could easily mess things up several hundred times per day (this would have to be reshot)....and when the film is exposed....lots of $'s rides on one magazine....we're talking about many thousands.

The sheer raw stock is on average 5-6-8, etc. :1 shooting ratio. Lab work is expensive....and then before the film is released, the final color adjustments, bla bla bla. With digital, you don't have the onslaught of all this material that takes space, worry about scratches, gate issues, hairballs the size of "trees", keeping the film cool, etc. Copy of each "release" in digital is a breeze....without people having to shake over accuracy and bunch of other issues. Sure, digital brings up various challenges (as well)....but the pluses and savings are obvious to many producers. No matter, making films is expensive....and don't get me started what it costs for the talent.

Personally, I'll go to a local outlet and rent a DVD....125K titles is plenty for me :>)

Les

Randy Moe
8-Jul-2015, 23:43
What's a DVD?

sperdynamite
9-Jul-2015, 08:00
Many of the new productions employ Red, Alexa or similar digi equipment. Only few producers and directors still insist on the quality of 35mm film (color or b&w) these days. Film is expensive in numerous ways. I mean, not just the daily's or copies for edit. Those that work on it (loading into mags) could easily mess things up several hundred times per day (this would have to be reshot)....and when the film is exposed....lots of $'s rides on one magazine....we're talking about many thousands.

The sheer raw stock is on average 5-6-8, etc. :1 shooting ratio. Lab work is expensive....and then before the film is released, the final color adjustments, bla bla bla. With digital, you don't have the onslaught of all this material that takes space, worry about scratches, gate issues, hairballs the size of "trees", keeping the film cool, etc. Copy of each "release" in digital is a breeze....without people having to shake over accuracy and bunch of other issues. Sure, digital brings up various challenges (as well)....but the pluses and savings are obvious to many producers. No matter, making films is expensive....and don't get me started what it costs for the talent.

Personally, I'll go to a local outlet and rent a DVD....125K titles is plenty for me :>)

Les

I think you're overstating some of the issues. Time again people in production have stated that digital capture has it's own range of problems, teams, expenses, etc. You can probably shoot a lot more, but I don't know if you can say that's it's appreciably cheap. Both however are relatively small potatoes in the overall budget of a serious project. If cost was outrageous, then Walking Dead would be shot on Alexa, and producers would start saying no to JJ and Christopher Nolan. It's true at the smallest level of production that cheaper capture can be a big deal. However I would argue that if you're past that 1st or 2nd small project, and you've found your voice, getting a budget for Super 16 isn't that hard (in the context of how difficult it is to get ANYTHING funded). I've seen so much great Super 16 work lately. It can be beautiful with films like 50D, or moody and grainy with 500T.

As for projection...well I think it starts to get complicated. I believe it's possible for a scan to retain the imaging properties of film when done well. It doesn't just become Alexa video after you transfer it. I prefer a film projection when IMAX is in play certainly, or other large format film stocks. However, even if you shot your picture on Super 16, I don't mind the images I'm seeing from a 4k projector, and that technology will continue to get better. What matters for me is that a given artist is able to capture in his chosen format, and then show that project in a way that best represents that vision. I think sometimes a 4k projection of a Super 35 shot film CAN be better than an aging release print. For my part, my 2k scans from the Super 8 films I do for personal work and weddings look pretty fantastic. Possibly better than they would have projected with a consumer projector. Plus i can edit them in Final Cut and play them on my 4k tv, and even share portions on freaking instagram. You better believe the original imaging properties of Super 8 are retained even though it's a hybrid digital workflow. In many ways, we have the best of both worlds now. And as long as penny pinching heads are removed from asses, I look forward to many years of Star Wars films shot with modern IMAX cameras and films. :cool:

Randy Moe
9-Jul-2015, 08:26
+1'