Kodak Retires Kodachrome Film

[rternbach]

One roll of their cheapest film is probably worth more than a share of their stock.

[bobwysiwyg]

One group of pundits at Kodak proclaimed that digital would not become a significant threat until 2020.

For some reason, folks keep underestimating tech advances. I remember when Intel came out with the 286 chip. At the time, the same pundits no doubt, were saying it was appropriate for servers, but no one would ever need that much power on their desktop.

[Colin Corneau]

I don't really see the point of Kodak-bashing. I'm grateful for the products they DO still offer.

To those who quibble: how bleak would things be if they didn't even offer THOSE?

I disagree with the Kodachrome decision and wish they'd marketed the film much, much better the past decade. That's still not enough reason to, as the saying goes, cut off one's nose to spite one's face.

Heck, I'm even willing to forgive them for not flying me in first class to shoot one of the last rolls!

[rternbach]

There has been much written praising Kodak manufacturing and the products we have all enjoyed from them. It shouldn't be seen as bashing if an analysis of their history shows up errors that were made. The errors should be acknowledged in the hope of avoiding repeating them. Do you think Fuji and Canon ignore Kodak's mistakes? More likely they study them so they don't repeat them. Let Fuji and Canon come up with their own errors I say.

[Ektagraphic]

One roll of their cheapest film is probably worth more than a share of their stock.

Sadly, that is true.

[fotch]

I don't really see the point of Kodak-bashing. I'm grateful for the products they DO still offer.

To those who quibble: how bleak would things be if they didn't even offer THOSE?

I disagree with the Kodachrome decision and wish they'd marketed the film much, much better the past decade. That's still not enough reason to, as the saying goes, cut off one's nose to spite one's face.

Heck, I'm even willing to forgive them for not flying me in first class to shoot one of the last rolls!

Amen.

[Photo Engineer]

Fuji made quite a few errors as did Agfa. Those are the ones I know about and are confined to the technical arena or to the decision making process regarding products. These errors are not as well known for one reason or another, but exist nevertheless.

I can assure you that we, at Kodak, studied these errors though.

PE

[rternbach]

I wish Kodak the best. I hope Kodak survives to compete successfully in the global arena and has the wherewithal to keep making some good films while it reinvents itself.

[wogster]

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

I would think, even in the US, it's probably closer to 20+ years, because it's not really and either/or situation.

I think it was in the 1970's that they had a big change in theatre projection, before that a projection room used 2 projectors, and the projectionist would switch between them to change reels. Then they developed a new process where the entire film could be spliced into a single massive reel, and you only needed one projector. It also meant that a single projectionist could control multiple screens.

Many theatres if you look at the back still have 2 projection windows. It makes sense therefore to, when you add digital projection, to put the digital projector beside the film projector, in the second window. This means that you have the flexibility of projecting both film and digital, because not all movies are distributed in both formats. Although it's still an expensive process and some theatres have one or two dual format screens, some that still have two film projectors, handy if a projector breaks down, you simply thread the film into the second one, and continue on, very few are only digital.

It's more about what format is preferred if both are available, sometimes the director is the one that chooses, if the director is looking for a certain look, the movie may be distributed only on film

It's similar for still photographers, for some photographers you would have to pry their film cameras from their cold dead fingers. For others they wouldn't go back to film if you paid them. For still others they have both film and digital and use whichever gives them the look they want.

I put myself into the 3rd category, I like having a digital camera, I also like having a couple of film cameras, and will sometimes carry them all....:rolleyes:

[Sirius Glass]

This thread has made it to 600 posts. Lets go for 1000.

And even stay on topic.

Steve