What are Kodak's true motives?

[matt5791]

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.

An excellent analysis.

[kentbulza]

1. FAR FAR too slow

Yes. That's because Kodak did not invest in converting Kodachrome to a T-grain film and relied its slowness to achieve fine grain. But we're only picking up half a stop because the new film is also older technology.

2. FAR too contrasty

Yes, but depends on your taste. Current motion picture films are not contrasty, but it's always a circle -- when you go to the theatre to see a revival print everyone remarks "how beautiful the colors are". Translated, it means contrasty, so some music video in the future will put contrast back en vogue.

By the way, I think sometimes people mean "hard lit" when they mean contrasty. Since it's amateur Super 8, chances are pretty good that any random film one would see is going to be hard lit.

3. Miles too awkward to expose, especially for the novice.

How is it any different? Another stop in latitude? Because a half stop in ASA doesn't really help out anyone that thought they could film indoors without lights.

4. Unrealistic colour saturation

I keep reading this...Kodachrome is not a terribly saturated stock. Especially the current emulsions. Kodachrome II was saturated around the reds, but K40/K64 is relatively neutral (although with a different palette vs. current E6) compared to RSX or Velvia. Which color is it everyone thinks is the saturated color???

[marc]

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.

That was actually my point. Moving ahead with digital is in their best interest. Supporting certain films would be a digression in that direction. There has been a lot of talk about Kodak wanting to be more competitive in the digital field. In order to do this they have to cut time and costs in other areas. What I also pointed out was that Kodak would rather have people shoot on the larger formats because that is where the profit is. I don't see how replacing Kodachrome with a grainier flim stock could improve the market demand for reversal Super 8 products. It may very well be a planned downfall for the format or at least the reversal end of it.

[Paul L.]

What Kodak should have done is offer an inexpensive scanning option to DVD along with processing. Kodak wants to complain about digital biting into their business, but they don't take the steps to use digital to their advantage. Most people want to transfer to video and edit non-linearly, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE MARKET!

[Alex]

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.

I'll refrain, but suffice it say, you're innaccurate.

Before you speak more poop, (that's english for poop) why not search these forum archives and see that the whole Kodachrome processing issue came up well over a year ago, at that time, I spoke with the inventor of the streamlined Kodachrome processing machines that were then marketed by Kodak in the mid 90's. I also used the Kodachrome processing services that Kodak offered in Hollywood up until the late 80's, I had lengthy discussions with Kodachrome 40 processing with Qualex after they took it over from Kodak. Answered calls and complaints that the turnaround was too slow for Kodachrome 40 processing and had NOTHING to do with the quality it offered.

I've worked as a Post production Transfer supervisor with Pro-8mm and Super-8 transfers when it cost $400.00 an hour and only high end places offered the service, and I've got a webpage (via my signature link) that talks about Kodachrome 40.

So when you make an attempt to discredit me, are you discrediting my history as it goes back well over a decade? Have I attempted to discredit you, or any other poster on this forum? The people who stick to the issues always get attacked by others with ulterior agendas.

Now tell me who your sources are. No doubt your statement above dribbled out of your bollocks in a hastily prepared fartocks.

[Alex]

What Kodak should have done is offer an inexpensive scanning option to DVD along with processing. Kodak wants to complain about digital biting into their business, but they don't take the steps to use digital to their advantage. Most people want to transfer to video and edit non-linearly, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE MARKET!

That's exactly the point.

I've stated when Kodachrome is ideal to shoot. When the skys are blue, Kodachrome WILL look like 16mm if you can find diffused areas to shoot your subjects.

If one has overcast white skys to deal with, then the key is to shoot and AVOID the sky and go for the even lighting that the sky helps create on the ground. Kodachrome DOES NOT have to be a beginners film stock, and that has been my point all along.

Kodachrome actually could have been used much more in the professional arena, IF same day or overnight processing had been available in Los Angeles, which it used to be up until Kodak began destroying their own Kodachrome business in the early 90's when they sold the business to Qualex.

As it stands now, NO LOW ASA FILM STOCK EXISTS That will truly replace the grain structure of Kodachrome 40.

[Jim Carlile]

The fact that Kodak is supposedly still going to be offering 16mm Kodachrome brings up a huge and obvious contradiction: how many labs worldwide process 16, but don't process S8? None that I can think of.

If this is the case, their press-release is more than a little disingenuous. Processing S8 has nothing to do with their decision. And if labs continue to process 16 because it will still be made available, why won't they process S8?

Since they can easily, I don't think processing old rolls of S8 is going to be a problem as long as K-16 is available. It's not like 16 can be processed at home.

Anyone have some recipes for processing k-40 as black-and-white?

[MovieStuff]

The fact that Kodak is supposedly still going to be offering 16mm Kodachrome brings up a huge and obvious contradiction: how many labs worldwide process 16, but don't process S8? None that I can think of.....

Since they can easily, I don't think processing old rolls of S8 is going to be a problem as long as K-16 is available.

To put this in a more accurate perspective, the only reason that Kodachrome 16mm is still being offered is because its fate is determined in a different division of Kodak, along with all the other 16mm film stocks. The decision to drop K40 Super 8 had no effect on any 16mm stock, including Kodachrome in 16mm. But, logically, if there wasn't enough S8-K40 being sold, then the ax certainly looms in the near future for 16mm Kodachrome, the sales of which are doodly, compared to Super 8.

So actually, you've got the logic in reverse: Any lab that can process Super 8 Kodachrome can also process 16mm Kodachrome, the volume of which is insignificant compared to Super 8. And if there is no more Super 8 Kodachrome to process, then the minimal number of 16mm Kodachrome rolls won't be enough volume to justify maintaining a K14 processing facility. Therefore, the existence of Kodachrome in 16mm means nothing, in terms of maintaining K14 processing for Super 8.

Roger Evans
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[Santo]

As it stands now, NO LOW ASA FILM STOCK EXISTS That will truly replace the grain structure of Kodachrome 40.

No, they've got stocks so much better at 100 asa that they'd blow 1930's technology K40 so far out of the water for image quality you'd never be able to find the pieces. Here's one. It's got an "8". That's lower than K40's "9". And it's a 100 speed and it's got the T-Grain technology.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professi ... 20.3&lc=en

Why don't you just do a tiny bit of research? I understand your K40 enthusiasm. I like some things about K40, too. But it's similar to your analogue video enthusiasm. Nostalgia only goes so far, and technology marches on. And, believe it or not, most of what it produces with regards to artistic media is very positive. Some things, very few, can't be improved upon. Film stock is not one of them.

I've been advocating pretty much non-stop on here that Kodak put their latest, finest grain stocks in super 8 carts. Only good can come of it. This new 64t is not the latest, but it is a very nice move in the right direction, and likely it, too, will be upgraded to a latest tech version. a 64t2 or whatever.

I enjoy jumping on soap boxes, too. But maybe, if you thought about it as a "video transfer guy" -- perhaps you are doing more harm than good on top of this soap box? Perhaps you should be focusing entirely on Kodak "going all the way" with stocks like I provided a link to? That seems like a much more constructive soap box for your aims as you state them.

Just a thought. You'll do whatever you want, of course.

[Alex]

Santo, it's the double whammy of no more Kodachrome and no replacement stock such as the VisionT 100 negative and the 50 ASA negative coming DIRECTLY FROM KODAK with no middlehand in the way and in which I MUST also pay for processing at the time of film stock purchase and yet do not get the same quality assurance I get from Kodak.

If Kodachrome stock is readily available through the end of this year AND processing is available until the end of next year, then at least that does give us Kodachrome shooters a while still to shoot.

My other concern is the immediate budgeting of a thousand dollars for Kodachrome now rather than purchasing it as I need it.

This intereferes dramatically with purchases I must make for my video editing business. I would hope Kodak would at least guarantee Kodachrome film stock supplies until the end of the year and if they run out, they would make another batch, but as far as I know, they will probably be a run on Kodachrome and then the reselling will begin, at much higher prices.

[Santo]

...it's the double whammy of...no replacement stock such as the VisionT 100 negative and the 50 ASA negative coming DIRECTLY FROM KODAK with no middlehand in the way

I cannot argue against this point. It remains absolutely incredible, if not bizarre, that Kodak does not offer at least V2 100t in super 8 form. Why not? It is, absolutely, the "made for super 8" negative stock. Why is it not available? A film format and a negative stock were never so clearly made for each other in today's digital transfer age.

If there is any weight to the Kodak press release statement "it's what 16mm used to be", then they would live up to that and release this stock and break the Pro8 monopoly. Somebody suggested on here they're really at odds. I find that impossible to believe as long as this situation exists. Removing Pro8's only unique advantage in today's marketplace would really destroy them. Doesn't Kodak know how to play corporation games? Let me in there. I'll run Pro8 out of business within the year and wildly expand super 8 profits for Kodak. However, it would still include dropping K40. Unfortunately. But there'd be vastly superior alternatives.

Having said that, damn Po8's website is sure improved. Go have a look.

[T-Scan]

The logic is that adding more negs will just cut into the current selection sales instead of boosting sales. even so, they should swap the 7217 with 7212 and keep the 500T. If you want the speed, use 500T.. 100T is great in daylight at 64ASA with amazing colors.

[Alex]

Pro-8mm won't go out of business even if they lost their monopoly on 100 ASA and 50 ASA, and for several reasons.

Pro-8mm is very well diversified. They have Beaulieu repair experts that work there, they reconfigured and repainted 4008, they can cut down all kinds of weird film stocks, they do cater to the professional and probably do a better job with the true professional (professional as in being paid to do a music video, commercial, etc), and they also do 16mm.

All it will do is make them a bit more humble...kind of like those of us who no longer can enjoy Kodachrome 40.

[Alex]

The logic is that adding more negs will just cut into the current selection sales instead of boosting sales. even so, they should swap the 7217 with 7212 and keep the 500T. If you want the speed, use 500T.. 100T is great in daylight at 64ASA with amazing colors.

Well you bring up an interesting scenario...

Kodak has four primary negative stocks available. It's possible when they released the 200 and the 500 it was specificially because the reversals were at the lower ASA part of the scale.

The new question would be, if you could only choose two Super-8 negative stocks, which two would you choose? I don't have an answer, but for sure one of them would be either the 50 or 100 ASA Negative.

[Santo]

Yes, perhaps it would be too involved and likely lead to bad press to go after Pro8 like that. :lol:

I agree with T-Scan's idea. Super 8 should have a 500 and a 100 Vision negative stock. Having a 200 and a 500 in such a small format that magnifies grain structure seems redundant. If you're only going to have two negative choices, fine, make them real choices. Specific purposes.

I think clearly 50d would be a lot less desirable than 100t. It truely is only good for shooting outside. And outside under decent conditions. Indoors, what are you going to do? Put a blue filter on the lens and knock it down to a 12 or whatever inside? It would be pretty useless. At least with ektachrome 100d, if you really wanted to, you'd be looking at a 25. Pretty bad, but you could do it if you had to. But a 12 asa indoors? :roll: K40 already stresses me out when I open up that yellow-orange package. And imagine if your negative choices were 500t and 50d? It would be so hard to match them in a film project shot in super 8. Hard enough in 35mm probably.