Is Kodak's announcement the death knell for film?

[JDMvW]

<p>QG<br /> You apparently think when somebody disagrees with you, that they don't understand you. I understood your point full well. However, for all practical purposes, it is a distinction without a difference.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

JDM, if you had understood, you would not keep harping on about it.<br>The important bit is that a brand name can be used (as is exemplified by that particular example) to generate money by attaching it to anything someone who would know the name would also buy. You can increase the sale (and price) of sunglasses and scarfs by putting the Porsche logo on it, even if Porsche never had anything to do with such products.<br><br>The other important bit is that your <i>"you like me, knew Rollei sold film"</i> is simply incorrect.<br>Rollei never sold film (nor made - never had anything to do with selling or making film). That's not important because you once again wrote something that's not correct and i like pointing that out to you, but because it's the perfect illustration for the point in hand.<br>The power of the trade mark is apparent: you say you "knew" that Rollei sold film. Would you have remembered that "Rollei" film if it had had another name on the box? Have you ever questioned the name on that box? How many will assume that, because Rollei made quality cameras, the Rollei branded film must be of equally high quality? All that while Rollei actually never made nor sold film, had no influence on the quality of any film ever, with the only thing linking Rollei to film being that their cameras used film, whether that be the poorest OrWo or the finest Kodak.<br>Yet you "knew". Understand now the importance of knowing the full extent of Rollei's involvement (i.e. a complete lack of) with the film making industry?

[yuri_yupiter3]

<p>Interesting. I have used Rollei films in 120 , 35mm and sheet films. Some 120 stuff just says Rollei. Other says Agfa Rollei. The Sheet films imported by Bruce who hawks the Ebony cameras was by Maco. The company Maco bought the name for I think the sheet versions.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Flash news:<br>

Shakespeare did not write his plays.<br>

They were written by another man with the same name.</p>

<p>Look at the amount written on this by each of us and tell me who is "harping". Your point is not that complicated, but your involved "explanations" are.</p>

<p>Enough -</p>

[yuri_yupiter3]

<p>At a Rollei booth at a trade show many years ago I bought about a dozen rolls of Rollie 120 film. I did not argue with them on who the actual film coater was.</p>

<p>****This is rather a silly discussion. <br>

One might as well say many XYZ brand items are really not XYZ brand since they did not really own the production line that made that item.<br>

Companies have re-branded and OEM'ed film, camera and photo products before any of us were born</p>

<p>One might as well say that Sears Roebuck never made any screwdrivers, never made at sockets or wrenches since they had another make these items for them.</p>

<p>One might as well say that Nikon never made the Nikkorex F since it really was made by Mamyia. This was not even well known until the internet came out. In camera sales and repair it was better known since the body was like a Sears slr.</p>

<p>Several new Nikon zooms are really not made by Nikon thus they are not really Nikkors? A purist could argue that a Leica is not a Leica unless made in Germany?</p>

<p>Several of the Kodak 1980's P & S 35mm Cameras of the same exact model were made in the USA,. Brazil and Japan. Are these "really Kodak cameras" if they were made to their specs at another companies production line?</p>

<p>In Inkjet papers only the bulk of brand names are made by a subset of actual inkjet paper makers. Many buy the paper in bulk rolls and convert it to their sizes and box it with their own logos.</p>

<p>Was the 16mm roll film in 1960s from Johnson and Smith in Detroit really Johnson and Smith HIT Camera 16mm film?</p>

<p>Is my grandfathers pre WW2 mechanical with bell Kodak darkroom timer really a Kodak product since Kodak had a clock maker make the timer?<br /> This clock was in the Kodak catalogs for over 50 years.</p>

<p>This question can be asked for gobs of items. Are the 1 bomber made per hour B-24's at the Ford Motor Willow Run Detroit plant really considered to be a Boeing bomber?</p>

<p>Did Radio Shack really ever sell any Radio Shack batteries?</p>

<p>Are the several older Nikon flashes really Nikon flashes if they were really built by Metz or Sunpak?</p>

<p>Was the 2000 year yellow boxed Kodak 36" by 100 feet roll of inkjet paper i used really Kodak if made by Azon or Oce?</p>

<p>Was the Kodak labeled 36" printer a Kodak or a Novajet if really made by Novajet?</p>

<p>Is a 90 year old Kodak Graflex a Kodak or a Graflex?</p>

<p>Was the late 1980s Kodak wash off film in a yellow box really Kodak if made really by Dupont?</p>

<p>Were the last 126 Kodak cartridges really Kodak film if the box had it marked made in Germany or Yugoslavia?</p>

<p>Are the lower cost John Deere Mowers at Home Depot really a John Deere mower?</p>

<p>Was a pack of Kodak transparency material for a color copier for T shirts and mouse pads really a Kodak product?pads</p>

<p>Was the pack of Kodak blank mouse pads really made by Kodak?</p>

<p>Are those Kodak rechargeable AA batteries and charger really made by Kodak?</p>

<p>Is that Kodak labeled bulb in my dads WW2 slide projector really made by Kodak? Is the slide projector if its bakelite case has a mold mark for a non Kodak company?</p>

<p>Is an East German pre wall gone Zeiss lens really a Zeiss lens?</p>

<p>Is a Retina really a Kodak camera?</p>

<p> </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Yuri,<br><br>That <i>"silly discussion"</i> you talk about has yet to appear.<br>What was put forward was an answer to the question <i>"what happens to the Kodak name after the company gets chunked out all over the globe"</i>. The examples you mention illustrate the answer given.

[q.g._de_bakker]

JDM<br><br>Yes, <i>"Look at the amount written on this"</i> and note that it could have been no more than in total 3 lines, if only someone had not continued to come up with <i>"if you [...] like me"</i> challenges to the obvious and factual, already expressed in those 3 lines. <i>"Involved explanations"</i> prompted by the continued questioning by someone who now aks <i>"who is harping"</i> as if he doesn't know who wrote Shakespeare's plays.<br>Really...

[JDMvW]

<p>I stand amazed. You still actually don't get it.<br>

You are splitting hairs to no important purpose, but then you commonly do.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

You just keep believing that, JDM, and i'll be "splitting your hairs" for a long time to come.

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Is this some sort of "I gotta have the last word" contest? Can I buy a ticket?</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>To the OP: Don't kid yourself. Just because Kodak's idiot BoD managed to drive such a venerable company into the ground, doesn't mean that others, such as Fuji and Ilford, are equally stupid. Their film-making divisions are profitable, and should continue to be as long as they scale their outputs to demands.</p>

<p>We have already begun to see a resurgence of interest in film, and there's no good reason why this shouldn't continue, and hopefully emerge into a growing trend. I can't help but draw parallels between film and vinyl records. During the 1980s, vinyl LPs were predicted to become extinct, but it never quite happened, thanks to a hard-core, but slowly growing group of audiophiles. Now it is possible to actually buy new LPs. So let this be a lesson to all the nay sayers. It ain't over yet, not by a long shot. If vinyl records can stage a comeback from death's doorstep, then film can damn well remain a force in the image recording world for many years to come.</p>

[yuri_yupiter3]

<p>Kodak' still and movie film unit is profitable now too.<br>

With Kodak they are in Chapter 11 bankruptcy and HAVE to raise cash since the WHOLE company has more debts than assets.<br>

Kodak is about 2 Billion in the hole.<br>

With Fuji case the entire net company turns a profit thus they are not in bankruptcy and thus not in dire straights selling off assets to survive.<br>

Your beloved Kodak leader Perez sees a Kodak future without film and filled by vast seas of inkjet printers defeating Canon, HP and Epson. <br>

The Kodak still and film division is not fighting to survive it is an asset to be sold to raise cash to repay Citibank's loan and creditors.</p>

 

[yuri_yupiter3]

<p>Kodaks stock dropped about 12 percent today and closed about 21 cents. Its total market cap is about 56 Million.</p>

<p> </p>