Jump to content

Kodak predicts film business to be profitable in 2016!


AAK

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Apologies for a slightly off-topic thread (not directly related to Leica), but something caught my attention that is of interest and relevance to those of us who shoot film. Kodak is predicting (I can hardly believe this) that it's film business will return to profitability in 2016! Many people know that the new Star Wars movie, The Force Awakens, which opens this week, was filmed on Kodak motion picture film. There's a short article about the interview with Jeff Clarke, CEO of Kodak, here, where his profitability prediction is given. This follows a deal made last year between the movie industry and Kodak that the former would agree to purchase some minimum amount of film annually going forward. Now they need to open a new motion picture processing lab on the East coast of the U.S. after the last one closed.

 

For all of us who use film, this has to be encouraging news. 

 

Kodachrome, anyone?

 

 

 

 

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that film has always been profitable for Kodak, I've seen figures. I think I'm right in saying that the 'film' division of the old company included a number of other loss making digital products. 

 

Perhaps they're talking about the new Kodak and it wouldn't be surprising to find that the new film division has been running at a loss initially due to the new structure. In that case, to return a profit so soon is remarkable for any business coming out of an insolvency situation. 

 

Either way, let's hope they continue to go from strength to strength. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

More details on the new Star Wars movie at the Kodak website, with mention of the improvement in film emulsions (since the first Star Wars film), lenses etc.  Quite interesting.  I really think this new movie is an important event for film photography. This is what the cinematographer, Dan Mindel, has to say: "To see the film rendition at full resolution is so incredible. I recently shot another movie digitally, and the differences between that and what is possible with film are huge. Film is so high-tech in its present form. It looks the way my eyes saw it, and that is something that is very difficult with digital cameras. Film sees so much more. To me, it's just gorgeous. It's phenomenal."  That's quite a statement.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking forward to the new Star Wars film. In the meantime, for that sublime "dont make them like they used to" film experience, consider (re)watching the Godfather Part II. It's like 3 hours of Kodachrome porn (and a good movie, to boot).

 

I rewatched this just a couple of months ago and couldnt get the envious (and hopeless) "I want that" feeling out of my stomach...

 

I have my doubts that the new Star Wars film will deliver the same level of film porn as the obsolete "dye transfer process" used in the GF. But i am excited nonetheless.

Edited by A miller
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Kodak has reduced 135 production to five films, Portra, Ektar, Gold, T-Max and TX with a limited amount of speeds.  Unprofitable niche emulation (Photomicrography 2483, Panatomic X) and other older films which production continued while the money came from sales of consumer film will never be seen again.  The plus side is for the moment as consumers we know which films will be available at least the next few years.  If sales are good enough, who knows maybe Plus X will make a come back.

 
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a couple-minute clip from the Godfather II that showcases the Technicolor dye-transfer process, which i understand was one of the last films to use such a process...

 

The colors in the scene on the water are just sublime...

 

Edited by A miller
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sure the meaningful increase in prices per roll is helping this :(

Portra 800 is now $10 in the US and the portra 400 is $7.50. Why portra 800 is so much higher i have no idea.

 

Menh!

 

In the past, additional ISO speed was enough to justify extra cost ("Hey, you want to shoot in dimmer light? You pay for the privilege!")

 

These days, it is probably just volume. Costs of setting up a run, printing boxes, printing foil wrappers (for 120), divided over the number of rolls that will sell. Portra 800 probably sells significantly fewer rolls per year than 400 or 160. And you can't put 800 in 400/160 boxes.

 

Plus, Kodak competes with itself via the consumer 200 and 400 films vs. Portra 160/400. The 800 has no direct competition to lean on pricing.

 

Except Lomo 800, but that was reboxed Ferrania and no longer made - and massively grainy by comparison (although nice color).

 

As other have said, film for Kodak has generally been profitable all along, except for 1 or 2 quarters here and there. The problem was that it was not profitable enough to cover the losses in every other division of Kodak (digicams, consumer printing, minilabs, chemicals, startup costs of commercial printing, etc.). If you lose $2 billion in a year, film making a $50 million profit doesn't help much.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Re Technicolor DT process - actually a bit more complex history than that, although indeed the last US film made with it was GFII. Was used in China, which bought the UK lab equipment, through 1993.

 

And the printing process (not the cameras, necessarily) was reintroduced 1997-2002 and used for Pearl Harbor, among other films, for "1940s" look.

 

It's worth pointing out that the "look" of GF I and II was due more to the genius and technique of NYC cinematographer Gordon Willis, than any inherent characteristic of Technicolor.

 

Technicolor had been around for decades when he shot GF I, but as someone said after his death: "He was one of the giants who absolutely changed the way movies looked. Up until the time of The Godfather and The Godfather Part II, nothing previously shot looked that way. He changed the way films looked and the way people looked at films."

 

(Willis also shot many films for Woody Allen, including Annie Hall and Manhattan.)

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news for all film lovers. Thanks AAK

Star Wars but also  "The Hateful Eight" of Quentin Tarantino and "Twin Peaks" of David Lynch also in film.

My Kodak film supplier in Paris told me he was selling Portra like hotcakes, expression that means he sells a lot ...

Best

Henry

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not going to happen BUT let's just dream a bit as a kind of 2016 wish - Kodachrome is re-released !!!!!!!!!!

Yes Paul  for the New Year it'll be good  :)

In waiting ....

with great discussion about Kodachrome in our thread 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?p=2950500

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?p=2949957

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?p=2948767

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?p=2948866

Best

Henry

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy, isn't Fuji Superia 800 still made? I see it in online shops but it may be the last stock. It's usually quite a lot less than Portra 800 (about sub-7EUR).

 

Plus, Kodak competes with itself via the consumer 200 and 400 films vs. Portra 160/400. The 800 has no direct competition to lean on pricing.

 

Except Lomo 800, but that was reboxed Ferrania and no longer made - and massively grainy by comparison (although nice color).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Menh!

 

In the past, additional ISO speed was enough to justify extra cost ("Hey, you want to shoot in dimmer light? You pay for the privilege!")

 

These days, it is probably just volume. Costs of setting up a run, printing boxes, printing foil wrappers (for 120), divided over the number of rolls that will sell. Portra 800 probably sells significantly fewer rolls per year than 400 or 160. And you can't put 800 in 400/160 boxes.

 

Plus, Kodak competes with itself via the consumer 200 and 400 films vs. Portra 160/400. The 800 has no direct competition to lean on pricing.

 

Except Lomo 800, but that was reboxed Ferrania and no longer made - and massively grainy by comparison (although nice color).

 

As other have said, film for Kodak has generally been profitable all along, except for 1 or 2 quarters here and there. The problem was that it was not profitable enough to cover the losses in every other division of Kodak (digicams, consumer printing, minilabs, chemicals, startup costs of commercial printing, etc.). If you lose $2 billion in a year, film making a $50 million profit doesn't help much.

At first blush this makes some sense. But then what you figure that the portra 800 really is at its best when rated at 500-600, that brings it awfully close to portra 400 and the Fuji 400s in terms of speed, particularly given that the portra 400 and Fuji 400 push better. So I am still a little lost on this...

Edited by A miller
Link to post
Share on other sites

At first blush this makes some sense. But then what you figure that the portra 800 really is at its best when rated at 500-600, that brings it awfully close to portra 400 and the Fuji 400s in terms of speed, particularly given that the portra 400 and Fuji 400 push better. So I am still a little lost on this...

I just got some CineStill 800T and an 85B filter (for daylight). $9.99 a roll (35 mm/36 exposures) at Adorama. I'm looking forward to shooting with it in Hawaii over the Christmas break.  :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got some CineStill 800T and an 85B filter (for daylight). $9.99 a roll (35 mm/36 exposures) at Adorama. I'm looking forward to shooting with it in Hawaii over the Christmas break.  :)

that sounds logical, the coolness you'll get from using the cinestill 800 in daylight balanced by the warming filter.

By why not just go with Cinstill 50?  Or Portra 160?

Is it the speed you are after?

For daylight speed it would seem that portra 800 would actually be a good choice in this instance... Then again portra 400 pushed a stop (which is my normal workflow) would also be great if you need the speed.

I'd be interested in seeing some of your results (Perhaps post then in the "I Like Film" thread)

Above all, have a wonderful and relaxing trip, and happy holidays!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

that sounds logical, the coolness you'll get from using the cinestill 800 in daylight balanced by the warming filter.

By why not just go with Cinstill 50?  Or Portra 160?

Is it the speed you are after?

For daylight speed it would seem that portra 800 would actually be a good choice in this instance... Then again portra 400 pushed a stop (which is my normal workflow) would also be great if you need the speed.

I'd be interested in seeing some of your results (Perhaps post then in the "I Like Film" thread)

Above all, have a wonderful and relaxing trip, and happy holidays!!

 

Thank you! Actually, I'm going to bring several films to use with my M-A: CineStill 50D and 800T (I've never shot either before), Velvia 50, Ektar 100, Portra 160, Tri-X 400, Delta 3200). It will be an experiment/learning opportunity in a great setting with plenty of time to think about film photography again.

 

Tony

Edited by AAK
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of Cinematographers love to use film and still do it.

But this is nothing compared to the huge loss that cinemas don't show film any more.

DVD-Blurays or even streaming but no more 35mm copies :(

Edited by eckart
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...