Jump to content


Photo

Kodak is not selling film divisions


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#1 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 07 February 2007 - 06:05 PM

While Kodak has been grumbling in the past about abandoning or "spinning off" it's film division, I've never taken this news seriously until now. Ever since Kodak replaced it's CEO Mr. Carp with former HP VP Antonio Perez, Kodak has undergone aggressive layoffs, restructuring, and abandonment of traditional products and services.

Still, Kodak has obviously continued to support its loyal customers in the motion picture industry as well as professional still photographers who demand the highest in image quality in their lines of work.

Just one month ago, Eastman Kodak announced it has sold its X-Ray & Medical Imaging Division, including X-ray and other medical imaging film to Canadian company ONEX. This division generated *19%* of Kodak's revenue last year.

Kodak's CEO Antonio Perez just recently announced that the company is considering spinning off their analog photography division, which includes Entertainment Imaging, manufacturer of all Kodak ECN-2 and ECP film products. I don't remember the figure off the top of my head, but I believe Kodak's analog photography division generated more than 25-30% of the company's revenue last year. Kodak became the corporate giant it is because of the development of roll film by compnay founder George Eastman in the late 19th century. Kodak has been synonymous with cinema from the artform's very beginning. While I think Perez is a heartless corporate posh who doesn't even understand what film is, or why people are still using it, the fact remains that if Kodak sells of it's film division, regardless of the benefits that division will gain from being away from that pig's money-grubbing paws, it will mark the end of, as we know it, the company that made filmmaking possible for the first time beyond multiple glass plate exposures which predated it.

Does anyone have any comments on this? I think I've made my opinion clear. I'm sorry for the strong language. Selling off two core sectors, x-ray and photographic films, really endangers a lot of jobs and products, and endangers the heritage of this great company. I know a lot of fine people whose careers shouldn't be jepardized by someone who made a former living loading inks in printers. . . Mr. Perez also says that Hollywood will be all digital in 10 years, hardly the stance I'd expect the head of the world's largest manufacturer of photographic film to take. Still photography has been undergoing the death throws of the "digital revolution" since 1998 now, and I certainly don't consider the stills market, especially wedding photography, to be "all digital". Playboy, National Geographic, and many other outdoors and nature magazines continue to discourage any formats other than slide film for submissions. I highly doubt that Hollywood is going to make any sudden shifts, especially after the lackluster response the F-900 generated. 73% of dramatic television continues to be shot on film, down all of 2% from last year, and that is mostly because sitcoms, which were only shot on film to future proof them for HD broadcast anyway, have goen back to video again. The information about Kodak's unnerving plans is from a news article released today; at this point I'm too disgusted to search around the internet for the link. I'm going to go out and shoot some film in my SLR and pick up some fraternity jobs (all of which are shot on Kodak film). Enough of this silly digital internet poop. I'm sick of it and the ruinous effect it's had on established technological fields of higher quality, durability, and technical ability.

Regards,

~Karl Borowski


Sorry, making everyone search for the article would be mean. This information was made available to me through a Post just made on Photo.net, a large still photography forum:

http://business.time...technology/arti cle1343516.ece

:unsure:
  • 0

#2 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 07 February 2007 - 06:26 PM

Crikey!

This guy's even crazier than I am.

The X-RAY division must have generated more that £1bn GBP last year alone.

This guy's as thick as the people he's aiming at, he must think digital's a wonder (it isn't).

At least Fuji will never walk out on us.



EDIT: For once, Borowski, were in total agreement, I'm sending a HUGE compaint letter, and possibly defecting to Fuji.

Edited by Matthew Buick, 07 February 2007 - 06:29 PM.

  • 0

#3 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 07 February 2007 - 07:09 PM

EDIT: For once, Borowski, were in total agreement, I'm sending a HUGE compaint letter, and possibly defecting to Fuji.


No offense, but I couldn't care less whether you agree with me or not. Let's just say you're NOT one of the reasons I visit this forum so often. And write a letter? How many million feet of film do you consume per movie you produce? :unsure:

Fuji's in even more trouble than Kodak's film division is. They made the mistake of concentrating the bulk of their research money into their slide films, hence the great delay in their updating their negative stocks.
  • 0

#4 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1582 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 07 February 2007 - 08:57 PM

Oh Boy.


Well I think this is a great opportunity for a great US company to completely miss the boat on the future and the thought (mine) that Moore's law is on a collision course with energy supply and it's effect on the Bubble.

I was listening to a PBS radio show in the car on the way home from the lab one night, a few months ago, and they were going on about the place of amateur digital photographers and their effect on photojournalism. At some point in the conversation some blissfully unawares person was going on about how once she had taker her digital photo and uploaded it to the interbleb it would stay perfectly unmolested for the rest of all time.

Not to be a complete cynic of this rosy attitude but what if photoblucket.net.com.web goes out of business? I think that there is the blissful perception that didital things like the interweb, which is certainly interesting and unique by human standards, is nice and smooth and clean because it is a "new economy" thing.

This wonderfullness we are all blabbing away nicely on does have a bit of a backside and that is tremendous energy usage mostly fueled by that most 18th century wonder good old coal. :blink:

Back to that photo and digital media in general, how much energy does it take to make and store a traditional Silver-Halide photograph? and in correlation to that how much energy is put into the same digital photograph over the same 100 year period. I do not have the answer although I am guessing to make the digital photo survive the span of 100yrs. it probably has to have almost constant expenditure of energy (and effort) to make it last and taken into full account I think the total might be somewhat staggering.

So Kodak sells it's film division to the lucky Chinese Lucky film co.? maybe they would take it and reap great rewards going into the future. We here in the USA can go on to the point where all we do is sit across from one another and sell insurance back and forth until the lights go out. Ouch! :o

I personally think there is a grand place in the future for photochemical stuff and that it's environmental footprint has a potential to be quite small compared to what it gives humanity. There has been, what? 40yrs. now, of a juggernaut of growth and arrogance with the building of the computer industry and with that a view that digital technology should consume and "solve" all of human endeavor no matter whether the new technology under performs, makes vastly more complicated, and consumes much more that what it is replacing. So here is my contribution to (nobel prize worthy :P ) world economic theoryis that in the future economics will have to be closed loop instead of open ended. As we gather more information about our home this will become more apparent and easier to define, or we can blow the planet up, which is fine too! I will get back in my spaceship and me, Bibble Dave Chapelle and those cloned white chicks will just move on. :lol: The next 50 years will be interesting.

-Rob-
  • 0

#5 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 08 February 2007 - 12:59 AM

I don't know why this topic has been taken so passively. Kodak is seriously considering selling their film division, which could mean the liquidation of that sector should the right company buy it. It could also mean the end of film manufacturing in Rochester. It's very possible a foreign firm could aquire them. Here's a video link, for those of you too lazy to read the article:

http://www.10nbc.com...;story_id=21481

This is no joke, it's for real. I never in a million years expected them to sell off their X-ray division, another HUGE core component of the Kodak company.
  • 0

#6 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1582 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 08 February 2007 - 01:40 AM

I don't know why this topic has been taken so passively. Kodak is seriously considering selling their film division, which could mean the liquidation of that sector should the right company buy it. It could also mean the end of film manufacturing in Rochester. It's very possible a foreign firm could aquire them.



I think that there are two components to this, the first is that the sale would probably be at leas a five billion dollar transaction and thus completely out of any possible scope or direction of anybody who actually uses the products of the Kodak company. This is a kind of powerless position which is beyond frustration and thus ignored. The second component is probably a hope that if this happens that it will work out well for what we, as individuals, want the furtherance and advancement of our medium.

I do not blame anyone intimately connected with this for not wanting to respond to the news because if it were to happen it would be a earthquake in the industry.

-Rob-
  • 0

#7 Charlie Peich

Charlie Peich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Chicago

Posted 08 February 2007 - 03:42 PM

Kodak plans to cut 3,000 more jobs! The latest from Cheif Executive Antonio Perez.


"The dream was that we would wake up in 2008 with the digital company that we want to have. We're still right on that track," Chief Executive Antonio Perez said at an annual meeting of Kodak analysts and institutional investors.

"Film is going to follow its own destiny," he said. "Right now, entertainment (motion-picture) imaging is very stable, is very good for the company. ... If that goes digital, which eventually I believe it will, then we'll do something else. We will do what's better for the shareholders."
  • 0

#8 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 08 February 2007 - 04:15 PM

No offense, but I couldn't care less whether you agree with me or not. Let's just say you're NOT one of the reasons I visit this forum so often. And write a letter? How many million feet of film do you consume per movie you produce? :unsure:

Fuji's in even more trouble than Kodak's film division is. They made the mistake of concentrating the bulk of their research money into their slide films, hence the great delay in their updating their negative stocks.


NO offence?!? Ha! And I WAS trying to show my apology for my childish behaviour. However, I'm not a hateful person, so I'll try not to hold a grudge for long.

And I would have thought that a long angry letter from a 15 year old would have caught their eye, it is, after all, my age group who are being weaned on video and are unlikely to shoot film in the future.

And I'll show them what I've done, so they'll know I have some meagre talent.
  • 0

#9 Giles Sherwood

Giles Sherwood
  • Guests

Posted 08 February 2007 - 04:25 PM

Perhaps now Rochester will finally complete its transformation into a total ghost town. It's the deadest of cities.
  • 0

#10 grantsmith

grantsmith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera

Posted 08 February 2007 - 06:08 PM

NO offence?!? Ha! And I WAS trying to show my apology for my childish behaviour. However, I'm not a hateful person, so I'll try not to hold a grudge for long.

And I would have thought that a long angry letter from a 15 year old would have caught their eye, it is, after all, my age group who are being weaned on video and are unlikely to shoot film in the future.

And I'll show them what I've done, so they'll know I have some meagre talent.



Stop always putting matthew down karl! Of course he hasn't shot thousands of feet of film, and yes he occasionaly makes some silly posts. Just ignore him rather than reply with comments where their only purpose seems to belittle him. I think it's fantastic that someone who is only 15 has such a strong interest in film. Hopefully he and his peers will go onto keeping the format alive in the future.

Matthew, I think your doing a great job and that it's important that you stay here and learn as much about the film-making process as possible.

Anyone who has this interest should be encouraged as much as possible to continue. Keep up the good work (though maybe think a bit longer before you post some things!).

Without replying to this you guys should maybe not reply to the others posts (unless it is neccessary)
  • 0

#11 Francesco Bonomo

Francesco Bonomo
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 366 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • currently in Rome, Italy

Posted 08 February 2007 - 07:16 PM

I don't know why this topic has been taken so passively. Kodak is seriously considering selling their film division, which could mean the liquidation of that sector should the right company buy it. It could also mean the end of film manufacturing in Rochester. It's very possible a foreign firm could aquire them. [...]
This is no joke, it's for real. I never in a million years expected them to sell off their X-ray division, another HUGE core component of the Kodak company.


I've been shooting film for 15 years and last year I somehow went against the tide, investing some money in a brand new Nikon F100 (my old F3 is still with me, though) and in a dark room, where I develop and print black and white film, 100% Kodak. I own a digital SLR and I use it too, but when it comes to black and white I'm just more comfortable with film. I see digital pictures in National Geographic and other magazines every month, but I still believe in film delivering a better image.

Karl, I'm not taking this news "passively", but I'm not naive enough to think that history will undo itself or that a company like Kodak will start r&d'ing new 35mm film for the consumer market in order to "win" over digital.
Nikon did something like that last year, when they announced they won't be making any new film camera after the (faboulous) F6.

Still, I'm not shocked by Perez's words at all, actually I'm shocked they waited for such a long time and actually missed the first "digital train" years ago. I can't blame the guy: in the article he clearly says that this is the last year of restructuring and that "A year or two out from here, it will be a totally different company".
Why? is he just crazy? I don't think so. I think he runs a huge company that must adapt to a market that has changed way faster than anybody expected. Mass market for Kodak is no longer 35mm consumer film, but inkjets and digital cameras. I wouldn't be surprised if they were secretly working on a digital cinema system in order to be ready for "the future" according to Perez ("Right now, entertainment imaging is very stable, is very good for the company. ... If that goes digital, which eventually I believe it will, then we'll do something else").

I hope that 35mm film stays around for many many years from now, but if it goes away it means they'll be other ways to capture images with the same (or even better) quality: I don't believe film will completely disappear, but it probably will become a niche product, just like medium format film. Ten years ago everyone was shooting film and if you had a small digital cameras they'd look at you like you had an alien artifact in your hands. Today, if you say you shoot film, most people will look at you as if you were some sort of weird creature.

I think there's little (=nothing) we can do about it.


p.s. I hope these words make some sense :D
  • 0

#12 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 08 February 2007 - 07:57 PM

NO offence?!? Ha! And I WAS trying to show my apology for my childish behaviour. However, I'm not a hateful person, so I'll try not to hold a grudge for long.

And I would have thought that a long angry letter from a 15 year old would have caught their eye, it is, after all, my age group who are being weaned on video and are unlikely to shoot film in the future.

And I'll show them what I've done, so they'll know I have some meagre talent.


Don't apollogize, just stop doing it! I am twenty. I never posted things such as you do at your age. Why are you even posting here? I don't care whose stock you shoot. Don't just ignore me, ignore my threads, please!
  • 0

#13 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 08 February 2007 - 08:16 PM

I couldn't care less what you think about Kodak policy, my projects, and I really detest it when you post on subjects that you have no practical knowledge and experience in. Hell, some people might be dumb enough to think you actually know what you're talking about. You're like the Wikipedia syndrome, where there's clevely disguised BS mixed in with credible information. That's a dangerous combination.

I don't just spout off answers to every thread I've heard someone else answer before, I only answer things that I've dealt with out there in the real world., not always with motion picture stock, but from five years of photographic experience and two years of professional labwork with C-41 and B&W film.

Forgive my not caring what a rank amateur with no filmmaking or photography experience under his belt whatsover thinks about important issues that affect our craft and livelihoods. I AM depressed if that little brat is the future of filmmakers. Another thing, quit posting my fu**ing name around the forum. People do searches and seeing my name in your childish posts hurts my credibility. I really regret not using a screenname when poop like this happens. Now knock it off. People do searches for my name for photography jobs and then they see crap like this. I wouldn't have any problem completely ignoring everything you say if you didn't post my name in other threads around the forum, like you have a right to judge me. I could just ignore this drivle, but then people glancing on these threads from a search engine like Google have an increased chance of taking a 15 year old half way around the world's opinions of me as if they are credible.

"Stop always putting matthew down karl! Of course he hasn't shot thousands of feet of film, and yes he occasionaly makes some silly posts. Just ignore him rather than reply with comments where their only purpose seems to belittle him. I think it's fantastic that someone who is only 15 has such a strong interest in film. "

Start capitalizing my name and I'd be happy to take your advice seriously I'm IN his age group. We're not ALL butts. Some of us are even (gasp) credible and knowledgeable, even coherent sometimes! It is belittling having childish praddle in otherwise informative posts. I mean, 95% of what this kid posts is total bullshit. I mean, look how little useful information there is in this thread because of the childish posts. Look how the post I made about War Documentaries suddenly died after his last post there and you'll understand
  • 0

#14 Terry Mester

Terry Mester
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 323 posts
  • Other
  • Welland, Ontario, Canada

Posted 08 February 2007 - 11:36 PM

Karl, Matthew, please take a breather! Rather than reply to each other via these Threads, just send each other private E-Mails or PMs. :rolleyes:

Now, the future profitability of Film will be decided by the masses of consumers around the world. People are being sucked into Digital in the false belief that Digital is better than Film. This is why I set out a few years ago to produce Articles on Photography and Cinematography to explain the differences to average people. You can download the Articles off my Website link below in my Signature (www.geocities.com/filmanddigitalinfo). Send the Photography Article on to everyone on your E-Mail list. If they choose to continue with Digital, then they will regret it 10 or 15 years in the future when they cannot retrieve a Picture they're looking for. Most people -- knowing the differences between Film and Digital -- will stick with Film.

Francesco, it's not possible for an electronic medium (Digital) to be better than an optical medium (Film). It's explained in detail in my Articles. Digital may be cheaper than Film for shooting movies, but it also provides cheap quality. The Studios will never stop shooting movies on Film for 'long-term retrieval' reasons, but the danger is Movie Theatres going Digital. Theatres are not providing a top quality movie presentation, and they need to clean up their act. My previous Thread on this Forum last month offered suggestions for improving Movie Theatres.
I've undertaken in the past few days to E-Mail Kodak's Executives and also the majority Shareholders of Kodak to warn them that Perez is ruining their company. I urged them to stop the sale of Kodak's Healthcare Unit if it's still possible. If they proceed with the sale, it will be bad for Kodak. I hope the Shareholders will act. Below is the Message I sent to 36 Kodak Executives.
------------------------------------------------------
February 3rd, 2007

TO: All Executives of the Eastman Kodak Company
Kevin J. Hobert, President, Health Group and Senior Vice President
Michael W. Jackman, General Manager Healthcare Information Solutions and Vice President
Eastman Kodak Company
343 State Street
ROCHESTER, New York
14650 U.S.A.

Dear Presidents, Vice Presidents and Executives:

I'm writing to all the Executives of Kodak as someone who cares very much about the future viability of the Eastman Kodak Company. The decision last month to sell off Kodak's Healthcare Unit is a catastrophic error, and I hope that it isn't too late to cancel that deal. When a company is purchased, it should take at least 10 years worth of Profits to recover the purchase price. With this deal you are selling off Kodak's Healthcare Unit for $2.35 Billion -- $200 Million less than its Annual Revenues! You are thus essentially throwing in all the Assets for free! Do you see the insanity surrounding this deal? The potential additional $200 Million is a joke. You shouldn't sell the Healthcare Unit for less than 4 years worth of Revenues: about $10 Billion Dollars. Living in Canada I've known of this businessman, Gerry Schwartz, from Onex Corporation going back about seven years. He is to be commended as a very shrewd and very wise businessman, and he has snookered all the Kodak Execs who approved of this deal. If you still have time to cancel this deal and demand a renegotiated price, then you had better do it fast. If it is possible, you should just cancel this sale outright because the Healthcare industry is a perpetually profitable business -- people won't stop getting sick! Your 'Healthcare Unit' is a buttress against Kodak's other losses, and if you sell it you will see Kodak's Stock drop notably. The decline in Film Sales should have now plateaued, and you need to make sure to serve your Film Customers to keep that business stable. For Digital Photography, there is little profit to be made off of a piece of electronic equipment, but the Kodak name should enable you to charge a premium for your Digital Cameras. You need to maintain Kodak as a leader in producing CCDs since you can charge a good sum for selling CCDs to outside Camera Manufacturers. If your CCDs are tops, then other manufacturers will need to pay your price. ... However, your Healthcare Unit is integral to Kodak's financial stability.

Thus far you have been repeating the exact same mistakes that were made by Nortel Networks (Northern Telecom) of Canada. They kept selling off core parts of their Company which resulted in their Company's revenues dropping precipitously, and their Stock also plummetted from a high of C$120 Dollars down to about 60 Cents! It only bounced back to the $2 range before the 10 for 1consolidation. Subsequently, having no real revenues, Nortel Execs starting buying back core parts of their former manufacturing business such as Telephones. Who could have imagined at Nortel that Telephones would continue to be a necessary item for consumers? I knew it as soon as the sale of that division was announced, and I wasn't surprised when they decided to buy it back. (I also knew back in the late 90s that the AOL Time-Warner merger was a big mistake for TW who only got 45% of the merged company. AOL owned no assets to speak of compared to the monumental Time Warner assets -- including the Warner Bros. Studio which also included the Turner MGM/UA/ Selznick/ RKO Film Library up to 1986! All AOL had was customers who could dump them in an instant for another Internet provider, and this is what in fact happened.) Who could imagine at Kodak four years ago that Film would continue to be a necessary item? You don't even manufacture a 'Fixed Focus' Camera for those people who want to continue using Film! If nobody makes Film Cameras, how is Kodak going to keep up Film Sales with the younger generation? As I warned Kodak Execs several years ago, there is a percentage of consumers who will always want Film. Higher-end professional-type Film Cameras are still manufactured, but not a basic Fixed Focus model. Kodak should be offering a basic model Film Camera since you need to sell your Film. If you look on the Internet, you'll find that 30 year old Super8mm Movie Cameras can sell for $200, $300 and even $4-500 Dollars! The market for Film is never going to go away, and a Film Camera sale continues to bring in future sales of Film -- unlike a Digital Camera sale. Given the worldwide deficit of Silver production and high Silver costs, you should have your Disposable Cameras use smaller 110 Film since the small Lenses on those Cameras don't need a 135 Frame. By lowering the price you'll sell more Disposable Cameras. The attached Article explains all the inferiorities of Digital Photography, and you will see Film sales pick up in the next several years as people suffer the 'consequences' and 'huge expenses' of Digital Photography. People will choose to go back to less expensive and more reliable Film. Until this happens, you need to keep your Healthcare Unit if it's not too late to stop that sale. As the baby-boomers age, the Healthcare industry is only going to INCREASE in profitability. Gerry Schwartz knows this, and that's why he wants to buy Kodak's Healthcare business.

Sincerely,

Mr. Terry Mester

  • 0

#15 Nathan Milford

Nathan Milford
  • Sustaining Members
  • 692 posts
  • Director
  • New York, NY

Posted 09 February 2007 - 12:00 AM

Earlier today I spoke with a few friends at Kodak, both in stills and entertainment imaging. Kodak is not selling it's film business, nor is it considering doing so (at least publicly). The statement made by Kodak's CEO were misconstrued and the journalists reporting those remarks have made some broad interpretations.

The statement about selling a division of Kodak was about selling it's medical division, which had just happened. The rest of the statement went on to talk about their film products in general, but no mention was made, after the discussion about medical imaging, of selling any division of Kodak.

I have be assured by these individuals that there is another line of motion picture films in deep development to surpass\replace the VISION2 line.

I have changed the title of this thread accordingly to keep from alarming more people.
  • 0

#16 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 09 February 2007 - 02:01 AM

There was a good story on Business Weekly just on PBS about this. It looked like Kodak is just taking steps forward in their digital imaging area while sacrificing employees to make room for that budget. Supposedly they made a good profit last year, with many thanks to their expanding digital capabilities...so it's only logical that they should try and make that aspect of the company better while not sacrificing their celluloid.

Does anybody own a quality Kodak Digital SLR? My friend has one that does alright, but I haven't witnessed anything too impressive. If anyone has any good examples, I'd like to see'em!
  • 0

#17 Nathan Milford

Nathan Milford
  • Sustaining Members
  • 692 posts
  • Director
  • New York, NY

Posted 09 February 2007 - 12:24 PM

Does anybody own a quality Kodak Digital SLR?


What I wouldn't do for a Leica M8... it has a Kodak sensor in it.
  • 0

#18 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 11 February 2007 - 02:04 PM

WHO THE HELL JUST ERASED ALL MY POSTS??? I HAD AN IMPORTANT POINT IN THERE!!!! :angry:
  • 0

#19 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 11 February 2007 - 02:11 PM

WHO THE HELL JUST ERASED ALL MY POSTS??? I HAD AN IMPORTANT POINT IN THERE!!!! :angry:


Hi Matthew,

I did, your spamming this forum.

Stephen
  • 0

#20 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 11 February 2007 - 02:21 PM

The last one had a really important point in it, would you kindly retrieve it, please.
  • 0


CineLab

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Technodolly

CineTape

Tai Audio

Opal

Technodolly

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS