Some Good News for Kodak's Film Business

<p>Kodak renews supply contracts with major movie studios<br>

<a href="http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120815/BUSINESS/308150040?nclick_check=1">http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120815/BUSINESS/308150040?nclick_check=1</a></p>

<p>Saw that about a week ago. This means you better order your 5222 now before the price goes up.</p>

<p>This also explains why Kodak owed the movie studios so much money. They owed them rebates for volume targets met. It was always odd why Kodak would owe some of their largest customers money during a bankruptcy filing.<br>

The studios are really paying their rebates back, of course, since Kodak has raised the film prices in the new contract. They probably could have raised them less if the studios had forgiven the rebates. But it probably all would have horrible tax implications.<br>

Of course, perhaps the rebates were part of how Kodak was maintaining a "one wholesale price for everyone" policy. They certainly maintained that for still picture film until quite recently. (Large customers didn't get discounts, but they were shipped more film than they paid for.) That was part of Kodak's strategy in their monopolist era to have their film for sale "everywhere", the small stores didn't have to worry about big stores buying and selling film for less. Thus the ubiquitous access to Kodak film made it hard for competitors.</p>

 

<p>Spielberg will only shoot with film. So far.</p>

<p>I think Quentin Tarentino shoots with film as well.</p>

I hate to say this, but really it's a matter of time. How long before every theatre receives it's movies over the internet right

to it's digital projectors and doesn't even have film projectors anymore. The digital results have to be getting better and

better. It's sad though. Could be the film studios will resist digital transmissions for anti-piracy reasons.

<blockquote>

<p>I hate to say this, but really it's a matter of time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Isn't everything in life "just a matter of time". Nothing lasts forever. I don't think it's some much about distribution as it it a preference to shoot the original takes on film. </p>

<p>Hey when it is gone it is gone but I figure that by that time I will be too. I enjoy film photography and I most likely always will but I am not going to sweat it because I shoot mostly B&W so I know in one form or another I will always have film.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that Spielberg, Nolan etc. don't shoot film with only film projection in mind. They're like us: hybrid system users. Shoot on film and scan it for viewing (if you want to or have to). How else are your Kodachromes going to be shown on PN? You have to scan those babies.</p>

<p>I want film to be a viable choice for the future and I want to see more people use it. But I see myself leaning towards digital despite having an enthusiasm for film. We'll see. I have an F100, an F90X and an F2. And a couple of others.</p>

<p>I have subscribed off and on to American Cinematographer, the trade publication for members of the American Society of Cinematographers, which runs wonderful detailed technical articles every month on every Hollywood movie that comes out and some you've never heard of. Despite digital being used to shoot more and more, the vast majority of Hollywood films are still shot on film regardless of editing, special effects or distribution format. Obviously that is changing but is still the case at the moment. Most new movie theaters are being built with digital-only projections and many more are convertiing from film, though I'm not sure if they are distributing on some type of disc or downloading.</p>

<p>Archive on film</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Could be the film studios will resist digital transmissions for anti-piracy reasons.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's entirely the other way around. The studios, especially in India, are looking at digital to stem the rampant piracy that has been plaguing them for years. It's why a lot of the emerging nations are adopting digital at such high rates.</p>

<p>You know....... The best way to keep film alive is to just use it. Use it yourself. Buy fresh buy often. Shoot it Develop it and enjoy it. Share it with others....</p>

<p>And get prints. We need to keep paper alive too !!</p>

 

<p>Funny thing is the paper business is in better shape than film.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I hate to say this, but really it's a matter of time. How long before every theatre receives its movies over the internet right to its digital projectors and doesn't even have film projectors any more.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would guess we're pretty much there, at least in the US. All the movies I have seen the last few years were digital projections, at least in my (rural) part of the country.</p>

<p>If a company can sell film under the Agfa name, however small their operation, then why can't Kodak sell film, even if their market shrinks to a small cadre of film makers and photo.net contributors. They may have to get rid of a bunch of legacy and management costs, but hey, that's what bankruptcy courts are for.</p>

<p>If Kodak and Fuji stop selling film, then I'll buy it from Eastern Europe and China.<br>

Problem solved.</p>

<p>There are more of us than the wold know about.</p>

<p>Sadly, with Fotokemika (EFKE) going down there's one less East European alternative.</p>

 

<p>But we now have ORWO. I am working on getting it sold in lesser sized rolls that the 100-800' bulk rolls.</p>

<p>re: ORWO</p>

<p>Too bad Freestyle can't repackage it as one of their Arista lines.</p>

 

<p>EFKE going under? That's news to me.</p>

<p>I have a little more info on EFKE but I will contact the Importer for EFKE in Holland so he can give it to you first hand. I would hate to just throw out part of what is known.</p>

<p>To me it boils down to a matter of taste as to what the final picture, projected or otherwise looks like. How noise in digital projection gets a pass is beyond me. How does the viewer tolerate this? </p>