PDA

View Full Version : It's official, Kodak is selling its film business.



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Steve Smith
08-29-2012, 07:59 AM
The information given by AgPhotographic is wrong.
A spokeswoman for Kodak has said, in this thread, that professional still film is part of the sale.

All we can deduce from that is that one or other of the messages is wrong.


Steve.

Steve Smith
08-29-2012, 08:17 AM
What about this?

http://www.labelsandlabeling.com/news/latest-news/kodak-to-focus-on-commercial-and-package-printing


Eastman Kodak Company has outlined its next steps towards emerging from Chapter 11 reorganization as a company primarily focused on commercial, packaging and functional printing technology and enterprise services.


Steve.

Felinik
08-29-2012, 08:22 AM
All we can deduce from that is that one or other of the messages is wrong.


Steve.


"Kodak's 'Commercial Film' business includes aerial film, printed circuit boards, and surveillance type uses of film (http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/All_Kodak_Services/All_Kodak_Products_Services/Aerial_amp_Industrial_Markets.htm). Kodak also plans to retain its entertainment imaging business, which includes its motion picture business."

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2012/08/23/breaking-news-kodak-to-sell-off-imaging-and-retail-print-businesses


Neither of those includes their Pro Photography products.

So it's just a question about who's gonna buy it...

SkipA
08-29-2012, 08:42 AM
What about this?

http://www.labelsandlabeling.com/news/latest-news/kodak-to-focus-on-commercial-and-package-printing

Steve.



That's just a repackaging of the same Kodak press release that everyone else is quoting from, Steve. There is nothing new there. You can go back to the beginning of this thread and read the same thing from other sources.

What is and what is not included in the sale was clarified by cdkrenzer (http://www.apug.org/forums/members/cdkrenzer/) (Colleen Krenzer) from Kodak's PR agency. Just read the last six posts from Colleen.

Steve Smith
08-29-2012, 08:49 AM
That's just a repackaging of the same Kodak press release that everyone else is quoting from, Steve. There is nothing new there. You can go back to the beginning of this thread and read the same thing from other sources.

Perhaps it just sounds worse than it really is then. I read it as Kodak focusing on packaging.



Steve.

SkipA
08-29-2012, 09:05 AM
If Kodak successfully sells the Personal Imaging business, which includes all the film and paper products that most of us on this forum use, to a business that can keep it going, then it won't matter so much what happens to Kodak, except as regards the disposition of building 38. Some of us use motion picture film too, and that is not included in the sale. The fate of building 38 is unknown, but it is presumed that its continued operation is critical to both MP film and still film. I'm not sure if its used for paper. So there are a lot of questions yet to be answered, but it doesn't seem all bad to me.

Photo Engineer
08-29-2012, 09:18 AM
The Inoviscoat machine is close to 42" wide as were all Kodak machines until the recent machine currently in use. My previous answer of 42" was not correct for this new machine as Henning points out.

Sorry for the confusion.

Too many machines!

PE

SkipA
08-29-2012, 10:14 AM
Hmmmm. As we know from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, 42 is the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything. And although the ultimate question itself is unknown (darn those Vogons), it stands to reason that 42 is also the right width for a coating machine.

I wonder if the Vogons had a hand in the design of that 54 inch machine in building 38, and if that was what really led to the Kodak's troubles. It smells like an insidious plot that was meant to destroy Kodak by wreaking havoc in the coated film continuum. On the other hand, I could be wrong. After all, 54 in decimal is 42 in base 13.

Felinik
08-29-2012, 10:17 AM
If Kodak successfully sells the Personal Imaging business, which includes all the film and paper products that most of us on this forum use, to a business that can keep it going, then it won't matter so much what happens to Kodak, except as regards the disposition of building 38. Some of us use motion picture film too, and that is not included in the sale. The fate of building 38 is unknown, but it is presumed that its continued operation is critical to both MP film and still film. I'm not sure if its used for paper. So there are a lot of questions yet to be answered, but it doesn't seem all bad to me.


Question is, who, except for Harman, could be a possible prospect?

Diapositivo
08-29-2012, 10:18 AM
This page was probably linked somewhere in this thread.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2012/08/23/breaking-news-kodak-to-sell-off-imaging-and-retail-print-businesses

It says in the update:

To exit bankruptcy, Kodak needs to raise $700 million to pay creditors. The company had hoped to generate income by selling its patents but that has been unsuccessful, so far.

I think this is interesting. If $M700 is all what is needed to get out of bankruptcy that means Kodak might still manage to reach the shores of safety by selling only the patents. It seems from other information I read that they had the opportunity to sell for $500 which they refused.

So ultimately it might be that Kodak can get out of bankruptcy without selling the film division or, at least, without selling "half of it" (retaining motion picture film and selling still film).

Whether this would be good or bad news depends on the faith one has in the possibility that a convinced investor exists able to operate the film side of the Kodak business.

Steve Smith
08-29-2012, 10:19 AM
Hmmmm. As we know from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, 42 is the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything.

No. 42 is also the oldest rule in the book according to the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland "anyone more than a mile high must leave the court immediately".


Steve.

SkipA
08-29-2012, 10:51 AM
Well, the machine in building 38 can process rolls that are 1 to 2 miles long. If you unroll one of those and stand them on their end (not an easy thing to do), I can see how rule 42 would also apply.

mikendawn
08-29-2012, 04:11 PM
@PE - Honestly, I couldn't say if it looks like God chasing that Kitten... For all I know God could look like a Gelatinous blob... Never met God, so how could I say? :)

mikendawn
08-29-2012, 04:13 PM
"Well, the machine in building 38 can process rolls that are 1 to 2 miles long. If you unroll one of those and stand them on their end (not an easy thing to do), I can see how rule 42 would also apply. "

We have a Building #9 here in Toronto on Kodak Heights, but it's abandoned, like the rest of Kodak Heights...
All the equipment there is long destroyed, scrapped, and or sold...

Photo Engineer
08-29-2012, 04:56 PM
Building 9 at Kodak Park was destroyed several years ago.

And, I don't think God would look ugly.

PE

Lionel1972
08-29-2012, 06:23 PM
Now where are those Chinese invertors when we need them with their mountains of cash?

DREW WILEY
08-29-2012, 06:28 PM
Not such a good idea. The Chinese sometimes have enough cash that the whole point is to buy out
a company but then actually shut it down - one less competitor - then attach the brand logo to a complete bait-and-switch junk line of products. Of course, US companies have done the same kind
of thing in the past, or in many cases, have bought up patents simply to table them.

Lionel1972
08-29-2012, 06:59 PM
I know in Hong Kong there are many young film enthusiasts, now we would need a Hong Kong film lover investing some mainland rich investor's money.

Grain Farmer
08-30-2012, 12:17 PM
Is there really no chance that a potential buyer could start producing phased out films like the E6 lines or infrared?

Roger Cole
08-30-2012, 04:36 PM
No chance? No, I'd say the chance isn't zero. It's never zero. Kodachrome COULD be made again, but then flaming monkeys COULD fly out...

The chance of E6 or infrared is probably better than for Kodachrome but still almost certainly very low.