Signs that Kodak won't discontinue film soon?

[Gregory Gomez]

I see little indication that Kodak will continue making film for the long run, and I see little indication that Kodak will survive as a company. If film will soon die, then Kodak must survive in a digital world, right? How will Kodak manage that?

If I want a digital camera, I am going to buy either Nikon or Canon, not Kodak. If I need a tripod, I will buy Gitzo, not Kodak. If I need a printer, I will by HP, Canon, or Epson, not Kodak. If I want a film scanner, I will buy Nikon, not Kodak. If I want a flatbed scanner, I will buy Epson, not Kodak. If I want a computer, I will buy either a Macintosh or a Dell, not Kodak. If I want a monitor, I will by Macintosh, View Sonic, or Sony, not Kodak. If I need digital memory for my camera, I will buy Scandisk or Lexar, not Kodak. If I need photo-editing software, I will buy Adobe or Express Digital, not Kodak. If I need inkjet paper, I can buy Bergger, Brilliant, Canon, Epson, Ilford and many others. Why would I buy Kodak?

Let’s face it, Kodak doesn’t even make products for many of the categories listed above, and when they do, that product category is very crowded.

I am not a Kodak basher. I love shooting with Kodak Tri-X for 6x9cm and for 35mm. I also like Kodak HC-110. After I finish putting my refrigeration system together early next year, I plan to stockpile these items so I can continue using them for the rest of my life. I will not count on Kodak to supply them for very much longer.

[Robert A. Zeichner]

"martin the complete starwars saga where shot on Sony digis...not film

Are you absolutely sure about that? The re-release of Episode 1 was remastered to digital, but was it orginally digital? I think now. The University of Illinois Circle Campus, did some of the 'digital' work: the rendering of the rotating mothership, taking weeks to rotate it, but that's about the only digital I'm aware of."

Actually there have been a number of "traditionally film" projects that at least in part, were mastered digitally using the Sony F900 Cine Alta camera as modified by Panavision. But, the real news is that Sony has developed a 12 Megapixel CCD chip that is currently used in the Panavision Genesis which now makes a total of three electronic cinematography cameras with single 35mm size chips: The ARRI D-20 and the Dalsa Origin are the other two. I've been following the development of these products over the last three years and have looked at the output on high resolution monitors. Pretty impressive. The big difference between these and the Sony F900 is that the Cine Alta is still a 2/3" prism optic 3 CCD camera. The ARRI and Dalsa both have optical viewing systems and they both, along with the Panavision Genesis use 35mm film optics which means same DOF characteristics as with a film camera.

How all of this relates to Kodak is somewhat difficult to predict. While electronic cinematography gets better every year, Kodak continues to develop new motion picture emulsions that are well received and bought in high volume. In addition to that, there is the constant demand for printing stock, which even the digitally mastered shows get transferred to. When local movie theaters can afford digital projection equipment and the films can be distributed electronically, that's when we may see the demise of motion picture film. That could take quite a while. George Lucas says he'll never shoot film again, but Steven Spielberg says he'll be the last guy shooting film, so how it will all shake out is anyone's guess. If it's like everything else that involves money, film may eventually go away even in this field. One statistic that may drive this faster is the percentage of people that actually go to the theater as opposed to renting a DVD. On the small screen, particularly a television screen, the argument for mastering electronically is getting stronger. If the camera operators and directors of photography feel comfortable with the quality of Genesis, D-20 and Origin, that may be the way it eventually goes.

[RJ Hicks]

Its too bad shooting digitally doesn't help the actors act or makes the story better, because man, those new Star Wars movies blew.

[Christopher Nisperos]

"Kodak will continue to produce film. They will merge with Agfa to form Agfak only to come near the brink of bankruptcy, but be saved at thel last minute by merging with Polariod to become Polagfak."
--duane polcou 2005-10-23 00:34 PDT

Duane's joke brings an old thought to mind, and I invite all of you to pick the idea apart: —Is it so ridiculous at this point to wonder why the last remaining film companies (at least a couple of them) haven't yet merged? From a survival standpoint, this would only make sense. If someone from Ilford or Agfa reads this, can you perhaps tell us why this WOULDN'T work ? Sure, some jobs would probably be lost in such a merger, but that beats a whole company going under, doesn't it?

Obviously, from a consumer perspective (ie: pricewise) it would be a nightmare to have a single film manufactucter left in the world, but if I were a matchmaker it'd be something like: Ilford + Agfa, or either one + Forte, or either one + Foma, or Foma+ Forte, or Forte+ Foma+ Efke, or Kodak + Lucky (oops), or .. well, you get the idea.

[Ed Richards]

Putting aside Kodak, which is a huge company that lots of non-film stuff, for the others the problem is economic - if you have excess equipment, merging with another company with excess equipment does not provide any synergy. It is better to hope that you are last one standing. For Kodak, the rational move might be to sell off the LF film division, but who would care to buy it?

[John Kasaian]

Ed,

I'd buy it (if they'd take payments!)

[Mark Woods]

There is no large format division. In terms of still photography there is the Professional and the Amature divisions. The film is made in sheets about 2 meters in width and I'm not sure how many hundreds of feet long. After the base is coated (an amazing process I've witnessed with their infrared cameras), it is "slit" or cut to the width they want. Those cuts are then cut to length. If you think about it, only the base changes for the different formats while the emulsion remains the same. So there is no LF division, and the same equipment will make everything from 8mm color to the largest neg (or pos) film they make. The equipment must be adaptable to all the products if it is to be cost effective.

Kind Regards,
MW

[John_4185]

If you think about it, only the base changes for the different formats while the emulsion remains the same. So there is no LF division.

If I think about it I wonder how they manage to roll that heavy 4x5 film base onto 120, or 35mm spools. Perhaps you are in err?

[John_4185]

jj you are an idiot. Did you not read the man's post? He wrote that the base does change!

Signed,

Your Loving Self

[John_4185]

On Topic

Kodak's spin

Bad news: Kodak reported a $1.03 Billion Dollar loss for the recent third quarter.
Good news: For the first time in history, digital accounted for more sales than film.

Reality? If 5% of your revenue comes from film, and you quit making and selling it, then whatever else you make will account for more sales, even if the sales are inadequate and help account for a Three Billion Dollar loss.

They are #1 for "termal home printers". What? They would be as well off selling wood stoves.

They are #1 for digital medical X-Ray stuff. That's cool, but by what margin?

I am so confused.