sarav Posted December 18, 2015 Share #21 Posted December 18, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) ....Kodachrome in 2016? What a dream!!! It's impossible, they should reestablish the developing plants...a little bit expensive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 Hi sarav, Take a look here Kodak predicts film business to be profitable in 2016!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
chris_livsey Posted December 19, 2015 Share #22 Posted December 19, 2015 On Kodachrome: I strongly suspect that if every photographer who laments the loss had actually shot say 10 rolls a year, every year, it would have survived. Like most I hadn't shot it in years but it was comforting to know it was there if I wanted to, no film is going to survive on that. sarav is correct, it was the processing that killed it and that was lack of volume to make it economic. Why didn't we shoot it? It wasn't the wait it was what you did when they came back, scanning was a problem with the colours, and then the "sparkle" went anyway it just looked "odd" and, like shooting the film, when did you last get out the projector, yes mine's in the loft as well, and to keep to forum rules it's a Leitz. Yes I miss the comfort of the continuity to all those slide boxes I have of Dad's shots, just as sparkly and saturated as they day they came back from Hemel Hempstead in the card mounts with the now invaluable date on but: It's gone, not coming back,work on protecting what's left by shooting it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted December 20, 2015 Share #23 Posted December 20, 2015 I think Kodak's return to profitability was entirely on the back of two 400' spools of 5222 I bought a few months ago. You can thank me later... s-a Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotohuis Posted December 26, 2015 Share #24 Posted December 26, 2015 Wel the new EU prices for Tri-X 400 in 30,5m/100ft is Eur. 140,- incl. 21% Dutch VAT. The Kodak 5222 Double-X 122m/400ft was a better deal however "made in USA" and due to the higher US$ rate last months comparing to the Euro, $175 or Eur. 160 (Excl. VAT) for a 122m/400ft reel in S/E sounds like a bit better but cine has nothing to do with Kodak Alaris, the film division. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted January 11, 2016 Share #25 Posted January 11, 2016 If film use is stable or increasing despite price increases (assumption) then it should be possible for Kodak to find a way to scale operations and costs to be profitable in this division. However film is a small part of Kodak and the rest doesn't look so promising at the moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted January 11, 2016 Share #26 Posted January 11, 2016 I'm sure that film has always been profitable for Kodak, I've seen figures. In the article, Kodak's CEO is quotes as saying, "thanks to its film push and restructuring efforts, Kodak went from losing $100 million annually on its film business to "breaking even the last three quarters," and he expects it to be profitable in 2016." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 12, 2016 Share #27 Posted January 12, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) chris_livsey, on 19 Dec 2015 - 09:53, said: On Kodachrome: I strongly suspect that if every photographer who laments the loss had actually shot say 10 rolls a year, every year, it would have survived. Like most I hadn't shot it in years but it was comforting to know it was there if I wanted to, no film is going to survive on that. sarav is correct, it was the processing that killed it and that was lack of volume to make it economic. Why didn't we shoot it? It wasn't the wait it was what you did when they came back, scanning was a problem with the colours, and then the "sparkle" went anyway it just looked "odd" and, like shooting the film, when did you last get out the projector, yes mine's in the loft as well, and to keep to forum rules it's a Leitz. Yes I miss the comfort of the continuity to all those slide boxes I have of Dad's shots, just as sparkly and saturated as they day they came back from Hemel Hempstead in the card mounts with the now invaluable date on but: It's gone, not coming back,work on protecting what's left by shooting it. I made Cibachrome prints from it, and it used to beat any other process, but yes, I admit, that is a long time ago... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJH Posted January 12, 2016 Share #28 Posted January 12, 2016 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 On the subject of projection I went to see Star Wars the other week and had a seat down the front of the theatre. Now I am not one to have a religious preference for one technology or the other but honestly the current standard of digital projection sucks. Pixelation of the imagery was evident on the adverts and once on to the main feature the processing and final projection resulted in a sort of odd soft plasticky look to it that didn't really work for me. A real shame given much has been made about the movie being shot on film. I can remember years ago seeing films optically projected and preferred a bit of grain and texture it gave an impression albeit false that even if one sat right at the front you could never take it all in. Now you need to sit at the back of the theatre to not see how sucky and soft the projection is Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eckart Posted January 12, 2016 Share #29 Posted January 12, 2016 Well the new Tarantino will be shown as it was shooten in 70mm, if the cinema is able to do this. In Berlin there will be screenings with a 70mm copy in Zoo Palast Cinema, that's really different Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2016 Share #30 Posted January 19, 2016 Like everyone else in this thread I would like film not only to survive but also to prosper. And I've started thinking about starting to shoot some Tri-X with my M6 that I haven't used since 2006. (I shoot B&W with the M-Monochrom). But it's best to be realistic: it's not a given that the motion picture industry will "save" film and thus help to allow still photographers adequate choice of films at "reasonable cost". Not only has digital projection taken over in cinemas, but the latest digital ciné camera technology can also produce a look that can be compelling. Two example from watching movies: When I saw Gone Girl in a cinema with a huge screen and state-of-the-art digital projection technology, I was immediately struck by the beauty of the color and resolution of the first scene, in which there was a brick wall — yup, a brick wall test! — and wondered what film had been used to film the movie, for I was certain it was fim. When I got home and did a web search I found that the cinematographer had not shot film but used a new 6K digital camera (don't recall whether it was RED or Arriflex). The article I read stated that the new 6K camera had the advantage of allowing reframing in post-production when converting to 4K and that thus gave added flexibility in improving composition. The other example is the current BBC production of the six-epiode series of War and Peace. I've seen only the first episode and loved the look of the cinematography, particularly the luminous scenes with bright light streaming in through windows and the colors throughout the episode. Again, I thought that the episode had been shot on film, but a web search showed that an digital camera (Arriflex) had been used. The cinematographer spoke about the look that this camera could produce and how there cold be longer runs and how there was much greater flexibility in making "retakes". So it's not only economics that's driving use of digital ciné cameras, but also the aesthetics that can be achieved by some gifted cinematographers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted January 19, 2016 Share #31 Posted January 19, 2016 Not_a_hero -- Very true. I don't anyone believes film will return to what it was, what it was was a lot of people taking snapshots and those are now being taken with phones (just ask about what has happened to the lower end p&s digital cameras). What I hope for, at the very least, is simply just enough people with interest to keep film alive as a dynamic alternative to make its continued manufacture viable -- once the manufacturers have resized to the level of demand. Stasis, I suspect, is what we want so the alternative(s) are always there. Doesn't seem too much to ask based on recent figures from sellers, such as Kodak. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted January 19, 2016 Share #32 Posted January 19, 2016 Not_a_hero -- Very true. I don't anyone believes film will return to what it was, what it was was a lot of people taking snapshots and those are now being taken with phones (just ask about what has happened to the lower end p&s digital cameras). What I hope for, at the very least, is simply just enough people with interest to keep film alive as a dynamic alternative to make its continued manufacture viable -- once the manufacturers have resized to the level of demand. Stasis, I suspect, is what we want so the alternative(s) are always there. Doesn't seem too much to ask based on recent figures from sellers, such as Kodak. Steve i let a reply and my opinion about digital cameras sales here http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/255498-convince-me-to-buy-a-film-m/?p=2967492 A M8 recently was sold 800 Euros ! ... and a M6 second hand around 1000-1200 Euros In this case, better not sell it because it is too easy ! You have said "depreciate" ? Regards Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted January 19, 2016 Share #33 Posted January 19, 2016 When I saw Gone Girl in a cinema with a huge screen and state-of-the-art digital projection technology, I was immediately struck by the beauty of the color and resolution of the first scene, in which there was a brick wall — yup, a brick wall test! — and wondered what film had been used to film the movie, for I was certain it was fim. When I got home and did a web search I found that the cinematographer had not shot film but used a new 6K digital camera (don't recall whether it was RED or Arriflex). I only saw the 4K trailer of the film on my computer screen, but I never thought it was shot on film - I just went back to have another look, and it still looks very digital to me. There are lots of ways to make digital video look more 'film-like' - I sometimes used to do this myself when I was still working with video post-production a while ago, and the software has got much better the last few years - but Gone Girl doesn't even try to mimic the film look, so I'm not really sure how you got that impression? (edit: I should add that I don't mean I have any special ability to see when a digital video or file has been made to look 'like' film - it's almost impossible to distinguish a good example of this post-processing from the real thing on a computer screen. I just thought the movie had a very - intentionally - clean digital look to it. Plus the frequent use of low-light and backlit shots - it just had digital written all over it, I thought). In any case, I could get into the whole discussion about control over the means of distribution that has happened with the conversion to Digital Rights Managed digital projection in cinemas - but that would be a whole other thread... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted January 19, 2016 Share #34 Posted January 19, 2016 Neil, it's probably not a good idea ever to pixelpeep a motion picture When I saw the film I was so happy to see that it actually looked like the original three. I think JJ did a great job in retaining that look. Film is a bit like life in general - enjoy it while it lasts. Like so many other of you I hope that will be for quite a while to come. philip On the subject of projection I went to see Star Wars the other week and had a seat down the front of the theatre. Now I am not one to have a religious preference for one technology or the other but honestly the current standard of digital projection sucks. Pixelation of the imagery was evident on the adverts and once on to the main feature the processing and final projection resulted in a sort of odd soft plasticky look to it that didn't really work for me. A real shame given much has been made about the movie being shot on film. I can remember years ago seeing films optically projected and preferred a bit of grain and texture it gave an impression albeit false that even if one sat right at the front you could never take it all in. Now you need to sit at the back of the theatre to not see how sucky and soft the projection is Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted January 19, 2016 Share #35 Posted January 19, 2016 Kodak's 2014 annual report stated this about the company's new structure. I am not sure where consumer film made for Alaris fits in or how one could break out the sale of motion picture film from the Consumer and Film segment. I just skimmed through it so maybe it is there somewhere. http://investor.kodak.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=31235-15-2 Perhaps the 2015 annual report will make this more clear. ----------------------------------- 2015 Segments In 2015, Kodak implemented a new organizational structure to make the company faster-moving, more competitive and more entrepreneurial. Effective January 1, 2015, financial information will be reported for seven segments: Print Systems, Enterprise Inkjet Systems, Micro 3D Printing and Packaging, Software and Solutions, Consumer and Film, Intellectual Property Solutions and Eastman Business Park. · Print Systems will be comprised of Prepress Solutions, which includes Kodak’s digital offset plate offerings and computer to plate imaging solutions, and Electrophotographic Printing Solutions. · Enterprise Inkjet Systems will include commercial inkjet printing solutions and digital front-end controllers. · Micro 3D Printing and Packaging will be comprised of Packaging and Functional Printing. · Software and Solutions will be comprised of Kodak Technology Solutions, which includes enterprise services and solutions, and workflow software. · Consumer and Film will be comprised of Consumer Inkjet, Entertainment Imaging and Commercial Films, and Brand Licensing. · Intellectual Property Solutions will include licensing and research and development activities not directly related to the other segments. DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS Discontinued operations of Kodak include the Personalized Imaging and Document Imaging businesses, the digital capture and devices business, Kodak Gallery, and other miscellaneous businesses. For details, refer to Note 27, “Discontinued Operations” in the Notes to Financial Statements for additional information. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 19, 2016 Share #36 Posted January 19, 2016 Kodak's 2014 annual report stated this about the company's new structure. I am not sure where consumer film made for Alaris fits in or how one could break out the sale of motion picture film from the Consumer and Film segment. I just skimmed through it so maybe it is there somewhere. In 2015, Kodak implemented a new organizational structure to make the company faster-moving, more competitive and more entrepreneurial. Effective January 1, 2015, financial information will be reported for seven segments: Print Systems, Enterprise Inkjet Systems, Micro 3D Printing and Packaging, Software and Solutions, Consumer and Film, Intellectual Property Solutions and Eastman Business Park. · Print Systems will be comprised of Prepress Solutions, which includes Kodak’s digital offset plate offerings and computer to plate imaging solutions, and Electrophotographic Printing Solutions. · Enterprise Inkjet Systems will include commercial inkjet printing solutions and digital front-end controllers. · Micro 3D Printing and Packaging will be comprised of Packaging and Functional Printing. · Software and Solutions will be comprised of Kodak Technology Solutions, which includes enterprise services and solutions, and workflow software. · Consumer and Film will be comprised of Consumer Inkjet, Entertainment Imaging and Commercial Films, and Brand Licensing. · Intellectual Property Solutions will include licensing and research and development activities not directly related to the other segments. DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS Discontinued operations of Kodak include the Personalized Imaging and Document Imaging businesses, the digital capture and devices business, Kodak Gallery, and other miscellaneous businesses. For details, refer to Note 27, “Discontinued Operations” in the Notes to Financial Statements for additional information. My take on it is that Alaris fits under Brand Licencsing, which comes under the Kodak 'Consumer and Film' division which includes their motion picture film business. More on Alaris here http://www.kodakalaris.co.uk/en-gb/about Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted January 20, 2016 Share #37 Posted January 20, 2016 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. If it didn't help then, I don't see why it could help now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted January 20, 2016 Share #38 Posted January 20, 2016 If Kodak was making money on film for most of the past 10 years they would not have had to reduce staff in the film making plants so severely and scale back production. But in reality film manufacturing declined 96% from approx Feb 2005 to Feb 2015 and Kodak had to scramble to reduce costs and figure out how to try to use their gigantic coating machines in ways that would produce film that could be sold in sufficient quantities to be justifiable. Thus many films and papers were dropped. If demand is stable they can keep going. But if demand dips below a threshold they will have to produce more film in a batch than they can sell. So that will require either shutting down that emulsion or higher prices to cover the wastage. Kodak is quoted in The Hollywood Reporter as saying their fixed film costs are $50M per year and that they expect to break even on their Hollywood motion picture film sales the first year of the deal they made with the studios. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/kodak-inks-deals-studios-extend-770300 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 20, 2016 Share #39 Posted January 20, 2016 @CheshireCat - My point wasn't that it helps Kodak much (although it is better than losing money on film) - now or then. I was simply pointing out that film is not what is dragging Kodak down. Film is a tiny, insufficient flotation device (like trying to raise the Titanic with a party balloon) - but at least it is not an additional lead weight. @AlanG - your argument is a bit specious, in that it confuses cause and effect. Because Kodak cut back on staff and other costs as film sales plummeted, and dropped specific emulsions/formats that could not carry their own weight, they managed to keep the film division profitable most of the time. I agree the future is opaque. I can't even find any good film-sales numbers that cover the past 4-5 years. Ever since Kodak's bankruptcy, the quants seem to have ignored film altogether. My observation at the shop was that over the past three years, we constantly ran out of film if we ordered based on the previous year's sales. Demand was increasing. On an absolute basis, not a huge number; but on a percentage basis, it grew faster than the economy as a whole. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 20, 2016 Share #40 Posted January 20, 2016 I only saw the 4K trailer of the film on my computer screen, but I never thought it was shot on film - I just went back to have another look, and it still looks very digital to me. There are lots of ways to make digital video look more 'film-like' - I sometimes used to do this myself when I was still working with video post-production a while ago, and the software has got much better the last few years - but Gone Girl doesn't even try to mimic the film look, so I'm not really sure how you got that impression? (edit: I should add that I don't mean I have any special ability to see when a digital video or file has been made to look 'like' film - it's almost impossible to distinguish a good example of this post-processing from the real thing on a computer screen. I just thought the movie had a very - intentionally - clean digital look to it. Plus the frequent use of low-light and backlit shots - it just had digital written all over it, I thought)... Difficult to argue that one can't tell whether a movie is shot digitally from a trailer on a computer screen and than conclude that Gone Girl looked digital on the computer screen. Also, I don't think it's accurate to say that "Gone Girl doesn't even try to mimic the film look". Let me explain... First, when I saw that brick wall in one of the first scenes in the film, in a state-of-the-art cinema, I was struck by the clarity of the scene. Since the colors and gradation did not look digital, I wondered what film stock had been used: that's why I looked up the cinematography on the web when I got home. Of course, after that scene I was taken up by the action, drama and emotion of the film and wasn't conscious of the cinematography while watching the movie — and I'm not giving a critique of the film as such, which is another matter entirely. Then, last night, I spent an hour googling "gone girl cinematography": there is a lot in the form of articles and interviews on this subject and I recommend that anyone interested in cinematography spend some time reading some of this material— you can learn a lot about contemporary cinematography; and you can see what was the aim of the Gone Girl cinematographer. There is general agreement that the cinematography of Gone Girl is excellent; there is discussion of what constitutes "good cinematography"; there is consideration of the technology; and there is examination of the look and technical aspects of shooting with film and digital. Also, there is 40-minute video on Hollywood Reporter of a round-table discussion among some four famous cinematographers that is fascinating to watch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.