Jump to content


Photo

Kodak signs deal to secure future of film manufacturing.


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 John Salim

John Salim
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Other
  • Essex, UK

Posted 07 June 2013 - 04:09 AM

Kodak has reached a deal with 20th Century Fox to supply film to its movie and television studios making them the sixth major studio to sign up.

This good news will secure motion picture film manufacturing for the foreseeable future.

 

Kodak article here….

http://motion.kodak....013/Jun03_1.htm

 

John S :D


  • 0

#2 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11943 posts
  • Other

Posted 07 June 2013 - 05:31 AM

I hate to say it, but where else would they have gone for film stock?


  • 0

#3 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 07 June 2013 - 10:04 AM

I think it's more important that they are still going for film stock.


  • 1

#4 Will Montgomery

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

Posted 07 June 2013 - 04:10 PM

Hope they can use this time to figure out a model that allows for small runs when this deal is done so we can have something to put in our cameras.


  • 1

#5 Matt Stevens

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

Posted 07 June 2013 - 05:28 PM

FOX could have shot DIE HARD 5 with an Alexa or RED but they shot it on film (Fuji stock) so thank God some studios are realizing that film needs to live. 


  • 0

#6 Giray Izcan

Giray Izcan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 June 2013 - 05:48 PM

Also, look at other movies like Hangover. Part 2 was shot on digital, and 3 is back on film. Amazing Spider man was shot on digital, and the second one is back on film. Superman Returns was shot digitally and the latest one is back on film. Star Trek is on film. The Lone Ranger was shot on Alexa for interior scenes and 35 for exteriors, how come? Isn't digital's dynamic range supposed to be pretty much equal to film? Ling story short, I am really glad that film is here with us...
  • 0

#7 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 08 June 2013 - 12:46 AM

There is nothing more addictive than the smell of a fresh can of stock. And, I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that at those budget levels, costs become really a wash... or at least much more inconsequential.

The main concern is whether or not it, that is film origination, in it's current state, can still sustain an industrial scale which makes financial sense and doesn't skew the math. I am optimistic, which is to say young enough to still be naive and hopeful.


  • 2

#8 Giray Izcan

Giray Izcan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 June 2013 - 02:09 AM

Nowadays people try too hard to nominate the "best" camera. I think it is pretty absurd to do that, because, every story callsfor different camera system.
  • 0

#9 Prashantt Rai

Prashantt Rai
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 116 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 03:21 PM

Film rocks! It's colour rendition is still the best, the tones and textures still unbeatable. The problem for film lies in distribution. Film manufacturers made money on prints; negative processing for features would be literally free say 10-20 years back. Honestly, I still like watching films in theatres on print. 

In digital screening there are often lot of problems - black level, heavy compression of files, etc. at least with film prints, though they were expensive but one thing was assured, in that much money you paid for the print your quality of images were assured and inbuilt.

 

All these talks of scratches and dirts are bullshit. In Mumbai, I always saw films in theatres with pristine print quality only in smaller towns the qaulity of print suffered. Now a days, it is just the other way round - People in small towns, pay less money and watch pristine prints because they cannot afford a hefty digital projection system 'upgrade' and people in big cities have to watch compressed digital projection. not every theatre is purely 2K or the digital files originating in highres


  • 1

#10 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 10 June 2013 - 06:28 AM

I thought they already figured out how to do short runs and the ability to resurrect any stock from yore.


  • 0

#11 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 10 June 2013 - 09:29 AM

Depends how you quantify short. You basically have to do a whole master roll order I believe, and that's a fair amount of film.


  • 0

#12 Will Montgomery

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

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:47 PM

Depends how you quantify short. You basically have to do a whole master roll order I believe, and that's a fair amount of film.

Sounds like a project made for Kickstarter. What stocks would we want back? (Besides Kodachrome since they wouldn't produce the processing chemicals again for it)


  • 0

#13 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 10 June 2013 - 04:57 PM

Hmm... I really miss what they called 5260, a odd-ball 500T which was similar to Fuji Vivid, or honestly, I'd LOVE the old 800T stock back. I know it's a snowstorm of grain.. but man, I'd have fun with that (and I also know that '19 can be treated the same as it with much better results.. it's just one of those stocks slightly before my time that I got to roll once and never saw the results of, alas).


  • 0

#14 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 10 June 2013 - 06:29 PM

PLUS-X!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  • 1

#15 Alan Duckworth

Alan Duckworth
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Producer
  • Kelowna, B.C. Canada

Posted 12 June 2013 - 03:50 PM

But, according to this  http://rochesterhome...t?nxd_id=394722 Kodak is discontinuing production of acetate stock. There is a statement in there about buying it from other manufacturers....??? Since acetate is camera stock, this doesn't sound good.


  • 0

#16 Heikki Repo

Heikki Repo
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 421 posts
  • Director
  • Finland

Posted 12 June 2013 - 04:05 PM

The author of the book writes:

 

Secondly, Kodak has announced that they will stop making acetate support (cellulose triacetate, CTA) that is primarily used for still roll and motion camera films. After their existing stocks are consumed they plan on purchasing acetate for these films from other manufacturers.

I don't believe that this will cause any significant decrease in product quality or availability of Kodak photographic film. CTA is used for applications like flat screen TVs so other have learned how to make high quality CTA.

http://www.apug.org/...ilm-author.html
 


  • 0

#17 Heikki Repo

Heikki Repo
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 421 posts
  • Director
  • Finland

Posted 12 June 2013 - 04:10 PM

And then there is this: http://motion.kodak....71668/index.htm


  • 0

#18 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 12 June 2013 - 04:11 PM

Exactly. You're talking just about one of the most basic parts of film. If it's more economical for them to buy it as needed in bulk and leave the manufacture to others, then why do it in house? As long as there is QC on it, and I am sure there will be, I don't see this having and substantial impact on film, aside from allowing Kodak to save a few bucks which they need.


  • 0

#19 Alan Duckworth

Alan Duckworth
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Producer
  • Kelowna, B.C. Canada

Posted 12 June 2013 - 04:14 PM

@ Heikki:  Thanks for providing that link - it gives me a little more faith in the potential future of camera stock than I had an hour ago!


  • 0


Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

CineLab

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Opal

The Slider

Metropolis Post

CineLab

CineTape

Opal

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Abel Cine

Technodolly