Todd Anderson on Cinematography wrote this some time ago:
"I just saw the above few posts after my last post.. and then I put in a call to Fuji. It is now my understanding that they plan to stop selling negative stock in March. They obviously have plenty of negative stock in inventory at the moment, but it is seemed that they would hand over any remaining inventory after March to someone else (likely a broker?). I asked if they still planned to continue producing still film stock, and the customer service persons reply was, "Oh, yes. We are still committed to that market. There are a lot of artist still using film in that market". I guess she didn't see that she was pointing out that filmmakers aren't considered artist, as well. That they don't require such tools. This is all pretty sad."
So from this it would seem that they are committed to still photography even after ceasing MP stocks...
Last edited by kuparikettu; 09-11-2012 at 03:09 PM. Click to view previous post history.
With two big 70mm pictures about to come out (Samsara and The Master) I was thinking we might have the beginnings of a movement. Not to mention Christopher Nolan and Tarantino being champions of film. Terrence Malick is partial too - apart from those dinosaur sequences. Also, Malick was once upon a time given free rein as an 'artist', also receiving financial backing from the studio to do whatever he liked. If only the big studios could manufacture film on demand for filmmakers who have the artistic license.
Last edited by batwister; 09-11-2012 at 02:18 PM. Click to view previous post history.
You are stating this as though it is fact. How long did it take you to convince yourself of the truth of all of your unfounded musings? Or do you actually have some evidence to back up your realizations?
Originally Posted by nickrapak
This I agree with.
Originally Posted by nickrapak
Originally Posted by SkipA
Note the words "probably" and "my guess". The coating theories are my assumption; the only thing I am stating as fact is that Fuji leads the market in 35mm consumer still film sales. This assumption is mostly driven by the fact that most retailers have 3 brands of film: Kodak, Fuji, and a store brand. Since all other color manufacturers have closed up shop, all of the "Made in Japan" store brand film is coated by Fuji. Add to that the fact that the largest retailer in the country (Walmart) only stocks Fuji film, and one could easily see where they are the market leader. The other musings are mostly driven by the fact that I can't see Fuji dropping their consumer C-41 film, especially due to the lucrative contracts that they have with the aforementioned retailers. Of course, if film and disposables really dropped off that much in the past year, I can see Fuji dropping everything.
"Panic not my child, the Great Yellow Father has your hand"--Larry Dressler
Actually NHK reported tonight that Fuji is pulling the plug on all their movie films, both for capture and projection. Fuji did say are going to keep the still film production going, though on a much smaller basis. Batch runs and the like. Production on all movie films will cease in March of 2013, but again still film production will continue.
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for hours.
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
They could not compete with Kodak's latest "Vision3"-line in an already small market. Over the last years, Fuji was mainly used by filmmakers on a budget (e.g. "The King's Speech"), because they were simply cheaper, but anyone who wants to shoot cheap these days, uses on of the lousy Red Ones.
There are still major productions made on film (Dark Knight, Expendables, Cloud Atlas, The Master...), but this will become 100% Kodak territory.
This might be a good thing for Kodak (or follow-ups), as Hollywood has some interest in keeping film alive as a medium.
Official Notice from Fujifilm
Here it is officially in Japanese.
They claim that they will still manufacture "archive" motion picture film （i.e. ETERNA-RDS）.
But that is about it for motion picture related AgX film products and finish selling all other AgX motion picture film products (including chemicals for processing cine films for domestic customers) somewhere around March 2013.
They comment that they continue manufacturing film for still photography.
This is the key line: "In addition, with regard to photographic film, we will continue to produce and sell in the future."
I hate to point it out, but this does then call into question the current working assumption that the only thing holding still film's head above water is motion picture film. That without the latter's economies of scale, the former absolutely cannot exist on its own.
Presuming that they are not intentionally lying in their notification release, what then is different about Fujifilm?
"When making a portrait, my approach is quite the same as when I am portraying a rock. I do not wish to impose my personality upon the sitter, but, keeping myself open to receive reactions from his own special ego, record this with nothing added: except of course when I am working professionally, when money enters in,—then for a price, I become a liar..."
— Edward Weston, Daybooks, Vol. II, February 2, 1932
I noticed that too, Ken. The cynic would say they are lying. Others might surmise that the death of MP film is not necessarily the death of all film.
Then again, it is color film that people mostly seem to link to MP. B&W seems to be able to exist on a much smaller scale, without the need for MP to support it.