Is anybody stocking-up ?

<p>Is anybody stocking up in Kodak negative film, slides and paper incase they go out of business ? </p>

<p>No.</p>

<p>I used to be envious of all those folks with PanatomicX, so I bought a few 100' cans of re-badged PlusX from freestyle. I do not think I would miss much else.</p>

<p>What I was missing is Neopan 400, but I got over it. The world will change, but I will be dead long before it ends.</p>

 

<p>No</p>

<p>For those who said "No" the price of polaroid film quadrupled once the company went out of business...</p>

<p>I never thought of film as an investment. I always thought of it as a paint or brush for my canvas. One reason I have tried many different types. I know that if tomorrow I can't get one I can get another to take it's place. I guess you can say I did not paint myself into a corner. :)</p>

<p>Is there really any thought that Kodak will "go out of business"? Usually these bankruptcies are just ways of avoiding creditors and trashing union contracts.</p>

<p>There is some question in the local press whether Kodak has enough wherewithall to apply for protection from creditors. Some analysts are suggesting they may go directly to liquidation. Even in this extreme step, it is likely that the film business will last a while longer (2-5 years?) since it is still profitable. There is no way a bankruptcy referee will shutdown a business while it is still profitable. </p>

<p>No. I like using fresh stock. I feel my time is more valuable than using if-y film. I was sorry to see Polaroid Type 55 go, but I've always been pliable when it comes to change. Plus, I think film will be around for a long time still. I can't imagine someone not picking up the Kodak film line if it comes down to that. The only thing I stock up on are chemicals when I drive to a larger city. It's a lot cheaper than the shipping.</p>

<p>The film business has a still very dependent customer in Hollywood. Someone will keep that business running until Hollywood goes all-digital. (Which the bookkeepers want to do, but most of the directors of photography don't.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but most of the directors of photography don't</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't see that at all. Perhaps the old guard, but that will soon be forgotten.</p>

<p>The reality is digital is significantly easier to edit and do cgi. That is the main reason for the demise in filming. It won't be long before anyone will remember what splicing tape is.</p>

<p>But that was only the first hit. The second is the distribution, and that is fading. But not as fast as people think. I have not seen a digital theater yet (Montreal). Promises have not altered reality.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>"The film business has a still very dependent customer in Hollywood." </strong></p>

<p>If I were running a Hollywood production company I would be resigned to going all-digital some day. But, I might be holding off for now to use my working capital for current movie projects.</p>

<p>However, watching Kodak liquidating itself pre-bankruptcy, I might decide to move up my timetable and invest in digital now so I did not get caught in a bind trying to buy the last of the film or scrambling too late with all my competitors to get on the production list for new digital equipment.</p>

<p>So..If the movie studios think that Kodak is going to stop making film soon, even if they would otherwise be wrong, they might switch to digital now, making Kodak’s upcoming end happen even sooner as they quit buying film.</p>

<p>Harry weren't you worried the other day about Craigslist hijackers? Relax. Don't worry, be happy. What will be, will be. Soon all things must pass.</p>

I thought they stopped making paper years ago.

Oh,

 

And I wouldn't worry too much about.

 

At best they will come through bankruptcy protection skirting all their debt and retirees' pensions. And avoiding all their

environmental responsibilities.

 

Worst case, their film and chemical devisions will be sold off probably to competitors for a song, and will be available from

Fuji or Ilford, or even Efke. Fuji would probably stand to gain the most by offering chemicals for their films at this point.

 

It's kinda funny that the government will bail out thieves and liars, banks and lawyers on Wall Street that produce nothing,

but ignore a company with 14,000 employees that actually produces something tangible.

<p>After the demise of Kodachrome, I've less interest in slides, and have moved back to B&W and some color negative.<br>

I always keep a fairly good stock of film in the freezer, so, other than recently buying a few Plus-X films "for-old-tymes-sake", I'm not stocking up specially in anticipation of Kodak's possible demise. Kodak films <em>aren't</em> dead yet, and I'm confident that Ilford and the smaller players will still be around for as long as I'm likely to need film.</p>

<p>"<em>Harry weren't you worried the other day about Craigslist hijackers? Relax. Don't worry, be happy. What will be, will be. Soon all things must pass</em>."<br /><br />It's that Vison thing, Luis that Vision thing ...<br />I work in IT, we are trained to think about possible pitfalls, no matter how far fetched. Yes it's annoying but I haven't fallen off any cliffs lately.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's that Vison thing, Luis that Vision thing ...<br />I work in IT, we are trained to think about possible pitfalls, no matter how far fetched. Yes it's annoying but I haven't fallen off any cliffs lately.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nothing personal, but I think this "vision thing" (or lack there of?) on the part of many fearful people has made for a self-fulfilling prophecy that has unfortunately been part of the problem.</p>

<p>Kodak still makes photo paper, but it's almost intirely roll paper for lab processors. The 'consumer' paper was disco'ed several years ago.</p>

<p>Kodak has also announced that they are canning most of their films; this announcement was made to the industry several weeks ago.</p>

<p>Being that Kodak supplies most of the film for the movie industry, and is (I believe) currently the only producer of colour sheet film, my guess is that after declaring bankruptcy, the various departments at Kodak will be sold off, and the film-producing machines, along with the formulas, production rights, and the remainder of the contracts, will go to the highest bidder as one sale.</p>

<p>If Fuji buys it, it's possible that they'll just use the ownership as a way to prevent competition, and their own films will be "the only" professional colour negative films, as Kodak is now. That's how I see it going down. And really, I'd be happy with that. I like Portra, but overexposure results in a noticable colour shift, while Fuji films just get this neat pastel tone when overexposed.</p>

<p>"<em>Nothing personal, but I think this "vision thing" (or lack there of?) on the part of many fearful people has made for a self-fulfilling prophecy that has unfortunately been part of the problem."</em><br /><em></em><br /><br />As well as increase the sales of Just For Men Hair Color !<br>

<br />In any case, I already have batches of Kodak darkroom paper in storage. Also, plenty of color negative film in my freezer, but I need to increase my stock of slide-films. I doubt B&W film is going away anytime soon and there are plenty of replacements.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In b&w I think the most distinctive Kodak films are TMY2 and Tri-X. If I had to pick film to stock up on it would these two. Of course the faster films don't age as well even when frozen but I don;t expect any other company to make anything quite like TMY2 in the future.</p>

<p>Usually when Kodak says "discontinued" there is no turning back. A couple of years ago I purchased 10 rolls of Kodachrome film(ISO 100/64 - 36 exp) because I wanted to know what all the fuss was about. I stored them in my freezer. I was so confident that I could always purchase another roll at the nearby corner drugstore.<br />Out of those 10 rolls of kodachrome slide film, 2 were exposed to make silly exposure tests. I gave 2 rolls of 64 away to friends ! 2 rolls were completely wasted, because of camera/user malfunction. 2 rolls were exposed, but I never developed them. That left me with 2 fresh rolls in the freezer.<br />I procrastinated and procrastinated, even though Dwayne's lab had given the final ultimatum. I waited maybe 7 days before the last day of kodachrome processing, before I decided to take those rolls out of the freezer. I procrastinated even more trying to figure out where I would expose my last 2 rolls of Kodachrome. it had to be somewhere special ... Of course I missed the deadline and the entire Kodachrome experience !</p>

<p>These 2 rolls are now sitting in the "momento" case on the shelf in pristine condition. </p>

<p>I did order 25 rolls of Tri-X in 120 and 2 bulk rolls of 35mm. Not so much in fear of Kodak's film going away, but price increases and other unknowns. This will at least last me a year or so at my rate of shooting.</p>

<p>Around the Boston area, I'd say 25% of the screens have digital projection. Even at second-run and independent theaters. Perhaps Montreal has strong projectionist's union preventing digital projection? Or demanding customers who expect to see movies with a wide brightness range and high resolution? <br>

Lots of movies are captured on ECN (Eastman Color Negative), digitized for editing, and then output back to film to make release prints on ECP (Eastman Color Positive). But, 25% of the prints are digital media, not film.<br>

The Red and similar digital movie cameras are impressive, but don't have the dynamic range and low noise of ECN films <em>yet</em>.<br>

A lot of movie theaters DON'T want to install digital projection, because they know it will be a financial treadmill. The same 35mm projector could be used for 50 years. The digital projection system you install today will have to be replaced in 5 years when it's obsolete. The studios will make certain of that. But the theaters have no back-leverage on the studios, who do indeed want to be rid of making film prints, and don't care if we look at mush on the screen.</p>

 

<p><em>Or demanding customers who expect to see movies with a wide brightness range and high resolution?</em></p>

<p>I would argue that digital projection resolution and wide brightness range can be more than a match for film projection. I recently arrived late for a film in an auditorium equipped with a projection system based on Texas Instruments micromirror system. I was forced to sit up close, no more than four or five rows from the screen. I expected to be extremely disappointed but the opposite was true. The field of vision was similar to an IMAX presentation, the audio was excellent with almost audiophile imaging quality and the images were contrasty and sharp.</p>

<p>The generational process of film capture to presentation degradates film sharpness. Under the best of conditions (fine grain film, perfect exposure, etc) a 35mm frame can deliver about 4,000 lines of resolution. By the time an internegative is created and finally a display reel from transparency film, much is lost. Add sprocket jitter, 24 fps projection rate and all is lost in terms of any real comparison to a first rate digital projection, particularly if the feature was created digitially from start to finish. Add a don't-care projectionist to the mix and the quality of film display is a crap shoot.</p>

<p>A Panavision engineer, whose name I cannot remember, wrote a paper that noted the 24 fps limitation is an archaic concept, originally developed to enable early optical sound tracks as the slower rates were not satisfactory. He stated that slower frame rates also affects perceived sharpness. Even today, 24fps limits the ultimate fidelity of digitally printed audio codecs imprinted on film.</p>

<p>I can't wait for theatrical film projection to be as obsolete as buggy whips.</p>

<p><em><br /></em></p>