After Kodak modernize their film production, will they unify the movie films and still films?

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So far only Kodak Vision 3 movie films are using ramjet, other movie films, such as double-x and E100 do not need that. If Kodak can unify this, making a new Vision movie film that do not have ramjet, and just packaging them differently for both movie and still, would that help to reduce the production cost and simply the user’s handling?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Anbaric]

Eastman Kodak already do this for CineStill, if you read between the lines:

https://cinestillfilm.com/pages/frequently-asked-questions

'CineStill films are contract coated in Rochester NY, USA, where we also convert the films, and are also packaged by various partners in Europe. ...  It is important to note that CineStill’s color negative films are NOT simply "repackaged" motion picture film. We utilize some of the same advanced emulsion technology found in Motion Picture film to create still photography color negative film without rem-jet, optimized for archival C-41 processing, RA4 printing, and still photography film scanning. CineStill color film not only has higher speed and preserved qualities, but is also now manufactured for still photography with tried-and-true 135 steel cassettes with DX codes or premium 120 paper backing, edge-printed frame numbers, and stronger KS (Kodak Standard) perforations; without the rem-jet, contamination, motion picture edge signing, or BH (Bell and Howell) perforations — which were prone to tearing.'

For what this actually means, see:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/cinestill-films-from-kodak-stock.198724/

Edited November 20, 2024 by Anbaric

[Einst_Stein]

Yes, Cinestill is special treated Kodak Vision. Albeit de-ramjet and repackaging. That is why their price is rather high.

If Cinstill is honest that it is more than de-remjet and repackaging, really has something special, I would not trust it with same confidence as Kodak.

Only if Kodak do it  as standard process would make sense, price-wise.

Edited November 20, 2024 by Einst_Stein

[Anbaric]

Cinestill don't take the Remjet off these days, they get Eastman Kodak to make it for them without Remjet. They sell it as 136-36 for about the same price that Alaris (the company with the distribution rights for Kodak still film) sells Portra for.

[Einst_Stein]

People I know who take Kodak Vision are for its price.  Depends on each individual’s taste but I know none prefer it to Kodak professional films such as Ektar 100, Portrait, or Fujifilms’s offering. 

Cinestill repackaged Vision film is more expensive than Kodak’s professional films and is about 2x of Kodak and Fujifilm consumer films.

I think you need a very special taste to take Cinestill  over any Kodak or Fujifilm. Cinestill will remain as a nitch alternatives. It is unlikely to become part of average film photographers. 

[Einst_Stein]

Outsourcing and international cooperation is always good, but it has to show price benefits from user's point of view. I don't feel that way yet.

[Chuck Albertson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When is Kodak planning to "modernize their film production"?

[Einst_Stein]

18 minutes ago, Chuck Albertson said:

When is Kodak planning to "modernize their film production"?

It is happening now.  You can google ":Kodak modernize production" or "Kodak pause production" for more detail,

[Einst_Stein]

https://www.wxxinews.org/local-news/2024-11-20/kodak-looks-to-ramp-up-advanced-materials-and-chemicals-in-2025

[Anbaric]

9 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

People I know who take Kodak Vision are for its price.  Depends on each individual’s taste but I know none prefer it to Kodak professional films such as Ektar 100, Portrait, or Fujifilms’s offering. 

Cinestill repackaged Vision film is more expensive than Kodak’s professional films and is about 2x of Kodak and Fujifilm consumer films.

I think you need a very special taste to take Cinestill  over any Kodak or Fujifilm. Cinestill will remain as a nitch alternatives. It is unlikely to become part of average film photographers. 

CineStill is a niche product, partly because without the Remjet you get a lot of halation, though where I live Portra isn't any cheaper. But if price is your main issue, that problem won't be solved by Eastman Kodak somehow unifying their still photo and Vision film stocks. Eastman Kodak's customer for still film is not the consumer, it is Kodak Alaris, a now separate company owned by private equity. They handle the distribution and set the price, and I imagine their contract is exclusive. Some of the difference in price between bulk movie film and 135-36 will be due to the packaging cost, but a lot of it is Alaris charging what the market will bear. E100 and 100T are already essentially the same film, yet the cheapest E100 I can find is around 80% more expensive than independently respooled and packaged 100T (which may be why Eastman Kodak are apparently clamping down on direct sales of 100T for non-movie use).

[Einst_Stein]

4 hours ago, Anbaric said:

CineStill is a niche product, partly because without the Remjet you get a lot of halation, though where I live Portra isn't any cheaper. But if price is your main issue, that problem won't be solved by Eastman Kodak somehow unifying their still photo and Vision film stocks. Eastman Kodak's customer for still film is not the consumer, it is Kodak Alaris, a now separate company owned by private equity. They handle the distribution and set the price, and I imagine their contract is exclusive. Some of the difference in price between bulk movie film and 135-36 will be due to the packaging cost, but a lot of it is Alaris charging what the market will bear. E100 and 100T are already essentially the same film, yet the cheapest E100 I can find is around 80% more expensive than independently respooled and packaged 100T (which may be why Eastman Kodak are apparently clamping down on direct sales of 100T for non-movie use).

You sound knowing a lot of inside infos. Anyway, you are right, it is proved Cinestill will not be the low price film solution. Probably there will never be any low priced film solution, given the reality of digital trend. But if any, it should be somewhat through consolidation of productions and/or outsourcing.

A nitch lower price distributor like old Freestyle photo did work before, but Cinestill is worse due to their  high pricing practice,

Edited November 21, 2024 by Einst_Stein

[Einst_Stein]

16 minutes ago, mark_s90 said:

Freestyle isnt the company to go by anymore for respooled film.  Lots of companies have been respooling kentmere and foma for years. And i have read the debates on the foroms how "brand x" is better then kentmere 400, even though "brand x" is actually respooled Kentmere 400.

 

Consolidtion wont help, the new line or two they had a supplier start hasnt helped at all.  Its because if they can charge X per roll, and still have complete consumption of produced material, they wont have any interest in reducing the price.  Its called free market capitalism. 

 

If they can sell a roll of film in 2017 for 15$ per roll. And people will pay 23$ per roll in 2024. They are NOT going to reduce the price. 

You might be right.

But if the volume is somewhat exponential proportional to the inverse of unit price, and the production costs can support it, and the long term projection is positive, there might be hope.

[Einst_Stein]

43 minutes ago, mark_s90 said:

Disproven,  Kodak has actually increased their production since 2019, and the prices only go up. in a constant attempt to "manage the supply chain".

 

 

Kodak 2019 announcement also mentioned the production increase due to the young generation's increasing demand. They even doubled the production from 2015 to 2019. 

It sounds similar this time. But I don't have inside infos nor any knowledge to be sure whether this time will follow the same trend as 2019.

[Einst_Stein]

3 hours ago, mark_s90 said:

everything ive seen points to the same pile of BS on a plate as last time. Even seen actual commentary from kodak sales via postings by i think kosmo foto, that its to increase stability in market through price gouging people into using less.

 

Even if Kodak swapped the MOVIE film production lines to making STILL color film, just by killing the remjet process and swapping out emulsion and using same film bse, the production would most likely double. Even 5 months of that would NOT have any impact on the price of Kodak color film. 

Its most commonly associated with a really old joke. "how can that bar get away with selling stale beer and watered down whiskey? Its 1869 texas and their is not another bar for 500 miles"

You hit one side of the problem, But there is another side. The price vs. volume effect.

When the product is not mandatory, the price will affect the sales volume. It's non-linear.  It varies but could be something like exponential. When it is, reducing 10% of price might bring in 10X sale volume.    

And it is subject to the production supportability and demand supportability.

Edited November 22, 2024 by Einst_Stein

[Einst_Stein]

I think you will not get it. Never mind.

[Anbaric]

I think the only thing that might bring down the price of colour film is serious competition, like we have with B&W where prices remain more reasonable (there are decent 135-36 options for under £5 a roll). Fuji have been barely in the game for several years and have been reduced to repackaging Kodak, but with Fuji production apparently starting up in China, perhaps we'll see Kodak undercut. I don't think prices will ever return to anything like pre-2020 levels, though.

[PetPhoto]

On 11/20/2024 at 10:42 PM, Einst_Stein said:

https://www.wxxinews.org/local-news/2024-11-20/kodak-looks-to-ramp-up-advanced-materials-and-chemicals-in-2025

but accordign to some articles they SOLD two complete produciton lines for making base and coating  to some company to make some sort of composite battery using an acetate/ektar substrate to hold things together.. 

[BernardC]

8 hours ago, PetPhoto said:

but accordign to some articles they SOLD two complete produciton lines for making base and coating  to some company to make some sort of composite battery using an acetate/ektar substrate to hold things together.. 

Part of the reason why they are re-designing their film production lines is that those lines were designed for the kind of production volumes that haven't been needed in 20 years. The new lines should have a much lower break-even volume.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[PetPhoto]

8 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Part of the reason why they are re-designing their film production lines is that those lines were designed for the kind of production volumes that haven't been needed in 20 years. The new lines should have a much lower break-even volume.

you misinterpret the system,  yes those machines can run 24 hours a day, and make 80,000 square feet of film in an 8 hour shift, but they dont need to be run like that..

[BernardC]

13 minutes ago, PetPhoto said:

you misinterpret the system,  yes those machines can run 24 hours a day, and make 80,000 square feet of film in an 8 hour shift, but they dont need to be run like that..

True, and that's what they did with the old film lines for the past two decades. It must have felt like a ghost town.

The good news is that the film market has stabilized, and even shows signs of long-term (moderate) growth. The board must have realized that it was time for a new business plan that reflects this new reality, not just "we'll keep a skeleton staff until we can't afford to fix the old lines anymore."