Kodak says film & services sinking faster than expected.

[jhoneycutt]

I was talking to a friend in the movie theater business. She said that theater owners and distribution networks are trying to lay down ground rules regarding how to split profits for digital move theaters. She says in the future, no movie film will be taken to theaters. It will be shot, via satellite or transported via lease lines (OC3, T3) to theaters. She says theater owners want the distribution network to pay for the equipment cost in the movie theaters. The distribution network says, "Sure, we will do that, then we want a cut of the box office take". Movie theater owners say, "No deal".
And the talks continue....

I asked her when she thought movie film will go away. She said she had no idea, but thought it was not going to happen any time soon. I guess technically it is mostly worked out, but some standards have to be approved by the CCITT (or what ever the new name is now; international standards body).

My own personal opinion is that 16mm will be around for a long long while, and 35mm even longer. I could see EU countries or Japan selling Super 8 stock if Kodak pulls the plug completely on that format.

I hope our pal John Pytlak does not get the ax with the new layoffs. Who will help us then???

jack

[studiocarter]

They need to stop lying down and start talking about the advantages of film. They should talk about the constant obsolescence issues of digital media - that spiffy new digital camera will be worth $0 next year. They should talk about the failure of digital archives - hard drives crash, cd's scratch and break, memory corrupts. They should talk about the fact that an inexpensive 1972 Nikon 35mm still takes better pictures than a $2000 digital camera.

They should have an advertisement with a family gathered in a darkened room, watching projected family MOVIES - on super 8. Then the tag line - Family Memories on FILM - Nothing compares. And then a short voice over explaining that movie film is still available (and a website where they can buy it, and where to get cameras).

Kodak DOES have a marketing department, right? Jeesh.

Scott
_________________

Hey Scott, I'm in Pittsburgh, not too far away, and I just signed up for a screenwriting class at Pittsburgh Filmmakers. If it runs and I actually attend, I'll write about people like my 30 something son and his wierd friends discovering movie making??? His last apartment with all those people, pizza boxes, cats, and wierd stuff and views of lower middle class roofs was really great looking.
I really wish I'd had my Bolex H16T back then.
You know a sound guy?

michael

[Evan Kubota]

"They should have an advertisement with a family gathered in a darkened room, watching projected family MOVIES - on super 8. Then the tag line - Family Memories on FILM - Nothing compares. And then a short voice over explaining that movie film is still available (and a website where they can buy it, and where to get cameras)."

Please explain. What will Kodak say? "New projectors are not available. New cameras are produced by Beaulieu, but they cost nearly $10,000 USD. Otherwise, try eBay." It's astonishingly unrealistic (no offense intended) to think that Kodak as a film company would have the cojones to try to tell people they should use S8 again, when new cameras and projectors are not available.

[B Movie Mogul]

Kind of an uneasy thread to read after purchasing a K3. I guess it's to be expected though.

PS: I notice a couple Pittsburgians here. I've pondered moving there for a while, but I don't know anybody there.

[downix]

I still think it would be fun if Kodak made a disposable Super8 camera. 8)

[mercyboy]

Film is fun, but that's it unless you're one of the many serious film shooters on here.

My initial comment about the cost per second didn't even consider how many film cartridges I'd have to carry around to get the same amount of footage as one tiny HDV/DV tape! Even the cameras aren't much different in price if you compare apples to apples. And you've got no idea how film is turning out while you shoot. With digital, you look at the LCD and it answers all your questions immediately. That's pretty damn critical if you're not a heavy user. As for patience to wait for the return of film being something that the young lack; I checked my mail every day waiting for the return from Dwaynes, but mostly because of the fear that the post office would loose the stuff.

But the cost per second realization really hit me on the honeymoon:

I bought a pin and tiny tripod to set up a few shots of me and the wife walking past the camera (so I wouldn't have to watch out of focus footage shot by strangers). It went like this: Set up shot very carefully (SEE BELOW), coach the wife on how and where we would walk, look around and wait for a lack of cars and people, press pin, run like hell to the wife, walk (pretend not to be out of breath) from A to B, then run like hell to the camera and disengage pin! Though it's funny to see all that on the film and I may not edit it out....Haha.

Now, if I was shooting with my mini-DV which I brought along but didn't use because my ego enjoyed all of the comments the Bauer was getting from complete strangers, it would have gone like this: Hey you wanna get some ice cream, dear? She says sure, but what about the camera? I say, oh yeah, well, we'll just let it run....too much effort to flick that record button and besides, the battery lasts forever and tape's so damn cheap!

It's too bad, but still a total pipe dream to think the masses in the USA or anywhere else in the world will ever embrace film again. The bummer is that it sounds like it's going to get very tough for *anybody* to use it....and it really is a hell of a lot of fun and like you all say, much different from digital.



PS: This is a shot the wife took with her DIGITAL camera...LOL. (I was framing the hotel, having already mapped out our faux walking route.)

[Alex]

You like oranges, then like the orange tree as well.

You like DVD's, then enjoy the film that spawned the DVD as well.

Kodak needs to make a bigger splash in the DVD marked and the inks market. I buy Kodak injet paper in the 100 sheet size. If Kodak sold DVD-R's (they may, I've just never seen it), I'd ask my media vendor to carry it and I would buy exclusively Kodak recordable DVD's.

Film is the tree that spawns thousands of copies, if Kodak made money from the digital reproductions, lower film usuage wouldn't matter as much.

[wahiba]

Actually what is going on with Kodak is the classic situation which many companies find themselves in. They consider themselves to be in a product business rather than a service business that requires a product.

Kodak considered themselves to be in the photographic business when actually they are in the image business. So instead of :lol: focucing on film they should have looked at the image creation business. That way they would have been market leaders in digital imaging rather than panting along at the back of the field.

IBM is an example of a company that knew they were in the information business rather than the compter making business. IBM still exist but no longer make computers, small ones at least.

This is how investors work. They see the market and then see who is serving it and invest, or sell accordingley. Selling super-8 film and equipment today is part of the retro sentiment market. Retro Photographic in the UK seem to know this. It is a very small market suited to niche players.

[Evan Kubota]

"Kind of an uneasy thread to read after purchasing a K3. I guess it's to be expected though."

16mm has a relatively long future, IMO, since you aren't dependent on just one manufacturer (which is breaking apart, having hit the iceberg years ago) and because there is no proprietary cartridge design to deal with.

I basically agree with wahiba's post. IBM is a great example of a corporation that faced a similar dilemma, and did what I mentioned earlier - actually, they didn't *realize* that they weren't really in the PC business until their sales really flagged due to an oversaturated market and high prices. As a result, IBM does not really sell PCs to the mainstream market anymore. Painful? Maybe for them, but it's better than going out of business.

I really have to believe that the execs at Kodak would rather see the company reformed into a smaller, purely film company that retains some profitability and a captive market rather than attempting to grasp at elusive, unattainable digital riches and running big K straight into the ground. Unfortunately, everything Perez is doing looks like the latter scenario. Kodak needs to WAKE UP and realize that they're far too late to capture their piece of the digital pie. Now is NOT the time to incur massive restructuring costs just to try to capture some bonus bucks from something that will not pan out. Better to streamline their core operation, as a FILM company.

[Angus]

I think in recent years Kodak has made some poor marketing choices...and had some bad luck.

One wonders just how much APS has cost them...introducing a new film format (with associated costs of R&D) just before the digital boom...then they heavily advertised the new HD camera film. Now this is an excellent film, almost the only Kodak print film I would buy these days, but spending heavily on TV and print ads just when digital was becoming the "in thing" might not have been wise.

Kodak has been unable to gain a good reputation or much of a foothold in the digital camera or media market, which we now see slowing as 90% of the people who want a digicam now have one (even my technophobic dad!).

Kodak is at a crossroads. They can "go digital" where they obviously perceive the market to be. This has risks because we now see digital camera sales slowing significantly in developed markets and profit margins on media low due to competition.

Kodak could promote film instead, with the risk that they will seem outdated, irrelevant and that people simply won't be willing to buy into the better performance and archival qualities when there's a new toy to play with.

Kodak has a near-unique position in the photo world of a fabulously famous name and logo, but no direction. They've probably rested on their laurels and relied on healthy print (and pro MP) film for decades for their profits...now the belts need to be tightened and I'm not talking drive belts in an 8mm projector!

I don't have the answer, but I hope I've assessed the questions!

[marc]

I always kind of chuckle when people tout film as having an advantage in terms of archival. I can't take those suggestions seriously.

Kodachrome was the most archivable film. I think that this was the benchmark that people were using to comparing everything else to film with. Now that we just have the Ektachrome in super 8, the archival potential is not so great.

[Angus]

I always kind of chuckle when people tout film as having an advantage in terms of archival. I can't take those suggestions seriously.

Kodachrome was the most archivable film. I think that this was the benchmark that people were using to comparing everything else to film with. Now that we just have the Ektachrome in super 8, the archival potential is not so great.

Still a heck of a lot better than anything the digital world has to offer.

Evan, why chuckle? Know anybody who owns a PC who has NEVER had a hard disc crash, who has NEVER lost data?

Most of us have family negatives 30-50 years old, sometimes older, which if required could produce prints. On computers with digital data we have trouble keeping stuff five years! THat is, if the format can even be read five years down the line.

[Angus]

I can't take those suggestions seriously. Slides and prints have to be properly stored to last (CDs do also, but the conditions are much less stringent).

Try playing a CD, scratched or otherwise, in 20 years time.

Now take that slide and hold it up to the light...

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

I can't take those suggestions seriously. Slides and prints have to be properly stored to last (CDs do also, but the conditions are much less stringent).

Try playing a CD, scratched or otherwise, in 20 years time.

Now take that slide and hold it up to the light...

If it is scratched you can grind it down to get rid of those scratches.
Just send it to a professional and do not attempt to do it yourself, you might ruin the disc with cheap DIY kits.

[S8 Booster]

If it is scratched you can grind it down to get rid of those scratches.
Just send it to a professional and do not attempt to do it yourself, you might ruin the disc with cheap DIY kits.

just wondering how Filmguard would or if fix the scratches as it does with film?

s