Log In
Register
The Digital Bolex Forum
Topic RSS
4:25 am
June 22, 2012
Offline
You may already have read it, but evidently, today Kodak today stated that they intend to sell their film business. According to recent statements from Kodak, the film business is still profitable. I nevertheless doubt that anybody would buy this department. It apparently shows that Kodak is running out of money, which in turn means that they will be dead soon, assuming that they don't find a buyer.
Then, no more Kodak films.
So, please hurry up with the D-16 
9:15 am
Camera Owner
Kickstarter Backer
March 17, 2012
Offline
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/tech.....y-19366113
"This would mean an end to it making films for still cameras, photo papers, souvenir photo products at theme parks, scanners and picture print-out kiosks at stores."
10:04 am
June 22, 2012
Offline
Well, the article indeed states that film stock for movies would still be produced. However, it sounds a bit like speculation. How many manufacturing lines does Kodak still have for making films? Most people from the stills photography camp seem to believe that the only reason that film is still available, is the movie industry's still existing demand. The emulsions are mostly the same, iirc. So, if Kodak sells those manufacturing lines for film, where will they continue to produce? It is somehow interconnected.
P.S.: With that name, you should really not use a Bolex
10:03 pm
July 10, 2012
Offline
It's sad - kodak was run by crooks at its end. But anyway who cares - somebody will buy the film business and it will re-emerge. I hope the prices on film will drop precipitously to compete with digital. 150$ for 400 foot spools makes me never want to bother with film again
10:42 am
Camera Owner
Kickstarter Backer
March 17, 2012
Offline
Statement released by Kodak on CML:
"Please be assured that Kodak’s motion picture films are not part of this announcement. Motion Picture will remain with the company as the largest driver of film manufacturing volume. Film manufacturing is not included in the sale. It will remain within the Graphics, Entertainment and Commercial Films group, including consumer and professional still film.
In addition to manufacturing film, we are pursuing market demands that will utilise our technologies for a variety of alternative and exciting products. This includes Functional Printing applications as well as Thin Film and Specialty Chemicals growth opportunities.
And if you haven't caught up with this news yet, we have just launched a new Kodak Asset Protection Film, an affordable, innovative color film solution optimised for content owners who originate or finish their productions on digital formats and want to protect their valuable media for the future.
10:46 am
Camera Owner
Kickstarter Backer
March 17, 2012
Offline
RobertGL said
It's sad - kodak was run by crooks at its end. But anyway who cares - somebody will buy the film business and it will re-emerge. I hope the prices on film will drop precipitously to compete with digital. 150$ for 400 foot spools makes me never want to bother with film again
I made a fair offer for a considerable amount of EXPIRED stock (10-15 years), and the seller rejected it and told me to "dream on ". It's funny how much denial people with skin in the game are in. Let's face it. In this day and age most film equipment is worth it's weight in coin.
11:59 am
June 22, 2012
Offline
Apparently, that announcement caused quite a stirr-up. The film manufacturing was widely reported to be included. Thanks for finding Kodaks clarification!
6:20 pm
Camera Owner
Kickstarter Backer
March 17, 2012
Offline
Seems like Fuji is packing it in, too: http://www.deadline.com/2012/0.....-the-year/
7:57 pm
July 10, 2012
Offline
unless film's workflow drops in price significantly then theres no reason to mess with it as an indy filmaker, apart from some inter-cutting with digital at best.
150$ for 11 minutes of footage of 16mm, 70-100 for developing, 350?+ for scanning.. why bother?
8:16 pm
July 10, 2012
Offline
film processing and scanning needs to be merged into one system if possible.. and be made far far cheaper
edit:
I posted a thread on blackmagic's forum about this, and just learned about the kinetta.. Basically there needs to be a low cost film scanning solution. The kinetta seems great, but the brochure lists it as 179k dollars; seems to be an archival scanner, and not as tight in tolerances as a pin-registered scanner. But what I don't get is why a desktop pin-registered scanner couldn't be made, even if it requires a long time to scan each frame in order to be 'cheap'.
Film needs desktop scanning in order to live on; there's no economic reason to shoot on film now
4:51 am
June 22, 2012
Offline
The same question could be asked of film scanners for stills photography. For example, why did Kodak not come up with a scan service (inlcuding emailing low-resolution scans back to the photographers for a quicker response) for Kodachrome? Or why did they not develop a fast, cheap scanner for old negatives/slides to be directly connected to their ink jet printers (which are, I have to note, rubish, prints are good, durability non-existent)?
And finally, why did no company ever provide a digital insert for older film cameras (like efilm wanted to do)? That would be the other way round...., but would have helped keep those older film cameras "stay on the scene" for dual use. (Yes, there are rare counter examples for some specific cameras, like Leica's R8/9, and one Arri model)
Now, I believe, it is too late. The last remains will be black and white, because b&w film is relatively easy to manufacture.
6:48 am
March 27, 2012
Online
Film is expensive to manufacture and process even if one does not consider the conversion to digital. Scanning is a very minor cost to a lab. Maintaining the chemistry and processes for consistent first quality results in an era when consumer use of film has pretty much ended for both stills and motion is an expensive money losing proposition these days, and it is the loss of labs to process it that is sealing the fate for film. For both manufacturing and processing, you can't just turn these complex chemical processes on and off as demand requires.
Currently to shoot, process, and one light transfer a 400' roll of 16mm film to digital works out to about $50/minute. In the early 1980's when I quit shooting 16mm it was around $40/minute. If one takes inflation into account it is relatively cheaper now than it was then.
By comparison, digital media is a bargain, even if one considers the cost of top line high speed storage media.
Photo grade and fine art grade inkjet printers using archival grade inks and papers have as good a life expectancy as photo process prints. Better in some cases. Up to 200 years.
For high value films, Kodak is betting that archival film negatives are a superior choice to current digital media options for long term preservation. I wonder if digital transparency media might serve that role too someday. The long term issue with digital media is the constant change in technology and formats. There is no assurance the media would be recoverable even if it survived.
2:57 pm
July 10, 2012
Offline
Wow, scanning's gone way down in price.. now can be had for $.012 cents per frame for 2k raster at processblue...roughly 50-60$ per minute for the film workflow...
that's a lot better than what things were a few years back !
---
Thyl said
The same question could be asked of film scanners for stills photography. For example, why did Kodak not come up with a scan service (inlcuding emailing low-resolution scans back to the photographers for a quicker response) for Kodachrome? Or why did they not develop a fast, cheap scanner for old negatives/slides to be directly connected to their ink jet printers (which are, I have to note, rubish, prints are good, durability non-existent)?
And finally, why did no company ever provide a digital insert for older film cameras (like efilm wanted to do)? That would be the other way round...., but would have helped keep those older film cameras "stay on the scene" for dual use. (Yes, there are rare counter examples for some specific cameras, like Leica's R8/9, and one Arri model)
Now, I believe, it is too late. The last remains will be black and white, because b&w film is relatively easy to manufacture.
PS Technik made digital SR mags for the ARRI SR cameras, but they might've been prototype designs. I think the aaton's digital camera will utilize a digital mag type design in their upcoming camera.. I think it would be great to have digital mags available for all the old cameras, as it would give them a modern use.. plus the mechanical shutters and optical viewfinders are a benefit as well.
Unfortunately it would require a hobbyist type to do it via crowdfunding, because there would be a very limited market. Perhaps somebody will go for it, as there are so many tinkering types in the film biz