brbo
Well-known
None. My Kickstarter comment was a joke and clearly marked as such. But I wonder how much do you know about company valuation and how you came up with the "hundreds of millions of dollars"?
Looking at the latest available Kodak financial statement I'd expect the price for Film division to be more in ten millions of dollars bracket. This number is pure speculation, though*. I'm not a financial analyst even thought I have background in economics.
Still, it's very much down to the supply agreement (and nobody here has provided any information on that) Kodak Alaris has with Kodak. Kodak might be forced to keep Film division running (even at a loss for them). Since Kodak Alaris has an obligation to UK Pension Fund they might hold on to any favourable (to them) agreement even if the profit from that is not that significant in their bottom line.
*edit: A quick google search provided an independent analysis that has Consumer and Film division valued between 16 and 64 millions of dollars. I don't know how big the Consumer Inkjet Systems is vs Motion Picture, Industrial Chemicals and Film subdivision.
HHPhoto
Well-known
Besides some big movies also some TV series like Walking Dead are shot on film.
But, even more important:
The major Hollywood studios archive all their digital movies exclusively on film (on BW film with colour separation). Because it is much more safe and about 10x cheaper than digital archiving.
Both Eastman Kodak and Fujifilm are producing such films.
Cheers, Jan
HHPhoto
Well-known
It is extremely unlikely that such an agreement exists, in which Eastman Kodak would be forced to continue film production for Kodak Alaris even if B38 cannot be run profitable anymore and is making losses.
Such a contract could ruin EK completely if B38 is making losses continuesly.
By the way, there is already evidence that such a contract does not exist: The EK CEO Jeff Clarke has explained that in 2014 EK almost stopped the whole film production, including photo film for Kodak Alaris (which is the minor part of all EK film production).
Then came the contract with the Hollywood studios which saved the film production.
Cheers, Jan
nikonhswebmaster
reluctant moderator
It's the system where one insults rather than cites. Made popular on financial sites like the Yahoo and CNBC comment sections.
brbo
Well-known
Yes, possibly true. On the other hand, Kodak Alaris doesn't have to care about Eastman Kodak if Eastmant Kodak's demise doesn't hurt Alaris. In fact, they have obligation to their owners not to give a flying f***.
I wouldn't take a PR statement of a CEO a mere couple of months into his job bragging about how he single-handedly saved film as an evidence.
But, as someone already said, the hollywood contract is at it's end, 2018 or 2019 at the latest is the year that should see the end of Kodak film if what you are saying is true (no supply agreement, no consumer film without large hollywood commitment).
nickla
Established
I am a film producer and have worked with both studios and independent and can say that this is not done anymore. Film archiving is very expensive and inconvenient. It has been at least a decade, if not more, that any studio has archived on film.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
nickla
Established
In fact, most studios have been converting their existing film archives to digital.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
nikonhswebmaster
reluctant moderator
The Digital Motion Picture Archive Framework Project
http://www.oscars.org/science-technology/sci-tech-projects/digital-motion-picture-archive-project
https://www.oscars.org/science-tech...management-and-storage-digital-motion-picture
nickla
Established
There are definitely issues with digital storage. All movies are delivered in one format now, despite all the different workflows that lead up to the final delivery.
The problems and costs associated with digital storage are far less than those with film. I can confirm, with first hand experience, that no one archives on film.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
HHPhoto
Well-known
But Eastman Kodak cares about their financial situation and would never make a contract which forces them to produce for another company with losses.
Wrong again.
Jeff Clarke has never said that "he has saved EK". It were very honest and open minded interviews in which he described the situation at EK in detail.
And he as EK CEO definitely knows much better than you what is going on at Eastman Kodak.
Cheers, Jan
HHPhoto
Well-known
The archiving experts and major Hollywood studios disagree with you.
You should take time and read these scientific studies:
http://www.oscars.org/science-technology/sci-tech-projects/digital-dilemma
http://www.oscars.org/science-technology/sci-tech-projects/digital-dilemma-2
And fact is, that both Eastman Kodak and Fujifilm are selling archive films for millions of dollars each year.
Fujifilm even developed a new film type for that ("Eterna") just some time ago.
Would Fujifilm invest in R&D for a new film "if no one archives on film" like you said?
Of course not.
Cheers, Jan
brbo
Well-known
Wrong, again. They were in Chapter 11, hardly a position where THEY were dictating the terms.
He knows the situation better than you and me, that is true. What is not true is that every PR stunt is true or that the whole information is shared and non is withheld. You just choose to believe some information that fit your preconceptions and disregard other facts that don't fit. Like the time when price increase of Kodak films was announced you were saying that it will worsen Kodak's position (loss of market) when in fact the financial report reveals that Film division's financial situation was improved because of the price increase...
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Perhaps their financial position improved despite a price increase not because of a price increase.
brbo
Well-known
Most probably not, since Annual Report is a very serious document of a publicly listed company (MUCH more serious than an "honest and open minded PR interview"). Giving false or misleading information in this document can get you in trouble.
The $14 million decrease in the Consumer and Film Operational EBITDA was mainly due to the impact of lower consumer ink sales ($38 million) and unfavorable currency rates ($5 million). These items were offset by lower SG&A costs ($14 million) driven by cost reduction actions, favorable price and mix in Motion Picture, Industrial Chemicals and Films ($9 million) due to a shift in sales to higher margin products as well as price increases, and lower manufacturing costs ($4 million) due to increased efficiency and improved inventory management.
Anyway, what would Kodak gain by giving false information about the financial effect of the price increase?
nickla
Established
I did read them the first time around. Definitely very interesting. I have actually worked with a few of the speakers on the panel mentioned.
I can still tell you that in practice no one archives on 35mm. Occasionally films will be put on tape backup, but not 35mm.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
I don't think you can use an absolute like "no one" when there is obviously a market for archive film stock. It's selling to someone and someone is using it enough for EK to be producing a very large quantity of it. Or perhaps there are just a bunch of collectors out there buying up sensitized archival estar based film by 50,000 feet?
Phil Forrest
nickla
Established
Fair, no one was probably a little strong.
But really, I can say that I have never personally heard of any major studios or independents doing this. Again, aside from tape archives.
Possibly, as part of the deal mentioned earlier between the studios and EK they are buying a certain amount of archival film, but it’s not something that is done with any regularity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Skiff
Well-known
In Chapter 11 economic fundamentals and the administration are determining the conditions.
And neither would agree to a contract which forces Eastman Kodak to produce for others with severe losses.
Chapter 11 is for funding a new, reliable basis for future business. A dangerous contract is completely counterproductive to that.
And the facts are on the table for a long time: In 2014 Eastman Kodak intended to stop the whole film production.
It was saved by the contract with the Hollywood Studios.
It was not saved by Kodak Alaris.
Kodak Alaris has no control over the film production at EK.
That was confirmed to me by both companies at last Photokina.
brbo
Well-known
Wrong.
Emerging from Chapter 11 is proposing a plan of paying your creditors (in full or in part) over a longer period of time and then creditors accepting the plan. If the plan submitted is not accepted by the creditors, alternate plan can be proposed by creditors. The debtor has little say. Emerging from Chapter 11 is not a clean slate for a business in trouble where creditors lose everything. If that was the case every such case would end in liquidation.
For Eastman Kodak it may still be better to produce film even at a loss. If you don't have much knowledge of basic economics just imagine a situation where EK must pay KA $100m in film supplies. If EK must spend $150m to produce film for themselves and KA then EK only has to earn $51m by selling film on the market. It's economics 101 - even only covering variable and some part of fixed costs is still better than shutting down the production.
No. A PR statement is FAR from being a fact. It might be true, it might be not. Your wish to blindly believe it doesn't make it a fact.
Just look at financial reports to see how ridiculous it is to blindly believe that 2014 was the year when the end of film was imminent. In that year Consumer and Film recorded $66m in profit. Why didn't Kodak shut down film production in 2015 when the profit was "only" $52m? Or in 2016 when it was only $16m? Well, then they certainly stopped the production in 2017 since first 9 months saw a loss of $2m. What do your "sources" say?
ptpdprinter
Veteran
My "sources" say the trend is not encouraging.