Kodak Retires Kodachrome Film

[TerryM]

... 8. The coating is made and then tested first as a B&W material and then as a full color material. If defective it is scrap. While being coated, any coating defects are mapped and a cutting program is set up to slit and chop the material into optimum products. ...

Ron, how common are coating defects? The 35mm Movie Film is cut for 1000 foot long Reels. There can only be 5 Reels lengthwise for the whole Master Roll, and so there would be major loss from the Roll if any defects are found.

... So, believe me, this is a carefully orchestrated operation that is ongoing. I seem to be hitting your shields and rebounding with all of this information though. ... No offence intended Terry, it just seems to me that you want to believe what you want to believe, not what is so.
I hope some of you get those old references. Terry, I hope you begin to see the scope of what you are addressing from an engineering or at least more practical POV rather than idealistic. ...

You do need to keep in mind that we haven't seen a Coating Machine -- not even a picture. It's easier for you to understand your descriptions, but for us we're essentially blind. I think I now understand a point of confusion. Do I assume correctly that the coating of the Film is done at the same time all throughout the 5000 feet of the Roll? I had thought it was coated in sequence as the Film would move along like a conveyor belt at the supermarket checkout. If the prior is the case, I guess the Coating Machine must be a good thousand feet long or more. If you don't have a picture, a simple sketch would be useful. :rolleyes:

[Photo Engineer]

Figure 10% defects or less.

The coating track itself can be up to 5000 feet long requiring 1 master roll to just thread it and one to re-thread it at the end of the process. All layers are placed on the coating at the head end of the machine, and all are done at one time. The trough coater (single layer from the 40s) is shown in a film here on APUG courtesy of Marko.

I have also posted that same picture here on APUG from an old textbook written by a Kodak person.

PE

[Photo Engineer]

Paul;

Your post 555 seems quite reasonable on the surface, but Kodak does not want to and actually cannot spin off the photo portion. First, the digital part would not survive without the analog part. So, they don't want to, they need it. Second, the pollution quotient of the Kodak Park area is potentially so high that any change in hands would involve inspections and any necessary detoxification. So, it is less expensive to just let a sleeping dog lie and continue to hold on to what you have.

So, during the lifetime of the motion picture film industry, the system must turn Kodak digital efforts around or everything collapses. Because Kodak (and Fuji actually) were so big, it has created the current problems if they try to shrink back.

PE

[rternbach]

So, during the lifetime of the motion picture film industry, the system must turn Kodak digital efforts around or everything collapses. Because Kodak (and Fuji actually) were so big, it has created the current problems if they try to shrink back.PE

To take a slight turn from the topic at hand: How much longer can we expect the motion picture film industry to last before it becomes entirely digital. Which could mean from digital recording to digital theater projectors and every step in between. Or will there always be a niche for film just as in still photography?

[JBrunner]

To take a slight turn from the topic at hand: How much longer can we expect the motion picture film industry to last before it becomes entirely digital. Which could mean from digital recording to digital theater projectors and every step in between. Or will there always be a niche for film just as in still photography?

The current situation is such that motion picture film remains the most cost effective method for the origination of theatrical releases. Post production has gone digital, as has some distribution. The majority of commercial TV production is well on the way, owing to general youthfulness at agencies and the general hype the kiddies now calling the shots grew up with, and also that you can get away with a variety of "film look" gimmicks with the small screen. There will still need to be significant advancement in video for it to really replace motion picture film at the movies, for a variety of technical, cost, reliability, and aesthetic reasons. It isn't Joe consumer who shoots this stuff. How long it will keep it's preeminence is anyone's guess, but my guess is about five years, with another five years of fade out. Movie people are very reluctant to deviate from the tried and true, owing to the vast amounts of money and careers that are at stake literally every time the camera rolls. Unfortunately motion picture film is different enough from the color still films, that the cherished notion that as long as they make motion picture film you will be able to get C-41 and E6 as well is a bit of a red herring. They are related, and ongoing research and advancements are still trickling down to still films, but MP film can not be expected to keep "our" film in production, any more than it kept Kodachrome in production.

[Photo Engineer]

The rest of the world will determine the lifetime of MP films. Bollywood is a big consumer of camera and print film and they do not yet have the infrastructure to convert to digital. The biggest runner is MP Print film making the prints distributed to the theaters. Most theaters do not want to convert as conversion is not cost effective. Locally, one theater is converted to the Kodak system but only courtesy of Kodak which uses it for trade trials and demonstrations.

So, I think that Jason's estimate of 5 years is a bit short unless it is only a USA figure. I think 10+ years is more reasonable with a gradual decline.

But then, who really knows?

PE

[rternbach]

The rest of the world will determine the lifetime of MP films. Bollywood is a big consumer of camera and print film and they do not yet have the infrastructure to convert to digital. The biggest runner is MP Print film making the prints distributed to the theaters. Most theaters do not want to convert as conversion is not cost effective. Locally, one theater is converted to the Kodak system but only courtesy of Kodak which uses it for trade trials and demonstrations.So, I think that Jason's estimate of 5 years is a bit short unless it is only a USA figure. I think 10+ years is more reasonable with a gradual decline.But then, who really knows?
PE

So then we might expect in ten years or so Kodak, Sony, Viacom, and players to be named at a future date, will distribute digital motion pictures to remotely operated chains of digital theaters while only small "art houses" show vintage MP print films. One thing that could slow this development wouldn't be a dedication to video or audio quality as much as the continued drop in the prices of homebased digital MP systems--which would also reduce the interest in film-based "art houses"--but never eliminate it.

[clayne]

So then we might expect in ten years or so Kodak, Sony, Viacom, and players to be named at a future date, will distribute digital motion pictures to remotely operated chains of digital theaters while only small "art houses" show vintage MP print films. One thing that could slow this development wouldn't be a dedication to video or audio quality as much as the continued drop in the prices of homebased digital MP systems--which would also reduce the interest in film-based "art houses"--but never eliminate it.

Makes you want to just give up at times, doesn't it? Joe Blow consumer just doesn't give a damn how they get their daily fill of entertainment, really.

Speaking of the film vs digital divisions, here are some summarized figures of the last 3 quarters:

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....l-newsEarnings

(group: revenue/profit)
2008 Q3:
CDG: 820/+23
GCG: 821/+23
FPEG: 764/+77

2008 Q4:
CDG: 958/-40
GCG: 821/-4
FPEG: 652/+39

2009 Q1:
CDG: 369/-157
GCG: 603/-60
FPEG: 503/+8

FPEG the only profitable one right now.

[Ian Grant]

Can you translate that gibberish please into plain English

Is FPEG like JPEG ?

Ian

[Dave in Kansas]

PE, I would like to ask you this question. Is it possible, or perhaps I should phrase the question, do you think it is likely or unlikely that Kodak can or will produce a transparency film (E-6 process) that has the archival quality of Kodachrome?

While I love the look of Kodachrome, the change over will not be much of a problem for me if I can find another film with similar archival qualities. I just want to have some amount of certainty that if I shoot pictures of my kids today that get put away in box in the basement and not found for another 50 years, they might still be able someday to hold them up to the light and see what they used to look like. I don't want to give them, or their eventual children the idea that the world looked pink shortly after the turn of the century.

Dave