Kodak's photo film production safe for years

[HHPhoto]

Hello,

very good news today from Rochester:
Because of long-term contracts of Eastman Kodak with the major Hollywood studios, film production is safe for the next years in Building 38, the film manufacturing complex at Kodak.
With these contracts there is the needed basis for photo film production as well, because the production volume of movie film is needed in Building 38 for an economic production there of all film types, including photo film for Kodak Alaris ( all other film manufacturers don't need movie film volume to keep running their production).

Here are the details directly from Rochester:
http://www.democratandchronicle.com...ak-inks-film-supply-deals-hollywood/22890657/

Cheers, Jan

 

[lynnb]

Hi Jan, see this thread discussing same topic. Thanks for additional news link.

 

[John Bragg]

Good news in the short to medium term. I is a shame that Kodak Alaris production is so tied to the movie industry. No right thinking person wants to see such a historic company cease production and the best we can hope for is that there is an upturn in movies shot on film. Unlikely, but it could happen. I have shot Tri-X for years, but just to be sure, I have been using HP5+ as well so that if the worst happens, I have a credible alternative all worked out and ready to switch seamlessly.

 

[Ranchu]

I think it's better kodak production is tied to the movie industry than not. Thanks to the movie industry, we have kodak for a long time to come, and so do they. It's good for everybody.

 

[Ranchu]

They make the film in one place, Alaris is a seperate company but sells the still film after it's made.

 

[John Bragg]

I thought Kodak Alaris was a completely separate company? What am I missing here?

Kodak Alaris is a separate entity, but Kodak in Rochester produce the film for them. That is done in the only Kodak coating facility that remains. It is a large scale facility and relies on movie film production to remain economically viable. Hence the importance to Kodak Alaris of movie film demand to remain in business.

 

[Ranchu]

I don't see movie studios giving up film any time soon, if ever.

🙂

 

[Ronald M]

I don't see movie houses giving up film any time soon, if ever.

🙂

And you would be wrong. Digital is pushing its way in and digital projectors are being installed everywhere. Digital is also easier to distribute.

 

[Ranchu]

I meant studios by houses, I misspoke. And digital projection is ****, and the theaters don't want to pay for it. Sorry about that.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

It all hinges on analog projection, not just motion picture production. One feature film will use at least 2,500 feet of film in the final print. The projection print will match that but consider how many theaters get a projection print and you get the scale of how much Kodak's still 35mm film relies upon the motion picture industry. Considering each 36exp roll is about 5ft long, that's roughly 500 rolls of film. Most photographers are going to expose that much in maybe five years. Once the projection booths go digital past a tipping point where it's too expensive to produce a run of reversal print film, that is when we'll see the big production facility shut down.

Phil Forrest

 

[rolfe]

It all hinges on analog projection, not just motion picture production. One feature film will use at least 2,500 feet of film in the final print. The projection print will match that but consider how many theaters get a projection print and you get the scale of how much Kodak's still 35mm film relies upon the motion picture industry. Considering each 36exp roll is about 5ft long, that's roughly 500 rolls of film. Most photographers are going to expose that much in maybe five years. Once the projection booths go digital past a tipping point where it's too expensive to produce a run of reversal print film, that is when we'll see the big production facility shut down.

Phil Forrest

It does not all hinge on analog projection, although that is undoubtedly important. Camera original is still an important component.

Also, currently, anything originated on digital is being archived on film. I believe both Kodak and Fuji have films specially designed for archiving digital elements. There is no better technology for long-term storage and this is an important market for Kodak.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

It does not all hinge on analog projection, although that is undoubtedly important. Camera original is still an important component.

Also, currently, anything originated on digital is being archived on film. I believe both Kodak and Fuji have films specially designed for archiving digital elements. There is no better technology for long-term storage and this is an important market for Kodak.

Production and archiving are indeed important but from a standpoint of production print to projection print we're looking at a ratio of 1:XXXXX. I don't have the data on how many screens have converted to digital projection but back in 2012, it was close to 55%. As of December 31, 2012, NATO (National Association of Theater Owners) counted 39,662 screens. If we take a conservative guess and say 50% of those are digital projection, that leaves 19,831. Almost 50,000,000 feet of projection prints per feature film in unlimited release. Granted, these are just figures in the US, but many other theaters in the world have already gone to digital projection as well.
Fuji ceased production in 2013 of all motion picture film stock except for archival purposes.

in 2012, John Fithian, president of NATO called for theaters to "convert or die" with regard to digital projection.

I don't want to seem alarmist with this. The news of Kodak and the motion picture studios coming to an agreement "for years to come" is good. I love film. Grew up with it, learned with it and prefer shooting with it. I'm not naive though in thinking that all is well with the film market and production. If and when Kodak loses the projection side of the motion picture industry, there will be no reason to keep building 38 open and produce runs of film by the mile. It's not just a facility that can be turned on and off as necessary. Like has been said previously, it's become too big.
So, go see movies in analog projection houses!

Phil Forrest

 

[Ranchu]

Nobody else is naive either, thanks, but your speculations are just one possible scenario, and as you say the news is good. I'll just keep buying my C41, and enjoying my picture taking. I much prefer that to the alternative, and I seem to be in good company.

Fithian is some variety of shill, apparently, like Chris Dodd, and he only shills for theaters in the US, not the world.

"The trade group heads conceded that 3D hasn’t lived up to its initial hype. “It’s not going to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, as people thought at one time,” Fithian says. Dodd adds that while the extra dimension helps in movies such as Gravity and animated films, “when you try to apply it everywhere you get a reaction.” Still, they say the format is here to stay — and could enjoy a resurgence if theaters invest in laser light projectors. The technology “dramatically increases the amount of light you can show on the screen,” Fithian says. And with greater distinctions between whites and blacks “you can make 3D jump off the screen.”

The NATO head says his members understand that as studios increasingly distribute movies on hard drives or via satellite “we’re very close to the end of film in the U.S.” Paramount, he says, has told theater owners that “they’re done with film releases domestically except for Chris Nolan” releases — since he likes films. But Dodd says that theaters unable to afford digital projectors won’t be left in the cold. “They’re sensitive to the fact that they have loyal theater owners” including many that are struggling. “They’re not going to turn down someone…I’ll probably get in trouble for saying that.”"


http://deadline.com/2014/03/cinemac...-and-the-near-end-of-celluloid-prints-704264/

 

[Skiff]

I thought Kodak Alaris was a completely separate company? What am I missing here?

As others have already explaind, Eastman Kodak in Rochester is producing the photo films for Kodak Alaris, who is distributing them.
But Kodak Alaris also has its own coating plant in Harrow, England.
There they are producing silver-halide RA-4 color photo paper.
In that factory until 2004 or 2006 also film was produced.
So even if Rochester might have to stop movie film production in some years, there is a chance that then Kodak Alaris is transferring the photo film production to their own plant in Harrow.

 

[Skiff]

Production and archiving are indeed important but from a standpoint of production print to projection print we're looking at a ratio of 1:XXXXX. I don't have the data on how many screens have converted to digital projection but back in 2012, it was close to 55%.

It is now about 90% in the major markets. So the transition is almost finished.
And Eastman Kodak will not face a further big decline in print film sales. That means there is a really good chance that Building 38 at Kodak can be kept running for a very long time.
And if we see a photo film revival in the next years (Kodak Alaris has already said that their professional film sales are up) that will also have positive effects.

By the way: Lots of cinemas have not scrapped their film projectors, but installed the new digital projectors parallel to the film projectors.

 

[traveler_101]

And you would be wrong. Digital is pushing its way in and digital projectors are being installed everywhere. Digital is also easier to distribute.

Digital has already replaced film -- Kodak lost 96% of its sales.

What this deal represents is an attempt to establish a niche market for motion picture film with studio specific big epic production where high fidelity representation adds to the value of the film. Kodak has also secured deals with independent film makers for the more experimental sorts of uses.

It it works film will hang on in these specialised markets.

 

[traveler_101]

It is now about 90% in the major markets. So the transition is almost finished.
And Eastman Kodak will not face a further big decline in print film sales. That means there is a really good chance that Building 38 at Kodak can be kept running for a very long time.
And if we see a photo film revival in the next years (Kodak Alaris has already said that their professional film sales are up) that will also have positive effects.

By the way: Lots of cinemas have not scrapped their film projectors, but installed the new digital projectors parallel to the film projectors.

Thank you, for pointing that out. There is absolutely NO REASON why you can't have a dual system -- if the studios support it, which is partly to be determined by the relative success of movies shot on film. There will be higher costs but if audiences can see the difference in the cinematography then shooting and projecting film will continue.

Frankly I'm optimistic now that Kodak is going to be able to continue with this into the foreseeable future. Whether it lasts longer term --I guess that depends on whether the younger generation of directors are still brought into the film culture or not.

 

[Ranchu]

I'm not sure what those people are trying to insinuate.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Fascinating to me that this thread is about "film" but I think it's about Kodak's film and sales in the USA. It's almost as if the rest of the world and Fuji don't exist...

I nearly said the same about Ilford but HP5+ did get a mention. My take is that Ilford, Fuji etc need encouraging to strengthen their position and maintain supplies. Also, Kodak might learn something from it.

Regards, David

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

That's very interesting, thanks.

I've often wondered why Kodak creates such a stir when a film vanishes. I've had a lot of films disappear from the shops etc but it didn't bother me that much. Well, perhaps Agfa did.

It reminds me of a comment from an elderly French friend to the effect that we had a much wider choice of French wines in England than they did in France and as for all the other countries making wine...

Regards, David