Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,766   Posts: 1,516,413   Online: 973
      
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 55
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    176
    I like Kodak's product just as I liked Polaroid's.

    Sadly, Kodak is the next Polaroid.

  2. #32
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,172
    Images
    148
    There's another issue raising it's head which could have a more positive effect on Kodak's film division. There's now growing debate about the future of 3D cinema and whether it'll survive.

    It wouldn't be the first time that stereo & then 3D technology has had a short burst of enthusiasm only to fade away into the background. The first 3D films were actually about 90 years ago although there were early experiments.

    Ian

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Horsham, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    750
    I think that Kodak's biggest mistake was not actively targeting the digital RA-4 market. Where I am, 80-90% of the digital RA-4 is held by Fuji CA. If they were selling paper to Walmart, Rite Aid, and everyone else, I think they would be in a much better position than they are in now.

    When I see a Noritsu printer loaded with Fuji paper, I know something went wrong.
    "Panic not my child, the Great Yellow Father has your hand"--Larry Dressler

  4. #34
    rphenning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    341
    I hope 3D doesn't impact film sales. I already think it's (3D) a massive gimmick used by production houses because their movies are terrible, would be the icing on the cake if shitty movies in 3D, in a way, help to kill film.

  5. #35
    rphenning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    341
    I don't mind headaches from darkroom chemicals. I do mind headaches from crappy movies!

  6. #36
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,172
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by rphenning View Post
    I hope 3D doesn't impact film sales. I already think it's (3D) a massive gimmick used by production houses because their movies are terrible, would be the icing on the cake if shitty movies in 3D, in a way, help to kill film.
    The problem is that 3D has already impacted film sales that's why there's such a large drop.

    Ian

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    105
    I think iMovie will be a greater threat to film than 3D.

    I doubt the kids watching the cartoon network today will ever own a device called a "camera"----nor will they know what RA4 or C41 is.I am pretty sure they'll know what a hologram is.

  8. #38
    Prest_400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    525
    Two weeks ago I saw a leaflet of my local cinema. It's got 8 screening theaters (2 are 3D) and of the 8 films advertised one said near the title "analog". I wonder if it means that they have converted all their theaters to digital except that one. Last time I went there, there was still film.

    I've heard comments that 3D might be just an strategy to convert the theaters to Digital.

    If I'm not wrong, the drop was mostly on positive film, Eastmancolor, the one used for screenings.

  9. #39
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    The way I read it, the report does not say that film operations are not profitable. It says that revenues declined 25% (which is the expected yearly decline rate, the problem is when the decline will stop) the part "[hit by volume declines] and surging costs for silver and aluminum" does not make sense IMO as costs for silver and aluminium can affect profits, not revenues. Should have said "hit by volume declines" simply, supposing Kodak did not change pricing that is.

    The photographic film, photofinishing and entertainment film unit posted a $3 million operating loss tells us how that division performed overall, but does not disaggregate between film, photofinishing and entertainment film. It is possible that photofinishing creates operating losses > $3 million, and so that the other two subdivisions have positive operating profits.

    When browsing Kodak information I find it always difficult, or impossible, to find separate data for "film" and "non-film" activities.

    In any case, we live in dire economic straights and even the soundest business can go down temporarily. Economy will recover. Film can easily become profitable again for Kodak next years, even supposing it is not today.

    The figure I would be interested in is the decline in revenue for film products. We'll look for a decline in the yearly decline percentage, e.g. for some signs of stabilisation of the market to certain film volumes.

    I actually would not be surprised if film consumption begins increasing again. Film is perceived as "expensive" in relation to digital (besides "impractical"). This very moment, "expensive" stuff don't sell. When the economy improves again, I think that people will use more film, both amateurs and professionals.

    Fabrizio
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    965
    Images
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    It wouldn't be the first time that stereo & then 3D technology has had a short burst of enthusiasm only to fade away into the background.
    Remember "Quad"? A total flop in the market, no one wanted to pay for the extra speakers. Twenty years later, everyone wants surround sound, needs new speakers, receivers, disc players, everything. For decades, Phone Co. tried to sell videophone service, no one wanted it. Service quality was awful and only worked if you knew someone else who had it too. Now people do video skype over the net. Who the hell knows with these things? But I've seen a few of the new 3d movies, and while it's a huge improvement over the b-movies of the 1950s, most of the movies are not. The effect might be better but it doesn't actually make the movie better. But Hollywood thinks it needs these things to compete with HD TVs and Netflix and everything else. Just making movies that are worth paying to see seems to be passe now.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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