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 :)

kodaks stock plunges 50% in the last month!!!

Film is still the only proven long term archival medium for photographic imagery. It may well play a role there long after it ceases to be a popular acquisition or presentation format.
 
*"Put it on silver or let it rust"

*"Put it on silver or let it rust"

funny how you beat me, I was just about to say the same thing and my computer crashed.

Opened up the thread again after restart and there ya go some body said what I was going to say.

I think the 3 strip archival process is the way to go. How many times have we tried to go back to old computer data stuff and found out we didn't have old equipment to read stuff etc.

Anybody remember Y2K, they were scrambling for old engineers etc.

With a nice preserved film it can outlast digital for now.
 
David Rasberry said:
Film is still the only proven long term archival medium for photographic imagery. It may well play a role there long after it ceases to be a popular acquisition or presentation format.
Click to expand...

I think that film will serve it's purpose as a archival medium longer than it serves a purpose as the primary acquisition medium.

Regardless, it's the only "proven" one, because nothing else has been around that long. I think in 20 years we'll have technically more reliable digital storage methods.

But film does have it's limitations. In 20 years when 200+K capture is typical, and we've got 16K+ projectors in most theaters, I am unsure of how logical maintaining 35mm archival copies will be, they'd definitely seem like they'd be the weak link in that chain.

Then, when digital inevitably surpasses film in dynamic range, you'll be losing a lot more information than just resolution when you create a 35mm archival format.

I think that digital will readily be surpassing 35mm in both resolution and dynamic range within the next decade, so I don't see it as still being a major archival format in 20 years, even though I imagine there will still be quite a few film warehouses keeping old prints.
 
Actually Kodak has recently shifted a very large portion of their work force and Scientific funds to development of Digital Senosors, Phase ONe Medium Format been one of the company they id them for, I just sold my P30+ Phase One digital Back, 31MP made by Kodak, unfortunately for Kodak, now Phase ONe has decided to go DALSA for they new Generation of Sensors such as the P40+ and P65+ this last one of 60MP, also with Phase ONe's acquisition of Leaf, which are also made with Dalsa Sensors, Kodak has lost two of the biggest Medium Format players, not a small hit either.

This are times were many things are changing rather fast and no matter how big the company might have been or still is, chances are it is or could be just be bought out entirely and taken apart.

The way of progress, or in the name of, Kodak has been and continues to be a great company, just that times are changing..
 
Wesley Scoggins said:
I In 20 years when 200+K capture is typical, and we've got 16K+ projectors in most theaters, ....
Click to expand...

You know this how?
Also, I wonder what sort of lenses you think you're going to be using to using for "200K+" capture, considering that even very expensive current model cine lenses can't fully exploit the resolution that 35mm negative is capable of.

What are they actually going to do to the lenses to make them that good?
 
David M said:
You know this how?
Also, I wonder what sort of lenses you think you're going to be using to using for "200K+" capture, considering that even very expensive current model cine lenses can't fully exploit the resolution that 35mm negative is capable of.

What are they actually going to do to the lenses to make them that good?
Click to expand...

Well firstly, nothing I am saying is something that I think is totally set in stone, i'm simply looking at how quickly the technology is moving, what kind of research and technology I have seen and read about, then just thinking about all of that stretched out 20 years from now.

In 20 years, I doubt we'll be using things that look much like modern lenses at all. It'll most likely be something like lenticular arrays hybridized with LIDAR scanning for accurate depth maps, all utilizing internal cognizant processing for real time breakdown of all of the elements that you're capturing into 3D elements that can be altered and manipulated in camera.

But I am imagining molecular level precision lenses, most likely made out of material composites which don't exist yet, if there are lenses at all. Or something like adaptive fluid bases lenses, adjusted and controlled on a microscopic level.

Honestly, i have no idea, anything I come up with is just looking at current research, and would most likely be seen as shortsighted and uncreative compared to where the technology is going to be at for real the late 2020's, early 2030's.
 
???

Their stock was around 3.00 a few months ago, it didn't crash, it just went up a lot for a while then came back down after a major investor diluted shareholder value. A lot of under $10 stocks yo yo like that too.
Also, their motion picture film sales are profitable, where did you get the idea that it was not? What do you think is helping to finance their digital research? If it was not profitable, their shareholders would demand that they get rid of it. If I was an investor, I would make that demand too.

Kodak has valuable technologies in both traditional and digital imaging. I'm sure if they would put themselves up for sale, there would be many interested buyers.
 
Wesley Scoggins said:
In 20 years, I doubt we'll be using things that look much like modern lenses at all. It'll most likely be something like lenticular arrays hybridized with LIDAR scanning for accurate depth maps, all utilizing internal cognizant processing for real time breakdown of all of the elements that you're capturing into 3D elements that can be altered and manipulated in camera.

But I am imagining molecular level precision lenses, most likely made out of material composites which don't exist yet, if there are lenses at all. Or something like adaptive fluid bases lenses, adjusted and controlled on a microscopic level.
Click to expand...

Absolutely awesome. This is the type of thinking that pushes the technology forward.
 
I don't get all this Kodak bashing. Kodak invented and continue to develop many of the technologies that make digital cinema a reality. They also continue to develop and support some of the best film technologies around - technologies that have been wowing audiences for over a hundred years.

Kodak has suffered from corporate mismanagement and the vagaries of the stock market, but those are separate arguments to the, "how long will film survive" debate. Indeed, People have been saying, "film has five years", since I started in this business in 1985.
 
Liam Hall said:
I don't get all this Kodak bashing. Kodak invented and continue to develop many of the technologies that make digital cinema a reality. They also continue to develop and support some of the best film technologies around - technologies that have been wowing audiences for over a hundred years.

Kodak has suffered from corporate mismanagement and the vagaries of the stock market, but those are separate arguments to the, "how long will film survive" debate. Indeed, People have been saying, "film has five years", since I started in this business in 1985.
Click to expand...

I agree, Kodak makes the best sensors in the world used by amongst others Leica and NASA. Kodak timed the move to digital imaging perfectly they're no longer a big consumer brand but they're driving digital imaging technology at the top end of the market. You Americans should be proud that Kodak continue to be a great company. :patriot:
 
Wesley Scoggins said:
Well firstly, nothing I am saying is something that I think is totally set in stone, i'm simply looking at how quickly the technology is moving, what kind of research and technology I have seen and read about, then just thinking about all of that stretched out 20 years from now.

In 20 years, I doubt we'll be using things that look much like modern lenses at all. It'll most likely be something like lenticular arrays hybridized with LIDAR scanning for accurate depth maps, all utilizing internal cognizant processing for real time breakdown of all of the elements that you're capturing into 3D elements that can be altered and manipulated in camera.
Click to expand...

"i'm simply looking at how quickly the technology is moving"

You may need to tone down your optimism a notch.

20 years ago State-of-The-Art broadcast camcorders used 640 x 480 2/3" CCDs - 0.64K imaging

10 years ago, after a protracted technological shit-fight, State-of-The-Art broadcast camcorders appeared using 1920 x 1080 2/3" CCDs - 1.9K imaging

Currently, the highest resolution portable camera in regular use is the RED One, which (opinions vary) give something approaching the equivalent of 3K imaging.

Not exactly a mind-blowing increase in performance to show for 2 decades work. A 20-year-old SP Betacam camorder is still quite a useable device for low-end work, it's only real issue is that it doesn't do widescreen. 10 year old F900s are still in regular use.

So, how did you figure the next 20 years is going to give us "200K+"
 
Yup, not need to bash Kodak - they've done amazing stuff with both film and digital technology.

The prediction I made 8 yrs ago I reference for historical reasons. I'm not going to change my mind, especially as things are so inherently unpredictable you'd as soon make a guess worse rather than better.

Graeme
 
I would love to shoot more on film...it has its disadvantages of course but I love shooting on film. Its a pain in the ass a lot of the time...but the cost of shooting my stuff on film is so prohibitive its not even worth considering. There are low cost ways of going about it like gets 'ends' and the odd lucky dip but you don't have the choice of stock then as much. Digital (esp. RED and raw) outweighs the negatives (no pun intended) of film far far far more than shooting on film.

Film will not die out for a long while. you will have to wait until the studios start refusing the budget cost of film shooting, and this generation of directors/DPs who won't shoot digital, or at least want the choice, to pass.

Companies, broadcasters, hire companies, studios, indies...all want technology to advance but no-one wants tech to advance too quickly and change too much. There has to be an upgrade path. Smart companies like RED make this path very easy, with modular compatibility.
 
The great advantage of filmprints still remains that to see what you've got you only have to hold it up to the light. Try that with a 16xdrive array.
 
Absolutely, and that's why vinyl records, with the music as a visible groove will still be playable after the last CD player is long dead.

However.... The density of data is low compared to modern digital methods of storage, and that's a real tradeoff.

Graeme
 
The stock was 6 and change a month ago when i first eyed it. Yes alot of stocks are volatile right now. I really did think this anouncment today might have something to do with it. Id certainly hold my project up until today to find out what's going on? Id rather shoot with a scarlet then my eclair acl. Im new to this game so please excuse my ignorance in these market matters. Thought it would be at least an interesting first post.
 
Andy Taplin said:
I agree, Kodak makes the best sensors in the world used by amongst others Leica and NASA. Kodak timed the move to digital imaging perfectly they're no longer a big consumer brand but they're driving digital imaging technology at the top end of the market. You Americans should be proud that Kodak continue to be a great company. :patriot:
Click to expand...

Based on Q3 Earnings report, seems Kodak's only profitable business is ink-jet printers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top