Kodak Film Division still Profitable - BJP Article

[Greg Blank]

An intelligent fellow! & Thanks Tobias!

"Instead, says Eastland, Kodak should truly embrace its historical status as a master of film photography. "Each time Kodak has discontinued a film, they used the excuse that it represented less than a certain percentage of their turnover, but it's still a percentage of a very large niche market. There are still millions of photographers around the world that are using film, and not hundreds as Kodak seems to suggest [see Jonckheer's statement above]."

[Greg Blank]

Judging by the climate of wannabe people approaching all aspects of the creative industry does it bear any surprises that big compromise is made.
In order.

First smaller film cameras.
Next anti-film.
Then anti-resolution.

It's kind of disappointing to see cinematographers using a digital cinema camera that doesn't do at least 4K (the Arri is NOT a 4K camera, but it puts out a very nice image... has a nice "big" super 35mm sensor. I've seen a few TV shows shot with it). Why not choose RED Epic or Scarlet?

If I was starting out, it would be RED 4K/5K cameras all the way. If I was established, I'd want to shoot on IMAX 70mm film.

[Wayne Crider]

I wonder if Ilford will start thinking about producing Delta in sheet again.

[Jan Pedersen]

Not acording to what Simon Galley from Harman/Ilford said a couple of years ago!
Would take away from the sale of HP5+
But, time are changing and i would be happy to replace HP5+ with Delta 400

[meerkat]

You need to read between the lines. Forcing the entire stream toward digital projection means either the last mom n' pop theaters will be forced out of business or will have to take out huge remodeling loans from the folks monopolizing the whole system. The locals do the hard work then lose the business to guess who?

This has been going on already for quite some time. Corporate multiplexes are more the norm now and probably even more so in rural areas where keeping a 'mom and pop' theater open with a small population of movie goers can prove to be a lot more difficult. But I think what really shut down those small theaters was video and later DVD rentals. Netflix has probably done more 'damage' to small rural and suburban 'mom and pop' theaters than anything else.

Here in LA, we are still lucky enough to have the family owned Laemmle theater chain which survived only because of the demographics of LA and its large population of art film supporters. But they also changed the viewing environment with unique seating and gourmet drinks and food, etc.. They have made an effort to conform to the desires of newer audiences and keeping up with the changing climate. And they've survived going to digital projection. http://laemmle.com/ And there's also the American Cinematheque's Aero and Egyptian Theaters. http://www.americancinemathequecalen...theatre_events

The studios have been negotiating with theaters for quite a while now in working out the costs since the studios are footing much of these transition expenses. Distribution costs will be a lot less with the move to digital projection and that saves the studios a ton of money. What will probably be hurt most are the small distribution companies that currently work with the studios and theater chains. They may end up disappearing. But yes, you're quite right that whatever small 'mom and pop' theaters might be left (and I guess I'd argue that there aren't many left anyway), will be out of the "digital transition loop' and no doubt eventually shut down if they can't show the latest blockbusters (although many 'mom and pop' have turned into art houses, especially in smaller college towns.)

Then there's 3D to reckon with. Werner Herzog produced his latest film in 3D (Cave of Forgotten Dreams) and of course Scorsese filmed 'Hugo' in 3D. Here's an article in Variety about the 3D 'dilemma' for the smaller theater owners: http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...rfriendly=true

Judging by the climate of wannabe people approaching all aspects of the creative industry does it bear any surprises that big compromise is made.
In order.

First smaller film cameras.
Next anti-film.
Then anti-resolution.

I don't think that's quite realistic. The creative industry has always produced a lot of crap and a lot of good stuff, no matter what tools they have at their disposal. There was junk produced in the 1920s just as there is today. And good stuff, too. Creative individuals will use what works. Roger Deakins is one of the more 'creative' individuals in the business and his shift from film to digital isn't about being anti-film nor anti-resolution, quite the opposite in fact.

[Ben Syverson]

I just saw Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol in 15 perf IMAX last night, preceded by the the Dark Knight Rises prologue. Both featured footage shot in 15 perf, which has about the same film area and aspect ratio as 6x7. It's like watching a Mamiya 7 shot that moves.

It's hard to get excited about a 35mm or 2K theater projection when your laptop screen is probably sharper and brighter. But I will pay $18 / ticket anytime there's a new release featuring 15 perf IMAX. It absolutely curb stomps any digital camera out there.

[Sean Galbraith]

They've already cancelled Ektar in sheets,

They have? Crap.

[vinny]

They have? Crap.

8x10, that is.

[Vascilli]

8x10, that is.

...What?!

[Drew Wiley]

Better look again ... last time I checked Kodak's site, all Ektar sheet film was getting
dropped, including 4X5. Hope they change their mind on that one, but it looks like
the game plan is already in place.