What are Kodak's true motives?

[kentbulza]

I hope that Kodak can give a date as a deadline when the last K40 cartridge can be developed by Kodak Switzerland.

When Kodak stopped developing 120 Kodachrome, they gave a definitive date. Hopefully they will do the same for Super 8.

[Alex]

If Kodak claims to be getting rid of the K40 in super 8 because of "low market demand", what happens when people shoot even less of the 64T because they do not care for it? Will this be their excuse to terminate the format alltogether?

The press release on Kodak's pass is laughingly inept, but it still has a chilling effect none the less. I was wondering also how replacing the best selling Super-8 stock with an untested Ektachrome stock would increase sales.

I am still in shock that Kodak, at the very least would have given us film to video guys a ray of hope by releasing the 50ASA negative and the 100 vision T as a form of appeasement for the loss of Kodachrome 40.

Sometimes we think we are civilized because we don't act up, but in this instance, the press release was clearly written with the assumption that we are all sheep.

[reflex]

I am still in shock that Kodak, at the very least would have given us film to video guys a ray of hope by releasing the 50ASA negative and the 100 vision T as a form of appeasement for the loss of Kodachrome 40.

Maybe they will, if all of us sheep make enough noise.

[Alex]

The Kodak announcement was quite clear (and truthful):

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/about ... per8.jhtml

As part of the portfolio revamp, Kodak will discontinue sales of its S8 KODACHROME 40 Movie Film. Final sales of KODACHROME Super 8 will be based on product availability over the coming months. Sales of KODACHROME 16 mm films will continue, unaffected by this announcement.

The decision to discontinue KODACHROME in Super 8 was driven entirely by marketplace dynamics.

"Because the 'home movie' market has shifted to digital, sales of KODACHROME Super 8 film have declined significantly," according to Mayson. "In tandem with that decline, the availability of processing for KODACHROME Super 8 cartridges has diminished. In other words, fewer and fewer labs worldwide have the machines and the chemistry necessary to process this film emulsion in the Super 8 format."

Kodak will give customers at least a year to process their KODACHROME Super 8 film with Kodak or seek an alternative.

Kodak remains committed to the Super 8 format, as evidenced by the new film announced today. Kodak is building on a product line that covers the needs of enthusiasts, from a choice of stocks in negative, black and white, and reversal films. Kodak's intent is to maintain the format as long as it is supported by marketplace conditions

"That's why Kodak has continued to invest in the Super 8 business," he added.

I don't feel that is a clear and truthful statement. There has been NO ADVERTISING Dollars spent on Super-8 in an incredibly long time. More truthful to say, Kodak has continued to "participate" in the Super-8 business, which I do appreciate.

Invest would mean Kodak actually tried to help the labs that wanted to offer K-40 processing rather than ignore them, sponsored a film festival or two, sent out press releases to magazines about super-8 success stories, considered really promoting the format rather than ignoring it.

"We're just thrilled to introduce this vivid, new emulsion to the marketplace. It's a great new product with very high image quality and excellent color reproduction, providing our Super 8 customers another creative tool for their toolbox."

Yes, when compared to ANOTHER STOCK that was already abandoned, Ektachrome 125. Pardon my math, but if Kodak terminates two stocks, Kodachrome 40 and Ektachrome 125, and adds one, that is SUBTRACTING one Super-8 film stock, not adding a film stock.

The new KODAK EKTACHROME 64T film expands the current Super 8 portfolio that includes two black-and-white reversal films in medium and high speeds covering a range of lighting situations. Super 8 customers will also find the latest KODAK VISION2 motion picture films available in 200T and 500T speeds, incorporating the highest quality images, improved sharpness and grain, along with a full systems approach, optimizing the entire imaging chain.

Once again, terminating TWO film stocks (Ektachrome 125 and Kodachrome 40) while adding ONE new film stock (Ektachrome 64), IS NOT expanding the Super-8 portfolio.

"With Super 8 gates now available for high-end scanners, coupled with the KODAK VISION2 film technology advancements, Super 8 is what 16 mm film used to be," says Mayson. "Super 8 color negative film has become another option for professionals with low budgets."

Meaning Kodachrome 40 will look even better with the improved scanning technology! Or at the very least, it should mean that offering a low ASA negative stock, or two, to replace the Kodachrome 40 would take real advantage of the new scanning technologies.

As part of the portfolio revamp, Kodak will discontinue sales of its S8 KODACHROME 40 Movie Film. Final sales of KODACHROME Super 8 will be based on product availability over the coming months. Sales of KODACHROME 16 mm films will continue, unaffected by this announcement.

Kodachrome 16mm will still be available??? How can splitting a market in half that is currently not achieving high enough sales volume help increase sales? 8O

The decision to discontinue KODACHROME in Super 8 was driven entirely by marketplace dynamics.

Driven PRIMARILY by Kodak not helping willing Super-8 labs that wanted to offer Kodachrome 40 processing.

----------------------------------

The Kodak press release is meant to look like it is "celebrating" the 40th anniversary of the Super-8 format.

It looks like the part about the introduction of a Super-8 ASA 50 Negative and Super-8 Vision 100T negative was cut out of the press release at the last moment. 8O

If two low ASA negative stocks had been included in the press release as being new additions to the Super-8 family as well, then the overall tone and tenor of the press release would suddenly hold up to the press release claims of "expanding" film stocks and filmmaking choices.

[camera8mm]

Dwaynes poisition is from whem I talked to them today as long as the 35mm and 16mm kodachrome is being offered by kodak, they will do the super 8 processing.

Susan at kodak claimed they got complaints about dwaynes super 8 processing but no one here has posted any negative processing comments about dwaynes.

the 64t is available in the 35mm still camera fomat but its a bit pricey compaired to other 35mm films ($9.00 a roll) but I dont think looking at it on a still is the same as shooting it in a movie camera and projecting it.

[marc]

"As noted in the announcement, much of the problem is that few labs even process KODACHROME anymore in ANY format."

Yet it's still going to exist for 16mm...?

Dwayne's stated in another thread that they will continue to offer K40 processing. They already have the capacity, so I don't see any reason why the number of labs is even an issue, especially when it's still offered as 16mm.

That is the checkmate question that blows the whole argument right out of the water. You won't hear any defense on Kodak's side for that question. The only valid point made by John ( that makes sense to us users) is the ease of processing . But even that is questionable because many people are content with the avaible resources for that. Is Dwayne's and Kodak Switzerland being overloaded with Kodachrome orders? If they eliminate it in the Super 8 format will this ease their burden? If there really is an overload, why does dyanes offer a 1 day service? Enviornmental reasons? Maybe, but the higher guages will still have Kodachrome ( and maybe R8). Or perhaps the enviornmental pressures will be eased by this elimination because S8 represents the biggest use of Kodachrome ( and therefore the largest share of the market). And by eliminating it in S8, it will take a big chunk of the pressure off of Kodak. If S8 is the largest part of the Kodachrome market then eliminating that will make the elimination of the Kodachrome emulsions completely that much faster. It will also cause a lot of people to move to 16mm and therefore develop filmmakers that will spend more money on filmmaking by using a larger format. With the many emulsions avaiable in 16mm, how can that Kodachrome market be better than the Super 8 Kodachrome market? One theory that I have always had and that I have already alluded to in the above statements is that digital is film's enemy in more ways than one. The exponential improvements in video technology has really made the smaller formats very appealing. In this day and age you can get professional results out of an "amateur format" that was not possible years ago. Is it really in Kodak's interest to have so many people benefit from "budget filmmaking"? No. It is in their interest to sell more film. This means larger guages. I work for a large company that deals very intimately with it's customers. When John says that Kodak's motives are exactly as stated I have to say this: I know the press line and I know the reality. They are rarely 100% consistant. And when you have a company like Kodak that puts out so many contradictory statements like they don't know what the word "communication" means, these press releases come under that much more scrutiny. Can John prove to us that this statement is 100% honest? Of course not! And I would not expect him to! Maybe Kodak's financial statements are available to the public but not everything about a company is. Working for a large company I know what the term " this information is for internal purposes only" means. I have had to sign "Non disclosure" statements for plans that were being implimented. I mean if people had 100% certainty about Kodak's press releases, they could view their Board of director's meetings live on television like the stock figures. And we know that that possibility is obsurd!

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Susan at kodak claimed they got complaints about dwaynes super 8 processing but no one here has posted any negative processing comments about dwaynes.

Santo did, he even called them "Stinky Dwaynes" if I remember it correctly.

And someone else complained too, I don´t remember who it was though...

[Evan Kubota]

"But even that is questionable because many people are content with the avaible resources for that."

Definitely. Despite only 2 labs in the world processing K40, it's still far more convenient to drop it off at Wal-Mart or use a PK59 than it is to pay exorbitant lab fees to have the new E64 processed, and have to deal with shipping, etc. The non-process-paid aspect of the new film stock, combined with the inavailability of Wal-Mart's processing, are the worst things IMO. I'm going to miss paying $4.88 per roll for processing a lot more than I'll miss K40's look and texture (although I appreciate those as well).

[Angus]

Maybe K40 sales have dropped in the last two years, Kodak have always been reluctant to give actual figures.

We know that at the turn of this century sales were up, Kodak began promoting super 8 again...maybe things *have* changed.

THat doesn't alter the fact that K40 must have been capable of making a small profit, and was by far the biggest selling super 8 product.

The problem we face is that we do not represent a significant portion of Big K's market. So basically they don't much care what we do or say...and most large businesses aren't interested in the past or long term future...just the next four to six quarters of financial figures so they can keep their jobs and 'earn' their bonuses.

[Alex]

Two labs for the whole lab was woefully inadequate. As transfer technologies improve Kodak would have enjoyed wider use because the contrast found in Kodachrome could have been "handled" by the newer video transfer technologies.

But nobody took the best looking Super-8 film stock because it could not be turned around in a day or overnight in at least one or two bustling cities in the U.S., such as Los Angeles and an Eastern Coast city.

Ergo, If the two processing places in the world can only do 50,000-100,000 cartridges a year, that is woefully inadequate. That works out to a million dollars in sales a year. It's possible that sales were double or triple the amount that was being processed, so that still only represents 2-3 million in sales a year.

I can't see Kodak getting excited unless it was 8-10 million dollars a year in film sales. Kodak didn't want to do the sweat equity for Kodachrome that was needed.

[jean]

just the next four to six quarters of financial figures so they can keep their jobs and 'earn' their bonuses.

You're an optimist. It's only the current quarter, and maybe some dreamy illusionist keeps worrying about the quarters ahead. This is done by selection, since he'll get fired if his numbers for the current quarter are less then expected, long-term thinking folks are soon off the company. The average manager would sacrifice his mother without a second thought if this would improve the quarter results.

I spent a lot of my lifetime in the corporate world..

[Angus]

Ergo, If the two processing places in the world can only do 50,000-100,000 cartridges a year, that is woefully inadequate. .

Eh? I thought we established that the Swiss lab is doing 300,000 carts a year. At least 30,000 are sold in Germany alone!

[Alex]

I Kodak machine in Switzerland can handle five times the workload of the one in the United States. I think the maximum was 200 carts an hour?

But how many hours is the processor going?

Either way we can assume that more Kodachrome is being sold than is being processed, how much more, who knows?

[matt5791]

Sorry, Alex, you are talking utter bollocks (that's bullshit in American) like you have been on the Cinematography website, and I'm not even going to bother disecting your posts because there is so much shit to wade through, suffice to say your posts are full of pure conjecture with zero fact.

If I was sitting in a position of control at Kodak and read your posts I might just think Fuck you then, lets just close down all super8 film support.

The way some people talking about this, an outsider could have been forgiven for thinking that this Kodachrome was the most perfect film emulsion even invented. In actual fact it has some very serious flaws:

1. FAR FAR too slow
2. FAR too contrasty
3. Miles too awkward to expose, especially for the novice.
4. Unrealistic colour saturation

I personally love Kodachrome film emulsions from K40 to K200. However for me the worst part about K40 is the speed, and for this reason I hardly ever shoot it anymore. If I do I always have something faster for when the light deterioates.

Ironically the exposure latitude of K40 can make it look like DV on occasion, unlike the more modern stocks.

Matt

[kentbulza]

or shoot on Digital video ( which seems to be very current issue with Kodak's financial position)

The transisition to digital is not affecting Kodak's motion picture sales. That is the healthiest part of their business. I believe sales were up AGAIN last quarter in that area by 6% and it's very profitable. A lot of this has to do with more motion picture prints. Films are being released simultaneously around the world, so more prints are made than they used to be. But I'm sure origination is pretty healthy too. I recently was talking with someone at one of the major studios and his conversation seemed to presume that origination would always be on film, even though they see future projection as digital (a move I disdain with the current technology of projectors).

Kodak's current problems caused by the transition to digital is in the consumer still market, because average consumers don't buy film any more.

If you want to examine the problem more, it's really that Kodak's sales in the digital area (that is cameras and "photo" printing), which are the replacement for consumer still films, have been largely unprofitable, so the sales drop in film is only being replaced by things that don't make any money.

Those things are all objective, just pull out a financial report. Now I'll get subjective: the problem is that Kodak doesn't have any competitive advantage in digital cameras like they do in film. No one else in the world could invest in the manufacturing of current technology color film, so the barriers to entry are too high. On the other hand, consumer digital cameras are very much a commodity business -- everyone makes them and nobody makes much money on them. Just look at Kyocera pulling out of the business. The only money is in professional digital cameras, and Kodak has always had a problem in this market because German film cameras and Japanese film cameras have been higher quality. Pros will not buy Kodak digital cameras based on the film camera history.