rodneyAB
Established
Agree with Phil, I'm quite selfish in that I want to continue with Kodak Tri-X.
"Film division is still profitable," says Kodak
- Thread starter Damaso
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 37
- Views 6K
f6andBthere
Well-known
How can they restructure film manufacturing as a separate entity with the future of the motion picture industry obviously heading inexorably toward digital? Seems like the ultimate gamble to me!
Take away the millions of meters of film they sell to the motion picture industry currently and what are you left with ... a glorified jumble sale by comparison I would imagine. How can you set a business plan for profit/survival in this possible scenario?
Take away the millions of meters of film they sell to the motion picture industry currently and what are you left with ... a glorified jumble sale by comparison I would imagine. How can you set a business plan for profit/survival in this possible scenario?
f6andBthere
Well-known
We've had 'The Impossible Project' ... perhaps Kodak could name this the 'Very ****ing Unlikely Project!'
christian.rudman
digital to analog convert
They say as long as it "remains a profitable business for Kodak" it will stay alive. I don't see how it will not be profitable ever. The film costs them nearly nothing to make, and they can sell it for ungodly prices. Sure, there is a certain point that it would not be profitable, but since everything they make actually comes from China now I don't see that happening for a long time. I'd rather see them fail hard. Sure the film is good, but I don't see why a better run company like Fuji (made in America ironically enough) cannot buy out their film portfolio and start producing for fans rather than just numbers.
mbisc
Silver Halide User
I beg to differ -- Kodak Film (let's call it that) would have to shrink, but it would not make the business impossible without the movie film business. AFAIK, Ilford makes zero movie film, and is still viable...
ChrisN
Striving
I suspect that's true now, but they did in the past. I have two 400 foot cans of Ilford 617 (HP5) 35mm movie film in the fridge. No date stamp, and a little fogged, but still quite usable.
Regardless, it's good news that they view the film division as a profit centre.
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
Back to the unfortunate "hundreds of fans" quote (sorry jsrockit, sounded to me like you were) -- I think everybody is reading a little to much into it. I think we can safely assume that Kodak knows all too well just how many customers they have, and just how many they need to be able to keep going.
As for movie stock, my understanding is that production is moving to digital, but archiving will still be on film for a long time to come. Let's hope that's enough to keep them going because their production lines can't simply be throttled back. I think they need that volume.
As for movie stock, my understanding is that production is moving to digital, but archiving will still be on film for a long time to come. Let's hope that's enough to keep them going because their production lines can't simply be throttled back. I think they need that volume.
f6andBthere
Well-known
I'm not saying it can't be done! What I'm saying is that it's going to be very difficult to structure a company's future when you really can't predict exactly how long your largest market may survive and just how many meters of movie stock you may be selling in three years.
Ilford don't have the problem of trying to predict anything because they base their output on current demand which obviously doesn't include the tenous future of movie film.
It would be far easier for Kodak to restructure if they only had still film to consider ... that's a far more predictable market IMO.
f6andBthere
Well-known
I don't see how archiving can create that much demand. A movie (currently) will be distributed world wide when it's released via several thousand feet of film per cinema outlet. How much film is archiving going to consume compared to this?
chris00nj
Young Luddite
I suspect bankruptcy was necessary to get out from all the pension obligations. It's hard to downsize a company to a botique like Ilford, if you are still paying millions for costs of thousands of retirees.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Who wants to take a chance on a business that has shrunk tremendously already and is set for even further shrinkage using production machines that become ever more uneconomical to run as the market shrinks further still? You need less capacity to run economically and there is no way to physical shrink machinery to match future reduced needs. You need only the rights to produce the film and not the physical plant. I think this is how the current incarnation of Ilford did it. If taking the old Kodak plant were part of the deal that might be a deal breaker.
Bob
NickTrop
Veteran
It needs to be pointed out/reminded to those who point to movie film as keeping Kodak's film division viable, that no company is currently making 35mm movie film cameras. Panavision and Arri are going "digital". The last movie camera rolled off production lines this year. So the movie business at some point in the not too distant future will be 100% digital capture, probably with the only film being release prints for the remaining independent theaters who can not afford to transition.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
FYW Keith Canham (the LF camera maker and ULF film order guy) reported he spoke with Kodak today and was told film was "business as usual".
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
It's about time we heard this from someone at Kodak. For years, it seems as if they've been treating their film business like a red-headed stepchild.
/
hatidua
Established
I made Kodak pretty happy with how much film I bought this morning...
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Some good points mentioned....I would just add [and I could be completely wrong] that Kodak could also keep the small film division afloat as a legacy of its history. In other industries, baseball teams and newspaper companies are kept afloat for the prestige of the elite. Because of its rich history, film at Kodak, could still survive in a much smaller way of course.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Of course it is business as usual, Kodak is in Chapter 11. If that fails it will not be business as usual and it could take a year to know the final outcome. It might take less if Kodak's creditors balk at the restructuring plan and say no thanks.
Bob
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Bingo.
Arri has stopped production of all film cameras, as has Panavision and Aaton.
All episodic television in the US and increasingly in Europe is now shot on the Arri Alexa, so there goes a huge amount of sales.
Pretty much all independent and low budget productions are now shot digital.
If I remember correctly 25% of all features last year were shot digital (Arri Alexa, Sony F-series, RED). This is only accelerating.
Prints for projection will be gone by next year in the US.
Film still is the preferred media for long term storage of productions shot digital. A safety negative is generated on an Arri Laser Recorder and stored in salt mines. But that is not a huge money maker.
Film for movie and tv production is on it's way out. I give it 5 years, maybe 10 world wide (10 is optimistic).
So, Kodak has a real problem on their hands.
They really need to take a close look at what Ilford is doing and come to grips with the fact that film sales are going to be in the tens of millions or low hundreds of millions in a very short time. That's not pocket change, but no one has ever accused recent Kodak management of competence or common sense.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
