Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,556   Posts: 1,573,165   Online: 783
      
Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 152
  1. #51

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,172
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post

    If the complete inability of EK to scale back production levels from the glory years were going to kill that business entirely, wouldn't that have already happened years ago? Especially as EK has aggravated the problem itself by discontinuing so many film product lines over that period?

    The glory years were a long time ago.

    Just thinking out loud...

    Ken
    Nope. Movies have kept EK rolling a lot more film than we could ever use. Sony's last ( ) contract with EK was for half a BILLION feet of film for 2 years. That's a ton of film (probably many tons). Once movies stop using film next year, then all bets are off. EK will see an even more dramatic free fall in demand.

    Ilford and Fuji do not have this problem.

  2. #52
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,581
    Images
    48
    We'll see. Nothing in Sony's two-year contract would prevent EK from attempting to reduce the film production volume envelope while that contract is being serviced. In fact, those two years would be the precise time EK might want to undertake such an R&D effort, if it hasn't already happened. It's when they would have the breathing space to think about and experiment with it using the non-MP stocks.

    As I've said in other threads, if I were KA there's absolutely no way I sign an agreement to take over Kodak's consumer film selling business if the only way it can succeed is to sell the same glory years volumes that even EK can no longer sell. That would be a losing proposition from the get-go.

    Turning the argument around, there's no way such a deal with me even happens unless EK can demonstrate to my satisfaction that they can consistently supply me with the reduced volumes of consumer film that I can successfully sell into the current reduced markets. No scaling down, no signature on the dotted line. It's a prerequisite. Ya' gotta' convince me it's possible first.

    Like any supplier agreement, the deal would be dependent upon the supplier being able to manufacture the required volumes. Except in this case those would be minimum, not maximum, volumes.

    I have to assume that the last thing KA wants to do is throw its retirees under the bus by making unworkable and risky deals.

    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,172
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    We'll see. Nothing in Sony's two-year contract would prevent EK from attempting to reduce the film production volume envelope while that contract is being serviced. In fact, those two years would be the precise time EK might want to undertake such an R&D effort, if it hasn't already happened. It's when they would have the breathing space to think about and experiment with it using the non-MP stocks.

    As I've said in other threads, if I were KA there's absolutely no way I sign an agreement to take over Kodak's consumer film selling business if the only way it can succeed is to sell the same glory years volumes that even EK can no longer sell. That would be a losing proposition from the get-go.

    Turning the argument around, there's no way such a deal with me even happens unless EK can demonstrate to my satisfaction that they can consistently supply me with the reduced volumes of consumer film that I can successfully sell into the current reduced markets. No scaling down, no signature on the dotted line. It's a prerequisite. Ya' gotta' convince me it's possible first.

    Like any supplier agreement, the deal would be dependent upon the supplier being able to manufacture the required volumes. Except in this case those would be minimum, not maximum, volumes.

    I have to assume that the last thing KA wants to do is throw its retirees under the bus by making unworkable and risky deals.

    Ken
    1. What choice did KA have? Get the film/digital business or get nothing. EK could offer no more.
    2. KA seems to have a lot more than film. I asked in a different thread a long time ago, what percentage of KA's business is film? No one replied. Looking at the KA web site and the KA press releases sees a LOT more than film. They look a lot more like Xerox than like a film company.
    3. Imagine a general motors plant built in the '50s that made 250,000 cars per year. Then try to down size it to produce 10% of that volume, or less. You (hopefully) can see how ridiculous it would be to try to use the same facility to make a tiny fraction of the former production.
    4. Sony is just one studio. The 4 or 5 other major studios are also consuming billions of feet of film per year until next year. All that is going to drop away, in an instant. Unlike the consumer side of film, Hollywood appears to be going digital on the drop of a dime. Very few, if any businesses can survive such an instant drop in demand of that magnitude.

  4. #54
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,581
    Images
    48
    As I said, we'll see...



    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  5. #55
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,782
    Images
    225

    Kodak to Sell Kodak Park

    I have a few speculations ...

    1. Kodak-Alaris bought the company to make it APPEAR more appealing and then will sell it off to some sucker who will take the fall while they run away with the cash.

    2. Remember the "discovered" roll of TechPan? The one that supplied tech pan for quite a few years after it had stopped being produced? Yea, so they make 5-10 years worth of film and deep freeze it and sell it as it goes. I wouldn't be surprised if they only run the non-MP stock every few years, and the increase in price is to prepare for a new run since it's been a few years since they made any film runs.

    3. Those machines sitting unused for long periods of time, sitting idle will ultimately cause problems and will need sudden and expensive repairs at some point.

    4. Kodak (any of them) doesn't have the finances to down-scale their production to current levels, and no one is buying the larger machine, so, unless they can find something they can run on the machine and sell that (like making flexible solar panels or something) will keep the machines more useful than just making film every few years, then I think the future is dim.

    5. There is hope, if the right people can find a solution, there will be film for years to come.

    6. Ilford/Ferrania in about 5 years buy the color patent and production stuff from kodak and continue to make film, either as a joint venture or one of them on their own. Or on a smarter move (for slight positive perceived competition) Ferrania buys the Fuji patents and Ilford buys the Kodak ones.
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    As I said, we'll see...



    Ken
    The situation that Ratty speaks so clearly about is not unique to film... it has happened in many of our core and critical industries. I understand what you say about "we'll see" but even Stevie Wonder can see that the chances of good things happening are slim. We are now in such a big hole there doesn't seem to be a shovel big enough to dig us out. Yes, we'll see... but we might not like what we see. Time will tell (that's my version of your "we'll see")

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    66
    I think archival cinema preservation will be the factor that determines the continued production of large amounts of photographic film. It's already clear that the marketplace has decided that it doesn't care about the analog preservation of still images, but movies are a different matter. The financial stakes are high.

    Digital archiving of movies presently involves an expensive, laborious and (so far) endless cycle of copying and migrating from one format or medium to another, with a resting period of two to five years. Analog archiving is a relatively simple process of passive safekeeping and monitoring, with a resting period of many, many decades.

    Whether the analog film is color negative or positive, B&W monochrome or CMY separation, it is currently the superior method of archiving a serviceable copy of a movie. A digital copy may be an exact clone of the original source master, but perfect is the enemy of the good when it comes down to a digital duplicate that can't be decoded vs. an analog duplicate that's dirty, moldy or discolored but viewable.

    Is it possible to develop a high-capacity digital image storage method that is passively archival to the extent that film already is? The big movie producers are in the driver's seat here. If they want it to happen, then they will make the attempt. So far they have not, but if they were to succeed, large-scale photographic film production would vanish for good.

    In the meantime, from a long-term cultural perspective, it is worth preserving the single remaining Kodak film line in operational condition indefinitely, even if it were only to be run once a year to produce a single batch of archival movie film. I don't know how this idea would work out as a business model for Kodak Alaris, but I do know what the current Eastman Kodak management would think of it.
    Last edited by Lee Rust; 03-26-2014 at 11:16 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,223
    I'm hoping you are right, Lee. I have a vague recollection of hearing once (maybe 10 years ago) that the US Government had a mandate from Congress to back up digital imagery on film. I never could track down any information corroborating that memory, though. Given the amount of digital imagery the government must have... that should be lots and lots of film.

  9. #59
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,970
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    I have a few speculations ...

    1. Kodak-Alaris bought the company to make it APPEAR more appealing and then will sell it off to some sucker who will take the fall while they run away with the cash..
    Which photo plant has been sold since the Agfa/AgfaPhoto case for serious money?

  10. #60
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,047
    I don't concern myself with kodak's business affairs I let the shareholders do that, I just use the film.
    Ben



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin