Jump to content


Photo

Bye bye Kodak


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#1 Jim Carlile

Jim Carlile
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 17 August 2011 - 11:14 PM

Get your film now, boys. This company's not long for the world:

http://www.bloomberg...s-real-m-a.html

Wall Street's going to strip off all the goodies and close down the rest. Kodak was the #1 stock today in anticipation; it rose 25% in value.
  • 0

#2 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 18 August 2011 - 12:21 AM

Motion Picture stocks are still making money so even if they break it up, someone will continue to produce Kodak's stocks. Huge market in India and Hong Kong still... they love film.
  • 0

#3 Daniel Lee

Daniel Lee
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 18 August 2011 - 04:21 AM

Over-dramatisation.

If worse comes to worse, you can get Lucky Color (equivalent to 80's Kodak Gold) in 2000ft tins, it's C-41 and remjet-less though.
  • 0

#4 K Borowski

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

Posted 18 August 2011 - 06:14 PM

I have called, e-mailed them about film processing starting in 2008 with no response.

As far as I know, they got out of it in '08.



Kodak's dying spells a destabilizing moment in color photography; it's a race to the bottom at this point folks, with Fuji being given leverage to cut their products with a total lack of competition. Kodak going under will have a destabilizing effect on ALL film-based photo-chemo-optical imaging, and could hasten its demise.

I only hope Kodak's ONLY PROFITABLE SEGMENT can be spun off at this point and allowed a fighting chance to die with some dignity, not being dragged down by deadweight digital products.

Anyway, Daniel, I wouldn't make such light of it. . .


(P.S.: Several of the respondents of this thread should take careful note to the remarks I made prior to this article, all which were based upon, unfortunately true rumors I heard about EK Co.)

Edited by K Borowski, 18 August 2011 - 06:14 PM.

  • 0

#5 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 August 2011 - 06:50 PM

Karl, sad to say but if you had started your week investing your life savings in EK, you would have increased the savings by 50% by the end of the week. EK is not as dead as you think it is.
  • 0

#6 Martin Hong

Martin Hong
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 137 posts
  • Student

Posted 18 August 2011 - 10:24 PM

That's when Fujifilm start to own the film market?
  • 0

#7 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11937 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 August 2011 - 11:11 PM

There's something deeply bent about the world when this situation can arise.

Patents are supposed to protect innovation. That being the case, you'd think that Kodak would be in a commanding position, able to deploy all of the fresh, new ideas it has as products for people to buy. It'd be able to employ staff, hire engineers and designers, and do its part for the economy by running a trade surplus.

But no. Patents aren't about innovation any more. Patents are about finding an idea that someone else had and didn't realise was patentable. It's about childish running to teacher waving a piece of paper, squealing "I thought of it first! Me! Me!". It's about stifling and limiting innovation, and most of all it's about getting free money without having to do any work for it by suing someone who actually found the courage to try and make something real.

I don't think it's going too far to say that this sort of despicable poltroonery is one of the principal sicknesses of modern western civilisation. We sit around having procedural pissing contests like this in return for the promise of free gold while or real capabilities decay around us.

The entire concept is patently wrong. The value of Kodak is in its ability to manufacture, to design and build, to make things. Unimplemented ideas, even if they aren't as utterly trivial as most corporate patent portfolios, are worth very little and if their only purpose is to be used as a stick to beat other people then their value to the wider economy might well be negative.
  • 0

#8 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 August 2011 - 12:52 AM

...poltroonery...


I can guarantee you that you will never find this word in a newspaper article. Not unless it is a pseudo-high brow type of publication that prides itself on self importance and being condescending.

Your writings remind me of an episode of Xena:Warrior Princess I watched when I was a teenager when Gabby went to the Athens Academy for the performing bards and that one guy always spoke in these hilarious ways to try to sound intelligent but most just stood by in bemusement at his antics.
  • 0

#9 K Borowski

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

Posted 19 August 2011 - 10:16 AM

Karl, sad to say but if you had started your week investing your life savings in EK, you would have increased the savings by 50% by the end of the week. EK is not as dead as you think it is.


Because they anticipate it being sold off and or bought out? That's hardly an increase to be proud of. . .

And if you'd invested your life savings in Kodak stock in, say 1997, your life saving would be gone. Kodak was worth nearly $100 a share then.
  • 0

#10 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11937 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 August 2011 - 10:19 AM

I can guarantee you that you will never find this word in a newspaper article.




Nor would you find "procedural pissing contest" either, which I think is even better!
  • 0

#11 K Borowski

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

Posted 19 August 2011 - 11:29 AM

Phil, I agree with your feelings on patents, but I don't think that is what Kodak anticipated happening to their patents when they filed them.

Unfortunately, they seem to be going off half-cocked trying to compete in inkjet printing, as if this is going to somehow save the company.


I think SELLING their patents is foolish. I think there is a lot that they can use them for in manufacturing, engineering new devices.



But whatever they decide to do, their film segment is still one of the only profitable ones in the entire company. If these potential buyers want, as I fear, nothing whatsoever to do with this segment of the field, they should spin it off to someone who does care. . .
  • 0

#12 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 19 August 2011 - 11:29 AM

Matthew, I beg you, don't start a flame war with Phil.

R,
  • 0

#13 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 August 2011 - 11:59 AM

Matthew, I beg you, don't start a flame war with Phil.

R,


Phil started it in another thread. :lol:
  • 0

#14 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 August 2011 - 12:04 PM

Because they anticipate it being sold off and or bought out? That's hardly an increase to be proud of. . .


I think it is something to be proud of to say you were one of barely two handfuls of companies to see any gains at all on Wednesday and Thursday. And Kodak is not going to be sold off or bought out in the next six months.
  • 0

#15 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 19 August 2011 - 12:09 PM

Kodak have bought this all themselves making stocks that look like HD / Video for to many years thank goodness for Fuji. I do understand the US thinking as in its always been Kodak / Panavision / Mole Richardson .
  • 0

#16 K Borowski

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

Posted 19 August 2011 - 01:27 PM

Sorry John, am going to have to disagree with you here: The only thing MAKING Kodak money is their film. They haven't lost nearly the market share in MoPic imaging as they have in other areas to Fuji.

I hear with color photographic paper Kodak only has 30% of the market share on its home soil here in the United States. Pretty pitiful figure!


I don't agree with this practice (of mandating Kodak) but I hear some US networks require 35mm Eastman Kodak neg. for television shows. HBO may be the one I am thinking of. I don't agree with them mandating Kodak, but good for them mandating 35! They want the highest calibre for their audiences unlike the movie studios :-/ I swear, what I am seeing for some of these 3D movies, what is the latest 3D shark movie out? This summer's "Pirhana 3D" they must WANT IT to look bad. They've got to, they've got to be making fun of themselves, the genre, something, right?



Back on topic, I'd be curious to see the breakdown of numbers between Kodak and Fuji marketshare of cine film sold.

I remember David saying something about Fuji not having the physical size or capacity to actually coat enough for the world market at least before all the theatres went digital. I would assume even with the loss of clientele, they would still get a net gain in production from say '08 if they had to take world color film production upon their shoulders.


It appears that Lucky Film, checking their site, is still in business so I was wrong there. Movie film or bulk film had disappeared though, so they may be out of that market. I remember at one time their manufacturing ECP. Looks like it's back to Agfa-Gaveart, Fuji, Kodak again.
  • 0

#17 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 August 2011 - 06:48 PM

I think SELLING their patents is foolish. I think there is a lot that they can use them for in manufacturing, engineering new devices.


But patents aren't used for manufacturing or engineering. They're used for suing the other guys for making things. Big companies create or buy huge portfolios of thousands of patents, because they want to be able to use a sort of cold war - mutual assured destruction thing against the other big companies. Sue us for patent infringement, and we'll go through our 335,000 patents and find dozens of ways to sue you back. It's like little kids stockpiling snowballs for a fight. Only it takes 17 years for a patent to melt.... ;-)




-- J.S.
  • 0

#18 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1405 posts
  • Other
  • Basel, Switzerland

Posted 20 August 2011 - 01:20 AM

I don't think it's going too far to say that this sort of despicable poltroonery is one of the principal sicknesses of modern western civilisation.

Entirely agree with you, Phil. I call it opportunism.
  • 0

#19 K Borowski

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

Posted 20 August 2011 - 03:44 AM

Not true here. Kodak has a proud tradition of USING its patents. Look at the long line of innovation they came up with: From the first movie films in the 1890s to some of the first digital cameras, polyester film, color negative, Kodachrome, the stocks for technicolor, the first films to land on the moon, Super 8, Cineon, the Kodak picture CD in the '90s, and a lot of things I am not remembering too well late on a Friday night.

Kodak has had a lot of CURRENT INNOVATIVE IDEAS LATELY, that that ink peddling buffoon running the country has killed on the vine.
  • 0

#20 K Borowski

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

Posted 20 August 2011 - 03:44 AM

Not true here. Kodak has a proud tradition of USING its patents. Look at the long line of innovation they came up with: From the first movie films in the 1890s to some of the first digital cameras, polyester film, color negative, Kodachrome, the stocks for technicolor, the first films to land on the moon, Super 8, Cineon, the Kodak picture CD in the '90s, and a lot of things I am not remembering too well late on a Friday night.

Kodak has had a lot of CURRENT INNOVATIVE IDEAS LATELY, that that ink peddling buffoon running the country has killed on the vine.
  • 0


rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Technodolly

CineLab

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

CineLab

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products