What are Kodak's true motives?

[S8 Booster]

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

I´d put my money on that the problem with S8 is costs/profits:

1) Questionable processing quailty for US K40 users
2) Too high costs sending US K40s to Europe.
3) Costly logistics - Europe too

Possibly the prepaid mailer/processing system worked out well in E but due to (1) above unsatisfactory in US. What isn´t good for US customers in´t good for Kodak?

Got to be a costs/profit/future unpreditcably issue.

T

[matt5791]

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???

I think you mis understand me. I am not saying that Kodachrome has a lot of saturation, I am saying that the colour is unrealistic.

As regards exposure latitude, one of the things that distinguishes film from video is its ability to capture a very wide brightness range, unfortunately, of course, this is not true of K40.

As I said I really do like using Kodachrome emulsions (Always have some K200 / K64 on hand for my slr) but they really are far from perfect and nowhere near as good as people make out.

Matt

Matt

[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.

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.

I'm sorry but you discredit yourself.

First by reading FAR too much into this decision at Kodak.

Second by not offering any concrete evidence for your position, leading me to think it is pure conjecture, which you present as fact.

Others are also guilty of presenting conjecture as fact. I keep reading that "K40 is the best selling stock by far" but knowbody has ever (apart from a confused report in a European magazine) presented any hard figures.

Matt

[Carlos 8mm]

Moviestuff wrote:

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.

Completely agree.

In some way is reasonable this Kodak´s policy to discontinend K-40 for Super 8, cause the price of the cartridge includes developing. and that "service" increases costs for Kodak, specially for a film stock which is not enviromental friendly and the actual dollar´s weakness. They can make some money for a short time selling K-40 in 16mm, until the demand of developing decreases till labs like Duayne´s have time to switch to E-6.

To me, the releasing of Ekta 64T sounds like a "the last drowned scream", as we say here. Or "its now or never". This could jutify the releasing of and old slide stock as E 64t. Maybe this "new" stock could be improved in a couple of years.

Just my thoughts

Carlos.

[Alex]

It's pretty evident that Kodak didn't believe that Kodachrome 40 could have professional use if there was at least one same day or overnight processing lab on the West Coast.

Yet all the other Super-8 stocks have loyal followings and same day or overnight processing available. So many people foam over some of the mini-dv images they get because they really have nothing to compare them to.

A stock like Kodachrome 40 would have been very intriguing for those trying to be different from the mini-dv minions if the processing options were more realistic.

Sadly, the amount of money that Kodak pissed away fed-exing film to Switzerland and offering free processing with their film would have been better spent helping a West Coast lab offer Kodachrome 40 processing.

I would much have preferred pay for quick, quality processing from a West Coast Kodachrome lab, or get it free and back in about 3 weeks to a month from Switzerland.

-----------

Matt, Stick to YOUR OPINON about what YOU FEEL about the situation as a whole, it's not necessary to play judge and jury as if you represent others just because you disagree with someone else.

[Jim Carlile]

Moviestuff wrote:

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.

Actually, you've missed my point. It's simply that Kodak claims that processing concerns are why they discontinued S8 K40, and that's not it at all. If it was, 16 would be a problem for them as well. That's the contradiction. How are they making LESS money on 16 processing than on S8? They're not. And so they're keeping 16?

No, Kodak is being disingenuous. They're eliminating K40, pure and simple. The processing explanation is bogus. K40 manufacture for ALL cine gauges has been ceased, trust me. This is how they did it with the sound stocks ten years ago-- they stopped manufacture, kept it close to them for about a year, and THEN announced their future discontinuance when stocks started running low.

You guys in Texas don't catch on to political and economic dissent very well, do you?

Kodak is a' lyin about all of this. That's OK-- it's their business-- but wise up about their phony explanations. What's annoying about them is they're not playing straight about it.

Hey, I remember some of you guys about the Yale dispute a few years ago-- where you tried to claim that Yale had a justifiable content policy, but no means to put it into play with their processing/duplication services. i.e., that they didn't censor objectionable material, but sent it back to the client undisturbed. You were wrong then, and I suspect you're wrong now about Kodak and K40.

These companies can do what they want to, but please don't whitewash them.

[alan doyle]

What are Kodak's true motives?

ha bloody ha!
kind of reminds me of the line in
Apocalypse now:


Kurtz: "What did they tell you?"

Willard: "They told me that you had gone totally insane, and, uh, that your methods were... unsound."

Kurtz: "And are my methods unsound?"

Willard: "Uh, I don't see any method at all, Sir."


we take it up the arse,and we are expected to say thanks kodak boss man..
what a great product portfolio..

i have spoken to satan,and he is stokeing the red hot pokers...
ready for anal insertion...
hey kodak guys come on down.

[tlatosmd]

What are Kodak's true motives?

ha bloody ha!
kind of reminds me of the line in
Apocalypse now:


Kurtz: "What did they tell you?"

Willard: "They told me that you had gone totally insane, and, uh, that your methods were... unsound."

Kurtz: "And are my methods unsound?"

Willard: "Uh, I don't see any method at all, Sir."

That's *so* true. Also with all that arrogant audience with the leader thing, as with Kodak trying to explain their customers they know better about their customers than their customers themselves do. :lol:

[reflex]

That's *so* true. Also with all that arrogant audience with the leader thing, as with Kodak trying to explain their customers they know better about their customers than their customers themselves do.

Kodak sold 100,000 carts of Super 8 K-40 last year, with a total wholesale value of about $1.1-million. If each person bought five carts, that means there are only 20,000 k-40 users in the entire world. If we were a species, we'd be on the endangered list.

In comparison, Kodak sold 990,000 digital cameras in July through September of last year alone, with a wholesale value of just over $224-million.

All of you: Please stop with the consipracy theories and the "they're evil and ignoring their customer" arguments. The stark reality is that K-40 sales are irrelevant to Kodak's bottom line, and since equipment isn't being made sales will only continue to drop.

[kentbulza]

In comparison, Kodak sold 990,000 digital cameras in July through September of last year alone, with a wholesale value of just over $224-million.

And lost money on every one.

[MovieStuff]

Moviestuff wrote:

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.

Actually, you've missed my point.

Nah. I understood exactly what you wrote. Did you?

It's simply that Kodak claims that processing concerns are why they discontinued S8 K40, and that's not it at all. If it was, 16 would be a problem for them as well.

It is. All Kodachrome processing is a problem for Kodak. You apparently know nothing about the K14 process.

That's the contradiction. How are they making LESS money on 16 processing than on S8? They're not.

You're right. I have no idea what your point is. How much money Kodak makes on 16mm Kodachrome processing has no bearing on this topic. 16mm Kodachrome is still around only because its fate is controlled by another division than S8 Kodachrome. Kodak simply hasn't gotten around to axing 16mm Kodachrome but they will, sooner rather than later. Therefore, the existence of 16mm in Kodachrome has no bearing on the future of S8 Kodachrome. You are trying to make a connection that doesn't exist.

Hey, I remember some of you guys about the Yale dispute a few years ago-- where you tried to claim that Yale had a justifiable content policy,

I never said I agreed with their policy; only that they did not break the law. You claimed that they did and that the courts were full of cases to support your claims about Yale Labs illegal activity. Of course, we're still waiting on your evidence to support your claims.....

You were wrong then

Nah. But keep looking for those docket numbers, okay Jim?

and I suspect you're wrong now about Kodak and K40.

Suspect all you want but, in the mean time, post those court cases about Yale the first chance you get, okay? By your own estimation we had that debate a few years ago so you should have found them by now, right?

These companies can do what they want to, but please don't whitewash them.

So who's whitewashing Kodak here? I don't think anyone here is happy with them. As far as Yale goes, take your time. Oh, that's right. You already are......

Roger

[monobath]

In comparison, Kodak sold 990,000 digital cameras in July through September of last year alone, with a wholesale value of just over $224-million.

And lost money on every one.

yeah, but they made up for it in volume, right?

[reflex]

In comparison, Kodak sold 990,000 digital cameras in July through September of last year alone, with a wholesale value of just over $224-million.

And lost money on every one.

You're wrong.

April 22nd, 2005 news release pulled from Clearstation:

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - Eastman Kodak Co. (EK) posted a quarterly net loss on Friday as sales in its traditional film business fell faster than expected, overshadowing solid growth in digital photography, and its shares tumbled as much as 10 percent."

In CY2004, they maintained a gross profit margin of 30.78% over their full product line with an EBITDA of $243.00M in 12 months.

[tlatosmd]

That's *so* true. Also with all that arrogant audience with the leader thing, as with Kodak trying to explain their customers they know better about their customers than their customers themselves do.

Kodak sold 100,000 carts of Super 8 K-40 last year, with a total wholesale value of about $1.1-million. If each person bought five carts, that means there are only 20,000 k-40 users in the entire world. If we were a species, we'd be on the endangered list.

Isn't their more users in Germany alone, like 50,000? And why would Kodak claim they were vividly supporting S8 if there'd be no customers that like to hear that?

And as for digital, I'd call upon the digital decline about to come as everyone and their dog is soon to have a digital cam which means the market will be satisified and they'll all see those disadvantages in digital besides quick convenience which don't even out less quality. Of course sensible service and marketing for cine products would help a lot, other than just saying 'no, you can't' which if used forcefully enough will more and more become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[reflex]

Isn't their more users in Germany alone, like 50,000? And why would Kodak claim they were vividly supporting S8 if there'd be no customers that like to hear that?

One of the example articles on the http://www.smallformat.de site lists annual sales of all Super 8 films in Germany.

It says that Super 8 film sales peaked in 1979 and 1980 at 19,000,000 carts per year. It lists the total German sales of Super 8 carts in 2004 at 100,000.