Jump to content


Photo

Kodak Preparing to File Chapter 11


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#1 David S Carroll

David S Carroll
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Student
  • Minneapolis Minnesota

Posted 04 January 2012 - 03:14 PM

It'll be a sad day. Wall Street Journal
  • 0

#2 Adrian Sierkowski

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

Posted 04 January 2012 - 03:22 PM

Wouldn't be the first (or last) a big company has filed for bankruptcy to restructure ect. Honestly, I'm not really sweating too much of anything with Kodak (which most people read as film) disappearing forevermore, despite their dire financial straights; and if they did somehow magically disappear, well Fuji would soon find themselves with a lot more customers.
  • 0

#3 Claus Harding

Claus Harding
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Other

Posted 04 January 2012 - 07:24 PM

Given both the concrete and historical/symbolic importance of Kodak on film, I'd say this is not just another company seeking protection.
This is the one that could be the nail in the coffin for so much smaller film-making if they suddenly start shutting down S-8, 16mm and so on.

God, this is bitter. Call me a sentimental fool, but this affects me.
  • 0

#4 Dave Kovacs

Dave Kovacs
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 04 January 2012 - 09:10 PM

Keep shooting film. Don't worry about anything. Shoot film, support your local film lab. Push for your projects to be shot on film, when it suits the story. Chapter 11 is a financial strategy that allows them to figure out the next step. It is not the end. Save up some money and buy in bulk and freeze the film for a later shoot. Keep shooting film.
  • 0

#5 Jon Rosenbloom

Jon Rosenbloom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 713 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 04 January 2012 - 11:43 PM

... Push for your projects to be shot on film, when it suits the story. ...


When wouldn't it suit the story?
  • 0

#6 Dave Kovacs

Dave Kovacs
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 05 January 2012 - 12:15 AM

When wouldn't it suit the story?


Jon,

YOU'RE RIGHT. I always push for film. Always. I added that because somebody will always say "film doesn't fit every project'.
  • 0

#7 Adrian Sierkowski

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

Posted 05 January 2012 - 06:45 AM

When wouldn't it suit the story?


Cloverfield comes to mind as a time when film doesn't fit the story... It's not always the right choice.
  • 0

#8 Paul Bartok

Paul Bartok
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 05 January 2012 - 07:58 AM

thats crazy, I think they need to loose some of there waste of money operations, they make there bulk through printing services, equipment, film, chemicals and patents etc. loose all the other stuff focus on film that's what there good at, reduce the size of the company and they could keep going for a few more years. But lets face it when practicality overtakes the cost of nostalgia they cant afford to keep in business just because we love film you know., I've heard digital vs film too many time im getting sick of it, i personally love film but I can see the future is clearly not going to last. Move on a great cinematographer can make a masterpiece using any type of equipment he just has to know how to use it weather film or digital.
  • 0

#9 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1584 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 05 January 2012 - 09:17 AM

Cloverfield comes to mind as a time when film doesn't fit the story... It's not always the right choice.



I liked Cloverfield as a sort of experimental feature but I thought the Si-2K clipping was distracting.

-Rob-
  • 0

#10 Adrian Sierkowski

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

Posted 05 January 2012 - 09:19 AM

I don't think there was an SI-2K on cloverfield. It was a Viper and an HVX200 if I'm remembering correctly.

The only Si-2K film I can think of which was really big was Slumdog MIllionare, and I think some parts of 127 hours were captured with it.
  • 0

#11 Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1291 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Olympia, WA (US)

Posted 05 January 2012 - 10:15 AM

More from WSJ

WSJ: Kodak may file for bankruptcy.

WSJ: Video report
  • 0

#12 Paul Bartok

Paul Bartok
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 05 January 2012 - 10:24 AM

I don't think there was an SI-2K on cloverfield. It was a Viper and an HVX200 if I'm remembering correctly.

The only Si-2K film I can think of which was really big was Slumdog MIllionare, and I think some parts of 127 hours were captured with it.

Panasonic AG-HSC1U
Panasonic AG-HVX200
Sony CineAlta F23
Thomson VIPER FilmStream Camera

:)
  • 0

#13 Vincenzo Condorelli AIC

Vincenzo Condorelli AIC
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 74 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 05 January 2012 - 08:04 PM

not a good news for sure. i'm not american, i do not know much about chapter 11 and this sort of stuff, what i definitely know is that my life, not just my career, changed after shooting the glorious double x 5222 b&w eastman kodak. that's when i definitely fell in love with the craft of cinematography, that's when i truly understood the meaning of lighting for narrative motion picture. it was a honour and a privilege. nowadays worldwide cinematographers of my generation (those in the mid 30s-early 40s) are facing a huge challenge in a time of great transition. what we need to preserve is not a specific support or a tool, what we need to defend is the integrity of our work, the control and the vision. long live film, but it's our eyes that makes the difference not the support we shoot on.

Edited by Vincenzo Condorelli AIC, 05 January 2012 - 08:05 PM.

  • 0

#14 Kevith Mitchell

Kevith Mitchell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 05 January 2012 - 09:50 PM

This actually might be good for Kodak. They will be forced to restructure. For the last 3 years, they have had their head buried in the sand and doing nothing to compete against digital except raise the prices in stocks. Now the labs are gone, digital projection has taken over, and everyone and their mom shoots on digital, Kodak has to change itself for the 21st century. Think positive about this.
  • 0

#15 Vincenzo Condorelli AIC

Vincenzo Condorelli AIC
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 74 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 January 2012 - 05:41 AM

in any case, this is a rather impressive list:

http://motion.kodak....tions/index.htm

i didnt know all those american top tv series were shot on film.
  • 0

#16 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11940 posts
  • Other

Posted 06 January 2012 - 06:42 AM

or the last 3 years, they have had their head buried in the sand and doing nothing to compete against digital except raise the prices in stocks.



I'd have said more like the last 15. Or 25. It's not as if we didn't know this change was coming, and in my view Kodak has had reprieve after reprieve as the industry somehow managed to persuade people to keep paying for film. As I've said before, film as a technology is unique in that it fought off competitors until those competitors were really pretty reasonable. Many other technologies (tube video cameras spring to mind) were usurped by replacements that were often significantly less good in at least some respects, albeit cheaper and more convenient.

Clearly it's difficult to execute a complete shift in the technology base of a company, but there was lots and lots and lots of warning.

P
  • 0

#17 Martin Hong

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

Posted 06 January 2012 - 12:55 PM

I personally think, that Kodak needs to know how to evolve and adjust to the new digital era..

I mean, is always about money, small productions won't go to films because the budget, that's why digital is taking the place.. More and more bigger productions are starting to do the same, saves money and some time. Think about what happened to the film photography camera, professional and photography lovers are still using them, but they are not enough for Kodak to invest money on that to produce insignificant amount of film just for them. They why they stopped.

Also think about what happened to Blockbuster, I think they didn't know how to adopt to the new digital era, internet and new generation TV took them down. I think a drastic change is needed to overcome this...
  • 0

#18 Tony Koretz

Tony Koretz
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Sound Department
  • New Zealand

Posted 06 January 2012 - 09:06 PM

Not just moving pictures, but stills as well, film is "not so gradually" dying out it seems. It's a shame in many ways that iconic companies like Kodak are struggling so much, but it's the reality of a changing world. I use a digital camera to take pictures, it's so much easier, but when it comes to that "mood" picture I still like to grab my old 80's Minolta SLR and snap a shot or two as well. But it's harder to buy film, you don't have the instant pictures that you get with digiital, and processing is relatively expensive.
It's the same with the world of amalog audio tape..getting harder to source and more expensive. There are less people capable of servicing tape machines, parts are harder to get as well. The life of analog film and tape use, except for maybe a few specialties, is probably limited from here on in I suspect. Digital keeps getting better and cheaper.
Still it is kind of sad to see. BUt Kodak will have to find a way to adapt to the digital world or it's "good night nurse" to them.
  • 0

#19 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 07 January 2012 - 03:46 AM

Clearly it's difficult to execute a complete shift in the technology base of a company, but there was lots and lots and lots of warning.

Yeah, but the same ol' same ol','twer ever thus ....

What 6/7/8 figure salaried executive is going to tell the board that in reality he's just a clueless twat in a business suit and maybe they'd better get someone in with some fresh ideas (preferably on a more realistic salary package)?

That NEVER happens. They just keep pulling one "sure fire" scheme after another out of their arse until they either get fired (usually with an obscenely large golden handshake), or the company goes belly-up.

I would say that in a very large number of cases these people know full well that there are people out there who could save these companies, but that's of no interest to them, because it won't be THEM saving the company.

Restructuring is all well and good, as long as it's restructured around the "incumbents".

It's like every company is in favour of industry standards, as long as they're THEIR standards that get adopted.
  • 0

#20 Jason Reimer

Jason Reimer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Student
  • Rochester, NY

Posted 07 January 2012 - 02:45 PM

One thing that's frustrating about this is that many executives will be thinking to themselves, "See, this just proves that that old dinosaur film technology is needs to go, there's no market for it, it can't sustain itself, blah blah blah". I mean, if these companies are going out of business, there must not be enough business, right? Wrong. Polaroid thought their instant film was a thing of the past, so they jettisoned it, when actually, there was still enough demand for it for another company to come along and try to reinvent the wheel with some of Polaroid's old tools. Granted, it's now more of a niche market, but it's there, it's loyal, and it's not going away. The problem is, the product isn't as good as it was when Polaroid had it. I wonder if that will happen with Kodak's film stocks, should they ever drop it altogether? The moral of the story here is that it's cheaper for a company that owns an existing technology to just be a good steward of it than it is for a new company to come along and try to restart the same thing from scratch. Obviously, the market for film is always going to be there, but are they going to have the good sense to want to put out the effort to keep that segment of their business, even though there are more lucrative areas to get into (ie- catch up)?

All I know is, it'll be a sad day if I ever don't have the option of shooting a few sheets of 8x10 Tri-X 320 and processing it with HC110 dilution H, or some 35mm TMax 3200, or some 16mm b&w like I've been wanting to do for years now :(
  • 0


Tai Audio

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

CineLab

CineTape

Opal

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets