Jump to content


Photo

What if KODAK stops manufacturing FILM?


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#1 Rajavel Olhiveeran

Rajavel Olhiveeran
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • India

Posted 11 October 2011 - 03:25 AM

I guess Kodak as a company is undergoing a tough time in the market. The company might rework its logistics and the business model and survive or even thrive but What happens if Kodak stops manufacturing Film for the Movies?
its kind of scary to even think of it. Its really not about the opposing topic 'Movies going digital' and hence we
all need to be prepared for going digital, this is just about the possibility of wee going without film suddenly.
Is there anything like that which is gonna happen in the near future.is there any time frame for which the Film is
gonna last in the kingdom of movie making. Do some senior members of this forum and
futuristic thinkers have any definitive answer for this? This is a sad question but sincerely i want to be optimistic about
this situation and hope for Film forever!
Thanks all. regards.
  • 0

#2 John Holland

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

Posted 11 October 2011 - 04:00 AM

Fuji will keep on making film . So nothing to worry about. :D
  • 0

#3 K Borowski

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

Posted 11 October 2011 - 11:51 AM

TYou realize, John, that Kodak going under will mean a probably end to research and development at Fuji for stock improvemetns there. They will probably try to find ways to cut costs on film coating; Kodak was always good at making those sorts of "improvements" too. We'll see if Fuji picks up slack there.


Ironically, it looks as if black and white film is going to outlive color. There will certainly be B&W film even a century from now. Color's future is very uncertain.
  • 0

#4 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 11 October 2011 - 12:36 PM

Then there won't be any more film. It will be sad to lose an option in our toolboxes but it's not the end of the world. I haven't touched a piece of film for a movie camera in a year and a half and, honestly, I don't miss it. Systems like the alexa are getting so good that I don't miss it.
  • 0

#5 John Holland

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

Posted 11 October 2011 - 12:52 PM

Karl i cant agree with you about R+D. Fuji i think are more on the ball than Kodak have been for years, over the last 30 years Kodak have rushed out to many crap stocks which they have had to withdraw and bring out again with a a new stock code . I have been shat on them to many times over too many years .Agfa came out with wonderful motion picture stocks XT 320 being one of them but were forced out of the market by Kodaks dominating the American market . End of rant .
  • 0

#6 Matt Stevens

Matt Stevens
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Other

Posted 11 October 2011 - 01:12 PM

If Kodak goes, goodbye affordable super8 film stock. Maybe goodbye, period.
  • 0

#7 KH Martin

KH Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Other
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 11 October 2011 - 01:27 PM

With the way they've already altered the stocks to make them more midrange-looking (like vid/dig to my eye), it is looking like less and less of a loss, even though I'm the biggest film guy I know. Bright vibrant colors and super contrast with deep blacks -- the richness of film image -- was what you got shooting Kodachrome, and that is already gone. If I'd still been shooting Super8 when when Kodachrome went away, I'd probably have needed to be medicated.
  • 0

#8 K Borowski

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

Posted 11 October 2011 - 02:08 PM

Sorry, but what does Super 8 reversal have anything to do with color neg.?


The thread is about 16- 35mm color neg. I don't know anyone, even documentaries, shooting reversal anymore. Be thankful any of that is made; it's charity.



Kodak and Fuji both offer higher contrast options, primarily Fuji at this point with their Vivid line. . . a lot of people I've heard saying they don't like it though, so go figure.


The contrast of the 35mm neg to print system is very high, maybe not as high as a reversal original, but the highest contrast anything from a 4th generation copy can provide.
  • 0

#9 Matt Stevens

Matt Stevens
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Other

Posted 11 October 2011 - 02:54 PM

Sorry, but what does Super 8 reversal have anything to do with color neg.?


The thread is about 16- 35mm color neg. I don't know anyone, even documentaries, shooting reversal anymore. Be thankful any of that is made; it's charity


Nowhere did this thread specify that only 16 and 35mm were being discussed. FILM includes Super8. I simply made a statement related to this. As one who loves to shoot on Super8, I'd be mighty upset were it suddenly not be available.
  • 0

#10 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 11 October 2011 - 04:17 PM

but What happens if Kodak stops manufacturing Film for the Movies?


I already have my Hari-kari plan in place for such an eventuality.

"Hari kari, also known as sepuku, is an ancient form of ritual suicide that defeated samurai, or those whose shame was 'too unbearable' would use to restore their honor in death"

Clearly this is my only option. :rolleyes:

R,
  • 0

#11 K Borowski

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

Posted 11 October 2011 - 04:22 PM

As it relates to profits, I can assure you, color reversal and B&W film aren't keeping Kodak in business, they're practically charity.


I was an avid Kodachrome shooter back in the day. What comparable process did Fuji have in competition with Kodak's then? It's really easy to bash Kodak for products they kept in production far longer than their competitor(s).


Now, however, I am disappointed to see Kodak slash their neg stock portfolio down to five and offer only one reversal option, and eliminate Plus-X. I am in (somewhat) active negotiations to bring a replacement.



Kodak offers a current lineup that rivals Fuji's (a lot of what is said here is based on ancient information; John's favorite stock was ECN-ONE? Early ECN-II?) Things change a lot in a generation. . at any company, at least one run by mortals.



I bet very few people on here have done a stock test between the two manfuacturers, in a decade. I have to admit only having done one on print stocks myself.






Anyway, getting back to Super 8, I hesitate to mention this, God forbid I allude to the death of the home movie market in all practical terms, nearly three decades ago, but Fuji apparantly didn't discontinue Single 8. . . they just don't offer it for sale anywhere else outside of Japan.

So, maybe they will reverse this if Kodak goes under. I don't understand how someone can bash a company for offering a product, worldwide, in a limited capacity, that its competitor has conceded.



It's almost as if they shouldn't have even tried, they would've gotten less grief that way. AS someone who deals with customer satisfaction of varying degrees of sensibility on a daily basis, it's hard to see it leveled on a company that has supported me since I entered into this business.



Eastman Kodak certainly has its faults, but A it has supported me since I entered into this business with exceptional products (color longevity issues notwithstanding), and B it has provided charity products like B&W and 8mm for a very long time, with little direct financial incentive to do so.



Kodak has been fueled by color negative for almost as long as home movies became a trickle in the bucket, easily almost thirty years there as well. Don't pretend that shooting 50ft. of 8mm film in a year is a contribution. I'm a low-volume user, and I go through the equivalent of hundreds of feet of 35mm every week. . .

THe companies Eastman Kodak deals with directly go through 250,000 ft. of 35mm or equivalent.





This is in no way meant to scoff the amateur filmmaking community, but it's simple math guys. A super 8 cartridge is 3 36 exp. rolls of stills (15 feet.) Kodak and Fuji did/were sending those out for free for 35mm filmmakers, 100 feet at time.


There probably hasn't been any significant profit from S8 since 1983.

16mm volume has plummeted so much it may have already entered into the same category.
  • 0

#12 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 11 October 2011 - 05:50 PM

There will certainly be B&W film even a century from now.




Interesting -- on what do you base that hopeful prediction? Do you mean that we'll be able to shoot and print 35mm B&W movies?




-- J.S.
  • 0

#13 K Borowski

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

Posted 11 October 2011 - 06:37 PM

John: You're kidding right?

It's almost child's play making B&W film compared to color. I did it myself at a class once.



Color is almost impossible for a small company or one man operation to accomplish. For film projection technology, that's for the archives (and the number of EECS majors that erode their sensibilities) to decide.


There will be people shooting light sensitized black and white (maybe not even panchromatic emulsions) 100 years hence; I certainly don't need a crystal ball to see it. . .
  • 0

#14 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 11 October 2011 - 06:50 PM

Ah, OK, you mean niche players. That works, unless some of the critical chemicals get banned for environmental reasons.




-- J.S.
  • 0

#15 Marty Hamrick

Marty Hamrick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 543 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Oshawa, Ontario

Posted 12 October 2011 - 10:13 AM

I guess Kodak as a company is undergoing a tough time in the market. The company might rework its logistics and the business model and survive or even thrive but What happens if Kodak stops manufacturing Film for the Movies?
its kind of scary to even think of it. Its really not about the opposing topic 'Movies going digital' and hence we
all need to be prepared for going digital, this is just about the possibility of wee going without film suddenly.
Is there anything like that which is gonna happen in the near future.is there any time frame for which the Film is
gonna last in the kingdom of movie making. Do some senior members of this forum and
futuristic thinkers have any definitive answer for this? This is a sad question but sincerely i want to be optimistic about
this situation and hope for Film forever!
Thanks all. regards.


Well it looks like the big three camera manufactures are done.
http://magazine.crea...fading-to-black

Panavision, Arriflex and Aaton will no longer manuafcture film cameras. I'm all for progress, but it's still sad. For many years being a film shooter vs. a video shooter meant the difference between a weekend Cesna pilot and an astronaut, a regular sailor and a Navy SEAL. What happens to the exclusivity benchmark now?
  • 0

#16 Francesco Bonomo

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

Posted 12 October 2011 - 10:29 AM

Panavision, Arriflex and Aaton will no longer manuafcture film cameras.


Well, technically, if you want to buy an Arriflex, they will build one. It's just that there's no need to build hundreds more since the ones that already exist fit the demand. From a purely business and economic standpoint, it's very difficult to disagree with those manufacturers' choices: new digital cameras flood the market every 6 months, so you really have to concentrate your efforts in that field if you don't want to be pushed off the market.
I don't think this news is such a big deal, I've just heard from someone who's starting production on a movie that's being filmed on old Arri 35 IIC, and the last tv series I was on was shot on 15+ year old Arri SR3. There's not really any need to improve on film cameras because maybe they've reached such a high level of engineering that is very hard to better. Digital, well, that's another story, there's plenty of room for improvement, and it still gets compared to film, which says a lot.

For many years being a film shooter vs. a video shooter meant the difference between a weekend Cesna pilot and an astronaut, a regular sailor and a Navy SEAL. What happens to the exclusivity benchmark now?


Maybe that's just me, but IMHO it was never about the Cessna or the Space Shuttle, it was always and it still all is about the pilot and the voyage itself. In other words, you can give an IMAX camera to someone who doesn't know what the hell he's doing and the result will be an unwatchable piece of trash, in 65mm. Or you can give a mini-DV camera to a master storyteller and cinematographer, with a great story, and the result could very well be a masterpiece.
  • 0

#17 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 12 October 2011 - 10:31 AM

Oh well not to worry, the film cameras we have now will last for 500 years. No need to make new ones. In that same 500 year period there will be 50 new digital systems (500 years/10 years.)

R,
  • 0

#18 Marty Hamrick

Marty Hamrick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 543 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Oshawa, Ontario

Posted 12 October 2011 - 10:37 AM

Maybe that's just me, but IMHO it was never about the Cessna or the Space Shuttle, it was always and it still all is about the pilot and the voyage itself. In other words, you can give an IMAX camera to someone who doesn't know what the hell he's doing and the result will be an unwatchable piece of trash, in 65mm. Or you can give a mini-DV camera to a master storyteller and cinematographer, with a great story, and the result could very well be a masterpiece.

That's quite true, however when you go to sell your services and compete with everyone else, being a film shooter meant something to the folks paying your salary. Plus, I think it's safe to say that no one is going give someone, particularly a talentless bum with no clue how to shoot film an IMAX camera and film stock and expect them to shoot somewhing worthwhile.If you're paying for film, you're not going to hire someone who's only experience is with a DV camera, regardless of how good his DV project was.
  • 0

#19 Francesco Bonomo

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

Posted 12 October 2011 - 10:57 AM

Oh well not to worry, the film cameras we have now will last for 500 years. No need to make new ones. In that same 500 year period there will be 50 new digital systems (500 years/10 years.)

R,


exactly


That's quite true, however when you go to sell your services and compete with everyone else, being a film shooter meant something to the folks paying your salary. Plus, I think it's safe to say that no one is going give someone, particularly a talentless bum with no clue how to shoot film an IMAX camera and film stock and expect them to shoot somewhing worthwhile.If you're paying for film, you're not going to hire someone who's only experience is with a DV camera, regardless of how good his DV project was.


Yeah, of course mine was a very theoretical scenario. In the end, what i was trying to say, is that technology matters relatively very little when all is said and done. If you're good, you're good, if you're not, you're not, regardless of the tools.

Of course, some camera manufactures have a HUGE interest in saying that "now, even YOU can shoot with the same camera that was used on the latest blockbuster", but no one tells those customers that it's almost the same as saying "now you can drink the same coffee in the same kind of paper cup that was used on the latest hollywood blockbuster".
  • 0

#20 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 12 October 2011 - 11:15 AM

I smell a new Starbucks marketing campaign.

Of course, some camera manufactures have a HUGE interest in saying that "now, even YOU can shoot with the same camera that was used on the latest blockbuster", but no one tells those customers that it's almost the same as saying "now you can drink the same coffee in the same kind of paper cup that was used on the latest hollywood blockbuster".


  • 0


rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Opal

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Technodolly

Abel Cine

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products