small format mag may exist in future

[Alex]

still need another 139 subscribers within 3 weeks...

How long to get on Kodak's website?

Is there a chance a "call to subscription" flyer can be generated so forum members can post them in the local camera store?

[Alex]

Yesterday I talked to the publishers. We need another 200 subscriptions to survive. So, if you are interested in the future of a magazine like this and have not subscribed yet, please be so kind and send us an eMail with your full address. Subscription is US-$ 79 or € 69 for six issues (one year). Please be so kind to inform your friends and other Super 8 and 16mm enthusiasts about small format.

On Nov 22 the publishers will make the decision to go on or not.

Jürgen Lossau
eMail: redaktion@schmalfilm.biz

Originally I recall the date being in February, the date being moved up three months is kind of a bummer.

[super8man]

Bump...just trying to help!

[Juergen]

Thanks super8man, 135.

[Alex]

Why is it more expensive than K40?!

I just simply can't get it. I remember Kodak mentioning that the processing for k40 was more expensive than for 64t so why is Ekatachrome 64T more expensive than Kodachrome 40 was?

It's more expensive because processing is being done through third-party labs.

Kodak no longer has anything to do with the processing of Super 8 film, and their facility in Lausanne now processes less than 100,000 or so S8 carts each year.

That means they were selling maybe $1.2million worth of Super 8 carts every 12 months. Now... subtract the cost of the film stock, packaging, shipping, and marketing.

That probably left them with only a few hundred thousand per year -- hardly enough to maintain that big building, cover processing and equipment maintenance costs, and pay staff.

But did Kodak offer anyone the chance to take over the processing business so they could just make the Kodachrome film only?

Us outsiders don't know if it was a "one to one" ratio of film purchased to film processed.

The Switzerland building the processing was in apparently has skyrocketed in value, the Kodachrome services that helped keep the facility busy all of these years apparently won't get any of that windfall.

[monobath]

But did Kodak offer anyone the chance to take over the processing business so they could just make the Kodachrome film only?

Us outsiders don't know if it was a "one to one" ratio of film purchased to film processed.

The Switzerland building the processing was in apparently has skyrocketed in value, the Kodachrome services that helped keep the facility busy all of these years apparently won't get any of that windfall.

Remember Alex that Kodak or someone said the Super 8 processing equipment couldn't be moved. It is integrated into the building. If the property has skyrocketed in value, as you say, there is even less reason to sell part of it to someone wishing to continue Super 8 processing production there. A Super 8 Kodachrome processing business could not possibly bring in enough money to pay for that valuable real estate. No one is going to pay more for a building than they could make from it, and no one would run a business like that as a charity.

Then, you assume Kodak is willing to continue to make Kodachrome and the K-14 chemicals. I think they are not willing to do so, and it is only a matter of a few more years before all Kodachrome is gone for good. Just my opinion.

You may ask why Kodak wouldn't sell the K-14 chemical and Kodachrome production technology, or license it, to someone else. Well, who is going to want it when sales of all Kodachrome products are declining? Why would Kodak want to risk losing its intellectual property to a competitor?

Your last paragraph suggests that you believe the K-14 processing service that is being operated in the building whose value you say has increased should, for some reason, reap some of the "windfall". Why do you say that? The processing service is something Kodak wants to kill, not continue. This is all about business, not karma.

[tlatosmd]

But did Kodak offer anyone the chance to take over the processing business so they could just make the Kodachrome film only?

Us outsiders don't know if it was a "one to one" ratio of film purchased to film processed.

The Switzerland building the processing was in apparently has skyrocketed in value, the Kodachrome services that helped keep the facility busy all of these years apparently won't get any of that windfall.

Remember Alex that Kodak or someone said the Super 8 processing equipment couldn't be moved. It is integrated into the building. If the property has skyrocketed in value, as you say, there is even less reason to sell part of it to someone wishing to continue Super 8 processing production there. A Super 8 Kodachrome processing business could not possibly bring in enough money to pay for that valuable real estate. No one is going to pay more for a building than they could make from it, and no one would run a business like that as a charity.

As much as I remember Jürgen said here and/or in his magazines that the Kodak Lausanne staff when called were very opposed to the idea that that machine couldn't be moved.

You may ask why Kodak wouldn't sell the K-14 chemical and Kodachrome production technology, or license it, to someone else. Well, who is going to want it when sales of all Kodachrome products are declining? Why would Kodak want to risk losing its intellectual property to a competitor?

Because they think they can't get any more money from it? Selling it at least would give them more money than just discontinuing it. It seems they've kinda sold or licensed the process to Dwayne's already, why not to any other business that's interested? And why not sell the production formulas as well if they think it's a dead horse? It'd mean more money for them, after all.

I only hope they've already done so in secret and Wittnerchrome40 is produced by Wittner (and GK Film or Kahl) themselves.

[monobath]

But did Kodak offer anyone the chance to take over the processing business so they could just make the Kodachrome film only?

Us outsiders don't know if it was a "one to one" ratio of film purchased to film processed.

The Switzerland building the processing was in apparently has skyrocketed in value, the Kodachrome services that helped keep the facility busy all of these years apparently won't get any of that windfall.

Remember Alex that Kodak or someone said the Super 8 processing equipment couldn't be moved. It is integrated into the building. If the property has skyrocketed in value, as you say, there is even less reason to sell part of it to someone wishing to continue Super 8 processing production there. A Super 8 Kodachrome processing business could not possibly bring in enough money to pay for that valuable real estate. No one is going to pay more for a building than they could make from it, and no one would run a business like that as a charity.

As much as I remember Jürgen said here and/or in his magazines that the Kodak Lausanne staff when called were very opposed to the idea that that machine couldn't be moved.

Could be, but it's irrelevant if Kodak just wants out of the Kodachrome business, and it seems to me that they do.

You may ask why Kodak wouldn't sell the K-14 chemical and Kodachrome production technology, or license it, to someone else. Well, who is going to want it when sales of all Kodachrome products are declining? Why would Kodak want to risk losing its intellectual property to a competitor?

Because they think they can't get any more money from it? Selling it at least would give them more money than just discontinuing it. It seems they've kinda sold or licensed the process to Dwayne's already, why not to any other business that's interested? And why not sell the production formulas as well if they think it's a dead horse? It'd mean more money for them, after all.

No, I don't think not being able to get more money from it is the reason. More like, not enough money perhaps. Selling or licensing any part of the technology means they have remain involved with it to some degree. I don't think they want to do that in the long term.

I am not sure about this, but I don't really think they had to license anything to Dwayne's. Dwayne's can't make the film or the chemicals. They have to buy it from Kodak. Kodak publishes the K-14 process and used to sell processing equipment. A number of non-Kodak labs used to process Kodachrome. Maybe not in Super 8, most of them, but at least 35mm. John Pytlak posted a link to the process description sometime after the 40th year anniversary bomb was dropped. The process isn't a secret, but the manufacture of the chemicals and the film is.

Kodachrome is utterly unique in the photographic world. It's a signature item for Kodak, even if it is to be retired. No one else has a film exactly like it, or one that equals the dark storage archival characteristics of Kodachrome. There is just no reason why Kodak would want to give away such powerful intellectual property to any potential competitor. Even though Kodachrome may be dimenishing in popularity and sales, and Kodak may not want to make the emulsion or the chemistry anymore, there might yet be some profitable use for it in the future. If they give it away, they won't be able to leverage it again.

[Juergen]

Hey, are you sure this is the right topic place to discuss this? By the way: we need another 135 subscriptions.

To answer your questions: It is very simple. KODAK is transferring and has transferred ALL film production to China. And they checked before which process and which film stock should be produced in future. Those production machines have been taken to China. And as you know from the supermag story, Kodak can not deliver specially made film stock for 10 months. The reason is the transfer of the machines and the new start with new co-workers in cheap China.

Kodachrome was not given a future because the amount was too small. So they decided not to take this facilities to China. Production for this film stock is closed and processing will be also closed but the main problem was the production facility!

So, there was no need to look for a new lab or a private one because they already decided to stop the production of film. You are wondering why K40 in 16mm is not discontinued yet? Because they produced a lot in advance and freezed it. So there is enough filmstock in 16mm for some time.

[super8man]

I really hope the numbers get better than 135...I REALLY WANT TO SEE THE SINGLE 8 STORY you are planning for issue 2 - BTW, love the avatar with you holding the single 8 cart...the future is in your hands.

[Angus]

What about 35mm slide Kodachrome?

[Juergen]

No idea about 35mm Kodachrome. I think, it will be the same problem as with K40 in 16mm. Will be sold out within a short time.

134 subscriptions are still missing. The number of new subscriptions slows down - unfortunately...

[megavolt]

Jürgen,

have you considered selling some kind of pdf subscription, i.e. eliminating the publishers altogether, the cost for freight etc? Prices could drop significantly (I could not afford the magazine, although it might certainly be worth the price), people would receive it instantly. Of course some software based precautions should have to be taken to prevent unwanted distribution. I think it is not having the magazine at all versus reading from your laptop instead a nice print copy.

With affordable K40 dying and thus declining super 8 usage I think such a method of distribution is the only way.

Good luck anyway, Grüße aus dem Rheinland.

Roland.

[Juergen]

Hi Alex,

February was never mentioned as a deadline. At that time the next issue should already being printed.

Hi Roland,

I really think a paper product is something else than an internet pdf. In the internet, a forum is a good place to share informations. But to give backgrounds and detailed information, a printed magazine is best. You can always take it, looking up some details - everywhere you are.

Nobody pays money for a pdf in the internet - everything must be cheap and "free of charge".

133

[Alex]

Hi Alex,

February was never mentioned as a deadline. At that time the next issue should already being printed.

I guess it's confusing to me to hear that you would discontinue the magazine even as you are still creating the second issue.

Why not give yourself until February to raise the 200 subscriptions that are needed. Even if that causes a 2 months hiatus before the resumption of the magazine and the third issue, that is still better than making a final decision so soon prior to the momentum that a second issue would give.

Hi Roland,

Nobody pays money for a pdf in the internet - everything must be cheap and "free of charge".

133

Sad but true.