Sad to know... but a sign of our time? (RED times too?)

[Emanuel A.]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/30/us-kodak-director-idUSTRE7BT18G20111230

 

[Sergio Perez]

Well, Red is not a public company. The advantage is that it has liquidity and is relatively small. As long as Red keeps their feet on the ground and maintain the enthusiasm and current core leadership and vision, it will never fall on that situation. The key and smart thing with Red and Jim and Co. is that they are responsible for the destiny of the company, no need for investor, shareholders or stock market fluctuations BS.

Red should actually be doing very fine. And after this Arri case, and following Jim's legal team track record of "invincibility", and also the positive feedback and publicity coming from maybe academy recognition with Dragon Tattoo and the blockbusters Prometeus, Spider-Man and others, The future couldn't be more bright for Red for 2012. Its a great year for Red, Redusers and, above all, for Digital Filmmaking in General!

 

[PatrickFaith]

... Red should actually be doing very fine. And after this Arri case, and following Jim's legal team track record of "invincibility", and also the positive feedback and publicity coming from maybe academy recognition with Dragon Tattoo and the blockbusters Prometeus, Spider-Man and others, The future couldn't be more bright for Red for 2012. Its a great year for Red, Redusers and, above all, for Digital Filmmaking in General!

100% Agree

 

[Ryan De Franco]

Red is doing just fine... I think the OP meant to imply that it's saddening to know that we are in many ways directly responsible for the hastened decline of film.

Seven years ago, every student at NYU and USC wanted to shoot film--35 if they could.
Three years ago, beginner classes were taught on 16mm reversal, so students could see their exposures and develop a respect for rehearse, rehearse, shoot.

Now, most every student director wants to shoot Red or Alexa. Everyone learns on video. TV shows that once shot 16 or 35 flocked in droves to the Red One, this year to Alexa. If I hear the phrase "film is dead" one more time I'll jump out the window. They should exist side by side, and they will, if Kodak can figure out how to turn a profit again...

 

[Emanuel A.]

Red is doing just fine... I think the OP meant to imply that it's saddening to know that we are in many ways directly responsible for the hastened decline of film.

(...)

Right. No more no less.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I find it ironic that Kodak was one of the chief pioneers of digital imaging technology. They are one of few patent holders on many of the key technologies used today; patents that are partially responsible for allowing them to stay afloat... Although I don't think they can stop the ship from sinking at this point.

Sad but true, the decline of film use is not what is killing (killed?) Kodak. What killed them is a complete and utter failure to evolve with the industry -- an industry they almost single-handedly created. Nothing more than lack of foresight, lack of proper leadership, lack of continued innovation and progression of the techniques and technologies they developed. Harsh words? Yes, but I was a shareholder at one time. Unfortunately, the writing was on the wall long ago and I got out. When they started slapping their name on cheap consumer crap printers and toy cameras, all I could do was shake my head and be glad I quit when I did.

Kodak's last attempt at something serious was in 2007 when they patented and introduced an alternative to Bayer Pattern sensor arrays. But it was too little, too late... The concept was sound, but their own implementation lacked technical specs to appease shareholders or attract others to the table for licensing and manufacture.

As for film itself, we all knew it would come to an end. And so it will, but not yet... Lots of people still using film, be it from Kodak, or Fuji or other. Even when it no longer makes any sense to shoot on film (and that day is pretty much here and now), there will still be those who choose to shoot film for artistic reasons, even for nostalgic reasons. While cameras like RED's offerings, the Alexa, etc.. can be attributed to hastening the decline of film, I don't really look at it that way. From my point of view, my technological and engineering background, whatever, I'm surprised it has taken this long. What else is there to say, other than perhaps "old habits die hard".

 

[Mike P.]

A couple of weeks ago, Spielberg said he'll shoot film as long as there's someone to process it... theorizing that in 8-10 years it might be gone (and then mentioning RED, no less!) If Kodak actually goes down in 2012, it'd probably be closer to 3-5years. Sure, there will be other film suppliers (Fuji), but I feel Kodak holds a lot of the mind-share of film-devotees.

 

[Emanuel A.]

When they started slapping their name on cheap consumer crap printers and toy cameras, all I could do was shake my head and be glad I quit when I did.

Point well taken, Jeff...

In my native tongue, there's a saying that says: «a tenda nas mãos de quem entenda» (the tent in the hands of who understands it)
No idea if the origin of the portuguese verb «entender» ("to understand") actually means to be «dentro da tenda», that is, inside, under the tent

How could they compete with... chinese?

(Happy New Year, E

 

[Joel Fleurent]

Wow. Thanks for the link--very interesting read. Gotta adapt/evolve with the times or get left behind I guess.

 

[mikeburton]

Both film and RED share a special place in my heart. But, I must admit film more so as i just recently bought an Arri 435ES package in fantastic condition and when film is no longer around I'll hang it from our office as a reminder of one of the sexiest cameras ever invented. So, fully admitting my bias, I must say it is fairly affordable to shoot film now, although i never quite understood why it hasn't adapted with the times and become less expensive to keep the medium alive. THere are a lot of benefits to digital and many of which I personally would use over film on certain shoots, but given the opportunity to shoot film 9 out of 10 times I'd prefer it.

So, Kodak, if you are listening...we don't need NEW 50D Vision 3 stocks with super fine grain! Stop trying to be digital! You're better than that Find a way to make producing and selling your stock affordable to everyone with budgets less than $50million, give us a compact and affordable developing solution so processing is not so daunting and if you could throw in a sub $25K film scanner that would be precious of you. Either truly invest in your product and create an infastructure around it that is simple and semi affordable way for filmmakers to continue to shoot your stocks or ride your high horse into the ground.
Love always!

 

[Marc Wielage]

Find a way to make producing and selling your stock affordable to everyone with budgets less than $50million, give us a compact and affordable developing solution so processing is not so daunting and if you could throw in a sub $25K film scanner that would be precious of you.

Kodak got out of the scanning business a long, long time ago. As to budgets, I've worked on indie projects shot on film in the last two years that had budgets of less than $500,000. A major one I worked on not long ago was The Kids Are Alright, which had a budget under $4 million and grossed more than $25 million, so it was a major hit from that perspective.

Realistically, assuming you shoot about 2 hours of footage a day, you're looking at about $3000 a day in raw stock, processing, and HD dailies. If it's a 30-day shoot, that's $90K. Not the end of the world for a film under a million. And film camera packages are dirt cheap these days.

But: if you're going to shoot a ton of footage, want multiple cameras, need 3D, or can't deal with the delay of film processing and dailies, then digital may well make more sense. And below a certain budget, digital is the only way to go. Film is just another creative choice, no more or less valid than which digital camera to use.

 

[mikeburton]

Marc I agree with you, film can be affordable and camera packages are dirt cheap. Film just isn't a do it yourself process which I think frustrates a lot of people these days who are used to shooting, and viewing / processing their footage same day. All I'm saying is if there was a way to empower the filmmaker a little more so processing and Telecine / scanning was more affordable and easily accessible then maybe film will stay an option for filmmakers alongside digital. In my opinion most shoot digital for convenience over aesthetic but if there was a way to bridge that gap then there would be more incentive to shoot film and thus provide filmmakers affordable options at all budget levels.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Kodak is imploding.