Signs that Kodak won't discontinue film soon?

[Paddy Quinn]

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.

As I've said before - the studios are losing their historic control over distribution (and there is a certain amount of below the surface panic in hollywood about it all as the more prescient realise they may have missed the boat by hanging on with their death grip to the current system) . Distribution (where the huge bulk of film stock from Kodak etc is used)
will be digital - but possibly not even primarily to the theatres. The demographics and habits of "moviegoign" atre changign and the industry isn't quite keeping in step. The theatres (and
blockbusters) are dying - witness the failure of Cinderella Man this
summer as a prime example.

cf this succinct recent discription:

"The MPAA and the studios have

utterly, completely, dropped the ball on this and they do not seem to

realize. The reason for their incredibly delayed entry into streaming

movies is simply that they are waiting for Digital Rights Management

to be acceptable to them. Intel is about to introduce chip-level DRM

later this year, which will undoubtedly go into the intel Macs, at

which point Steve Jobs (he runs Pixar, remember) will introduce some

kind of streaming movie service modeled on and probably integrated

with iTunes. This will be combined with a wireless video streaming

box which will send HD pictures from your computer to your TV. This

is why you should buy Apple stock now, or even better in six months

when it tanks because of poor sales of the PowerPC macs.



The studios are rightly terrified of what this will mean because

their stranglehold on distribution will be largely gone. The only

person who is ahead of the curve on this is Mark Cuban and his 2929

prodco (google for this and you'll see what I mean).....



http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=21460472



either way, big changes are already coming to the movie industry which
will certainly lead to significantly less film used in distribution,
whatever happens at the production end.

[Gregory Gomez]

Nothing like old news, but it's grim news if you ask me. Please note that film sales are expected to drop 30% this year. Better stock up now before there's no film left.

AP

Kodak Loses $1 Billion
Wednesday October 19, 4:40 pm ET
By Ben Dobbin, AP Business Writer
Eastman Kodak Now Generates More Sales From Digital Imaging Than From Film but Reports $1B Loss

ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) -- For the first time, Eastman Kodak Co. is generating more sales from digital imaging than from film-based photography, yet its massive makeover brought more pain in the third quarter -- a $1.03 billion loss largely due to one-time tax charges.

Even excluding restructuring and other charges, analysts said Kodak's results missed Wall Street forecasts.

Its stock fell $1.08, or 4.7 percent, to close at $22.06 Wednesday on the New York Stock Exchange after tumbling earlier to $20.91, its lowest level since September 2003.

Kodak lost the equivalent of $3.58 a share in the July-September quarter, compared with a profit of $458 million, or $1.60 a share, a year ago. Its loss from continuing operations, excluding one-time charges, was $103 million.

Sales rose 5 percent to $3.55 billion, up from $3.37 billion in last year's third quarter.

While stung once more by the rapid slide in film sales, Kodak found solace in its steady drive into the digital era. Its overall digital sales in the quarter surged 47 percent to $1.89 billion, while revenues from film, paper and other traditional, chemical-based businesses slumped 20 percent to $1.66 billion.

"This is an important milestone in our transformation journey," Kodak's chief executive, Antonio Perez, said in a conference call with analysts. " ... We're building a strong digital company for the future."

The quarterly loss, Kodak's third in a row, included a non-cash charge of $900 million, or $3.13 a share -- an accounting requirement directly related to its huge overhaul. In July, Kodak disclosed plans to lay off 10,000 employees on top of 12,000 to 15,000 job cuts targeted in January 2004.

Several analysts calculated that Kodak earned between 19 cents and 23 cents a share before one-time charges.

"It was a weak quarter," said Shannon Cross of Cross Research in Short Hills, N.J., citing an unexpected slowdown in consumer digital camera sales and shortfalls in the health-imaging division's digital business.

But Ulysses Yannas, a broker for Buckman, Buckman & Reid, said he was encouraged by signs of improving gross profit margins. "The picture doesn't seem to be as bleak as the numbers tend to indicate," Yannas said, singling out a jump in photo-kiosk sales at major retailers.

Kodak warned last month that a sluggish economy and delays in medical-imaging installations would likely crimp its digital profits this year, forcing it to build fewer digital cameras and home printers for the end-of-year holiday season. It had projected profits of around $275 million to $325 million.

The 124-year-old company is also battling a steep drop in demand for conventional silver-halide film, its cash cow for decades. Film sales look set to drop by more than 30 percent in the United States this year.

Kodak said its digital camera sales rose 20 percent in the quarter, while sales of home printers and accessories soared 45 percent and kiosk sales were up 48 percent. Helped in part by a reallocation of certain costs to its traditional business, its digital profit rose to $10 million from $6 million a year ago.

Health imaging sales eased 1 percent to $635 million, and operating earnings fell to $90 million from $106 million.

But graphic communications sales nearly tripled to $886 million, helped in part by its $980 million buyout of Canada's Creo Inc., and operating earnings were $15 million, compared with a loss of $16 million a year ago.

Two years ago, Kodak acknowledged that its analog businesses were in irreversible decline and outlined an ambitious strategy to become a digital heavyweight in photography, medical imaging and commercial printing by 2007.

The transition triggered nearly $3 billion in acquisitions but has carried a high cost. The shutdown of film and other manufacturing operations around the world looks likely to drop its global work force below 50,000, down from 75,100 in 2001 and a peak of 145,300 in 1988.

For the first nine months of the year, Kodak lost $1.33 billion, or $4.60 a share, versus a profit of $615 million, or $2.05 a share, a year ago. Revenue rose to $10.07 billion from $9.76 billion a year ago.

[Aaron van de Sande]

Fuji has been beating them for years in the consumer film market AND the digital market. Cameras make money one time for you (original sale) and that's it. Printing systems make money on the sale and continually on consumables. Everyone knows what a fuji frontier is, but what does kodak make? Though I would be suprise if Kodak doesn't have something similar, Fuji is the leader in this market.
I have a hard time finding color kodak processing, fuji/noritzu is everywhere.

[Bruce Watson]

What I don't understand Kodak's lack of decent digital printing. The consumables are there - in digital printing - papers and inks. Where the hell is Kodak? I look at the printer I use every day (more or less) and it says Epson on it. The papers come mostly from Hahnemuhle in Germany. The inks come from Cone in Vermont (and who knows where he's getting them from).

Not one bit of it (yes, that's a pun ;-) comes from Kodak. Kodak nearly completely unknown in photographic digital printing. Why???

[Frank Petronio]

Bruce, Kodak actually invented a lot of the digital printing technology and color systems now in use. Adobe, Apple, MS, Epson Sieko, HP, and Canon pay Kodak big royalties. Plus they own what was IRIS, Scitex, etc, and maybe Encad (but I forget...). Kodak makes $$$ with their patents so don't write them off just yet.

But why they never captured the market like Epson did when they introduced the Epson Stylus Photo in the mid-1990s - corporate stupidity - they had internal fights over the Dye Sub printers versus InkJets. And outside of NASA, who wants a Dye-Sub print anymore?

[John_4185]

Odd factoid: Kodak has all but discontinued their 5" rollfilm but continues making its 9.5" rollfilm available. That tells me that the aerial mapping people are still using it.

[Frank Petronio]

No No, it's all the Cirkuit photographers using it...