Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Kodak going broke?

Just bought some 16mm stock. Fuji's not bad, but nothing would ever replace the look of Kodak. Here's hoping they live a long and prosperous life.
 
George Butterfield said:
Who would plan on shooting a feature on film now?
Click to expand...

Anybody who's shooting a studio picture that isn't 3D. Despite the views of people on Reduser and the general consumer public, film is still very heavily used in reasonably budgeted productions. And it is still very heavily used in markets other than the US. India, for one.

I find it pretty amusing that people here seem to think they could run a company like Kodak better than Kodak did. Or that they think Kodak had little to do with everything they now use. If it weren't for Kodak, there likely wouldn't be digital intermediate, or at least it would have taken far longer to develop. Without the Cineon file format there would be no standard for file exchange that has stood the test of time. Without the original Cineon workstation, it would have taken years for things like Flame, Shake, and everything else involved in digital compositing to be developed. And without Kodak's color science and digital products development, there would be no Bayer pattern, no Spirit Datacine, and no standard way to put digitally created images on film - and without that, there would have been no theatrical distribution until very, very recently. Eastman Kodak has been one of the great American companies, and has been THE great motion picture industry company for many, many years. It is indeed sad to see what's happened. Things change, and perhaps they could have found ways to be more of a participant, but like many US industries, with technical advancement seems to come some degree of pain. Those here who seem to be celebrating this don't seem to be noticing that once again, an American manufacturing industry is likely to go by the boards, taking many more jobs with it, and severely impacting not only the local Rochester economy, but other areas as well. If one is myopic enough to think that's a good thing, well, I can't change that.
 
M Most said:
...Despite the views of people on Reduser and the general consumer public, film is still very heavily used in reasonably budgeted productions. And it is still very heavily used in markets other than the US. India, for one.
Click to expand...

For sure..it is even used on some very low under 100k budgets.
It is only not used on the Z budgets or no budgets movies.
 
M Most said:
Anybody who's shooting a studio picture that isn't 3D. Despite the views of people on Reduser and the general consumer public, film is still very heavily used in reasonably budgeted productions. And it is still very heavily used in markets other than the US. India, for one.

\.
Click to expand...


"On higher budget productions, the direct cost advantages of digital cinematography are not as significant in relation to the total budget, primarily because the costs imposed by working with film typically account for no more than a few percent of such large budgets."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinematography#Low-budget_.2F_Independent_Filmmaking
 
M Most said:
Anybody who's shooting a studio picture that isn't 3D. Despite the views of people on Reduser and the general consumer public, film is still very heavily used in reasonably budgeted productions. And it is still very heavily used in markets other than the US. India, for one.

I find it pretty amusing that people here seem to think they could run a company like Kodak better than Kodak did. Or that they think Kodak had little to do with everything they now use. If it weren't for Kodak, there likely wouldn't be digital intermediate, or at least it would have taken far longer to develop. Without the Cineon file format there would be no standard for file exchange that has stood the test of time. Without the original Cineon workstation, it would have taken years for things like Flame, Shake, and everything else involved in digital compositing to be developed. And without Kodak's color science and digital products development, there would be no Bayer pattern, no Spirit Datacine, and no standard way to put digitally created images on film - and without that, there would have been no theatrical distribution until very, very recently. Eastman Kodak has been one of the great American companies, and has been THE great motion picture industry company for many, many years. It is indeed sad to see what's happened. Things change, and perhaps they could have found ways to be more of a participant, but like many US industries, with technical advancement seems to come some degree of pain. Those here who seem to be celebrating this don't seem to be noticing that once again, an American manufacturing industry is likely to go by the boards, taking many more jobs with it, and severely impacting not only the local Rochester economy, but other areas as well. If one is myopic enough to think that's a good thing, well, I can't change that.
Click to expand...

Totally Agree with you here buddy, but one thing... You'l be surprise of how many Big features NOT 3D are also shooting Digital... EPIC that is... ;)

But yeah, with the last roll of Kodak used, I had forever said good buy to Film period, never looked back... Well, yeah few times I guess I did, but this in Still photoghrahy,
there is no way I would make a Film, in well, Film... ;)

The disadvantages are far greater then any advantages, and now with EPIC, really good buy to those last advantages too.

It is in fact sad, that for what ever reason, Kodak, still today maker of some of the best Medium Format Sensors, has come to this, do to what ever lack of adaptation,
or miscalculation of what times were bringing, or just simply a series of wrong decisions, followed by one of the worst recessions America has ever seen,
followed by many other parts of the world... This causes great loss to even one of the biggest Global forces as Kodak.

Imagine what has been doing to little guys like my self and many other which opened a business in the US... I truly hope to see Kodak,
re-brand them selves with new technologies that will serve the digital age, as Film, even so not dead by a long shot, has too small of a piece of the
cake at a Global scale to be of any support to such a company.
 
I went to the ASC Clubhouse's open house earlier this year. There was a person from Fuji Film there, and we got to talking about the film market. His perspective was that Kodak and Fuji both knew that they were on a sinking ship and each was just hoping to stand on top of the other's shoulders for as long as possible. I talked to him about different ideas for promoting film. There simply was no interest on his part... they were doomed and just biding their time.

Promoting 2 perf or explaining that digital projection is so clean that shooting on film to add grain makes aesthetic sense or making the whole process of processing easier and more approachable for newcomers or working with manufacturers to make less expensive S16 cameras or developing easier to load S16 (similar to Super 8)... would these things actually save film? No, I honestly don't think they would.

But after I was done talking to this gentleman, I was left with the impression stagnation and stasis. It is very sad that Kodak is dying. But it's not like the writing hasn't been on the wall for a long long time. I don't rejoice in Kodak and Fuji's deaths one iota, as I don't rejoice over any heads that might be rolling at Sony, Arri, Canon, etc. I'm sure the vast majority these folks are hardworking diligent people who just want to provide for their families and make an okay living.

But these companies have also had years to adapt to changes in an industry that they've understood exceedingly well and so have to bear the brunt of the responsibility for their own demises. As sad or crass as it sounds, creative destruction is the world we live in and it should not come as a surprise to anyone running a business.
 
Eastman have been such an innovator of all manner of technologies that will for a long time yet influence and support our industry. It makes me very sad to hear this news, they have my complete respect and I hope that they will continue for very many years yet.
 
M Most said:
Anybody who's shooting a studio picture that isn't 3D. Despite the views of people on Reduser and the general consumer public, film is still very heavily used in reasonably budgeted productions. And it is still very heavily used in markets other than the US. India, for one.

I find it pretty amusing that people here seem to think they could run a company like Kodak better than Kodak did. Or that they think Kodak had little to do with everything they now use. If it weren't for Kodak, there likely wouldn't be digital intermediate, or at least it would have taken far longer to develop. Without the Cineon file format there would be no standard for file exchange that has stood the test of time. Without the original Cineon workstation, it would have taken years for things like Flame, Shake, and everything else involved in digital compositing to be developed. And without Kodak's color science and digital products development, there would be no Bayer pattern, no Spirit Datacine, and no standard way to put digitally created images on film - and without that, there would have been no theatrical distribution until very, very recently. Eastman Kodak has been one of the great American companies, and has been THE great motion picture industry company for many, many years. It is indeed sad to see what's happened. Things change, and perhaps they could have found ways to be more of a participant, but like many US industries, with technical advancement seems to come some degree of pain. Those here who seem to be celebrating this don't seem to be noticing that once again, an American manufacturing industry is likely to go by the boards, taking many more jobs with it, and severely impacting not only the local Rochester economy, but other areas as well. If one is myopic enough to think that's a good thing, well, I can't change that.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, it's unfortunate that it has to be an either or situation. I love that both exist. A very big budget movie I was up for was doing a test between film and digital. Film won out. The reason was entirely based on the aesthetics of what they were trying to achieve as far as I know. Yes, it cost me a job I suppose, but I'm happy film is still around as I think there's a place for both film and digital. I also hope Kodak survives even if it means they have to move into another side of the business such as data archiving. It's a company steeped in tradition, been around a long time. I want them to do well.

More non-3D films are going digital. Worked on one this summer. More films are turning to Epic and Alexa as we speak. Again, hopefully these decisions are being made based on what is right for the movie, but there may a bunch of factors. I do think digital will eventually become the majority, with motion picture film taking a similar path to stills. I'm just hoping it never becomes obsolete. That would be a sad day.
 
Justin Kirchhoff said:
I grew up in Rochester, NY when I was a little kid. The city really took a turn for the worst in the mid to late '90s when digital was becoming the new thing.

Since then, Rochester is a dump. 90% of Kodak's factory is shutdown (it's a ghost town), thousands of employees have been laid off and the ghetto part of the city has been growing substantially because of the unemployment rate.

Kodak should have looked at the market and took action. They're late in the game, and even though they have many patents for imaging sensors, they can't expect to live off leasing the patents, technology, and printer sales for the rest of their existence. They need something new.
Click to expand...


Justin.

You should grab your epic and make a film about your hometown.

When torontos kodak plant closed it marked the end of an era. I knew some photographers and film makers who went in there to grab as much processing chemical as possible.

You've already got a title:

KODAK MOMENT

I'm sure growing up there you could offer a great perspective.

David
 
Peter Lyons Collister said:
Having grown up with Eastman. Still, super 8, 16mm and then 30 features and countless commercials and music videos I cannot convey how much Kodak has meant to me.
You all can criticize their lack of future thinking but man, they are responsible for so much of the magic of cinema. We all die but how many leave such a mark.
Click to expand...

I want to make sure my post was't read as negative criticism; I didn't state my emotional position, which is one of external regret. It is understandable that so many react in disbelief. Kodak should never be in this situation... It is an icon. Right now they should be inching their way towards the top of digital sensor technology.
 
While no one wants to see hardship created out of the demise of film, I can't say I'm at all disappointed in the natural order of things. While Kodak was responding to the digital threat
with warm and fuzzy ads, and in spite of the superior quality of the film image, the rest of the world was rapidly embracing every form of digital technology outside of film.
Like I said before, the tens of millions of digital satellites pulled Kodak (as we knew it) apart. This isn't a film versus digital quality thing, this is a massive and infinitely expandable digital
universe that is pitted against the likes of film. No contest. Film might often be looked upon with nostalgic eyes, but the digital alternative will soon make it look like rubbing sticks together, even if doing so made fire from time to time.
 
Yesterday I looked at some great black and white photos taken in 1924.

They were attached to black paper in a book.

I had the thought that soon these photos would be 100 years old.

I want that feeling with digital but it seems harder to attain.

David.
 
In one way longevity beccause we just dont have a 100 year sense to digital Storage methods.

In one way quality in a ZEN ANC the art of motorcycle maintenance kind of way. Film has a quality just in the fact it always represented quality, that what it was recording was meant to last. The RED was the first digital tool I used that felt like it carried this importance.

It's interesting to contemplate.

Quality is an undefinable thing not a reference point.


David
 
Longevity: I'm using Pigment inks on the highest quality of papers in the history of paper making. Chances are, David, the prints you were looking at were not very well produced
as far as archival qualities are concerned, because, among other things, little was known about the deleterious effects of residual chemicals, in 1924. I have a few old prints in my collection,
and they are holding up quite well, but will ultimately prove to have nothing like the longevity of contemporary prints.

Digital files are another thing though, for sure.

Quality: It isn't "harder" to obtain, It is just hard to obtain "quality" in any medium.

Anyway, the stills world is a different beast, the artist has easy access to any film format and can employ a vast range of methods/ techniques to meet his personal preferences,
of which he remains in absolute control, if he so desires - but when was the last time you purchased and fired up a 65mm or 35mm motion picture film camera? Now you can,
it's called Epic, and that is just the beginning. No more excuses.
 
If you like the look of film and grain a sufficiently wide color gammut sensor with sufficiently high dynamic range and a sufficiently good 3D LUT will perfectly emulate any and every film you've ever loved. Characterize the grain perfectly and you'll even get the exact same grain. (I'm happy to see that Film Convert has started working towards this goal). Physical Film (as opposed to "film-look") is less than 4 years away from being pointless.

To the notion that we should be archiving things on Film... I say fooey to that too. Take something like M-Disc once it's up to 50-100GB and you could store a film uncompressed in 1/10th the space. If you're worried about one disc getting scratched or corrupted... store 10 sets of them. In a decade you'll be able to store a 100 films in 4k uncompressed on a DVD sized disc with 100+ year archive duration. And 10 years after that entire studio archives. We aren't archiving films today for 100 years, we're just keeping them safe for a decade or two until storage media lets migrate to the next best thing. I would rather have 100 copies of my film at dozens of locations on something like M-Disc than 1-2 copies in 2 locations on film. Even archival film fades and decomposes, colors shift. A preserved bit is a preserved bit for all time.
 
ORLY?!

I kid. I agree with you Gavin!

To say digital archives won't happen without some sort of tape, celluloid, whatever... makes no sense. Preposterous. Sheer lunacy.

M-Discs look pretty cool, btw. Thanks for their mention.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
If you like the look of film and grain a sufficiently wide color gammut sensor with sufficiently high dynamic range and a sufficiently good 3D LUT will perfectly emulate any and every film you've ever loved. Characterize the grain perfectly and you'll even get the exact same grain. (I'm happy to see that Film Convert has started working towards this goal). Physical Film (as opposed to "film-look") is less than 4 years away from being pointless.

To the notion that we should be archiving things on Film... I say fooey to that too. Take something like M-Disc once it's up to 50-100GB and you could store a film uncompressed in 1/10th the space. If you're worried about one disc getting scratched or corrupted... store 10 sets of them. In a decade you'll be able to store a 100 films in 4k uncompressed on a DVD sized disc with 100+ year archive duration. And 10 years after that entire studio archives. We aren't archiving films today for 100 years, we're just keeping them safe for a decade or two until storage media lets migrate to the next best thing. I would rather have 100 copies of my film at dozens of locations on something like M-Disc than 1-2 copies in 2 locations on film. Even archival film fades and decomposes, colors shift. A preserved bit is a preserved bit for all time.
Click to expand...
When I referenced Kodak perhaps moving into this space, I didn't automatically assume it would be film based. I was thinking they have 100 years of research behind them whether it be film or digital and with the right kind of focus could perhaps develop something truly remarkable in regards to long-term storage of data/media. The one good thing about film is the track record is there. We know what to expect when the film is properly cared for. Far from perfect, but certainly viable. New technology is based on theoreticals. Which is fine, but as you said we may have to migrate as technology improves, or workflows force us to new tech.
 
open optical disc still?(m-disc).... I would prefer an optical disc inside a protective case never exposed to anything but the laser reader, but it seems I'm in the minority on that one. I understand they want it to work in DVD players and such, I just hope they come out with a more robust back up version similar to LTO or something enclosed with it's own reader/player... though I've only have read very little about them so who knows that could be in the works. Interesting developments either way, I look forward to a new storage format with much more longevity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top