Jump to content

Kodak Exec vows continued film production


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Ricochetrider said:

Article

We know Kodak has been producing film for movies, including a whole new B&W film for the summer blockbuster, “Oppenheimer”. But this is a new twist with the top exec telling shareholders the will keep going as long as the demand for photographic film is there.

 

From the article.  It's a five-year contract with Alaris which means they apparently committed to five years.  That's good for us users. I wish we could learn the terms of the deal between Kodak and Alaris. 

"Eastman Kodak will continue to make photographic film as long as there is demand, the film producer’s executive chairman said in a call to shareholders this week.

Eastman Kodak’s CEO Jim Continenza made the pledge during the Q2 2023 earnings call on Wednesday (9 August).

“We recently renewed our supply agreement for film with our long-term customer, Kodak Alaris in a deal that will run through 2028,” he said. “We are committed to manufacturing film as long as there is demand from the filmmakers and photographers worldwide."
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the article, but Kosmo Photo has the most annoying pop up ads that I have seen in a log time.  I'm glad that Kodak will continue to produce film, but I hope that the recent price trends will subside a bit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each of the 30 theaters exhibiting in IMAX 70mm required a film print 11 miles long, weighing 600 lbs (purportedly).  That plus the handful of theaters exhibiting the film in 35mm must have provided Kodak with a sweet little piece of business.  Seriously, I believe that Kodak's film production is effectively underwritten by Hollywood studios commitment to purchase film for the movies shot on film stock.  While still film sales have significantly improved, I don't know if that alone would make it economic for Kodak to continue making film.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken 

Thanks for your comment.
 

I agree that Kodak’s film production is almost certainly being driving by film (movie) production- just the fact that Kodak developed film stocks specifically for Mr Nolan does speak to this- but the “side” benefits trickle down directly to those of us who shoot still photos. 😊

 

Re: the claim of film spools 11 miles in length weighing in at 600 pounds must not be too egregiously exaggerated, as I’ve seen that repeated across the board in every article I’ve read on Oppenheimer- and in the “trivia” section of the movie’s IMDB page. 
 

BTW I saw the movie -although a digital copy in a “regular” theater; even so the B&W segments did indeed stand out in a strong way. I’d dearly love to see it in full-on IMAX glory, all 11 miles of it! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really informative video on Kodak's current financial situation.  Certainly much better use of my time than personally going through their financial statements.  Its quite clear that film production is not the activity that is keeping the lights on in Rochester.  Also interesting that it is likely that Kodak is producing film under contract for Fuji, for the US market.

Saw Oppenheimer in glorious 35mm the other night.  More of an accident, by choosing to see the film at the local Arts theater.  Didn't realize it was a 35mm expedition until we got to the theater.  It was fine,  with just a few visible signs that it was film running through a rather ancient projector.  The shallow DOF of the IMAX and 70mm source was noticeable.  As with most movies these days, found it to be about 20 minutes too long.

Edited by Ken Katz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, XX isn't a "new" film; 65mm sliced from master rolls is a new format. Kosmo, like others, never reports times series numbers for actual production, so "comfort" press releases are almost meaningless. Statements like "film sales have significantly improved" never include a footnote.

Hats off to PapaTango for the the financial statement reality check video the fabulists should watch and take notes from.

For most civilians, rising film material/chemistry costs and shrinking access to ever-pricey lab services is killing the mood.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 5 months later...
On 8/25/2023 at 5:18 AM, robert_ante said:

Even a digitally shot movie must be transferred to film for storage and archival purposes. Storing a movie on film is much, much cheaper than storing digitally. Film can be kept in abandoned mines with constant temperatures at very little cost.

When digital TV came out, there was much discussion about how people in low signal areas would fare.

Weak analog TV gives a slightly snowy picture, but is otherwise watchable.  FM sound works pretty well with low signal.

But digital either works or doesn't, and at low signal it often doesn't.

 

You could store digital copies in mines, even stores on analog movie film.  But if it deteriorates, it is gone, not just snowy.

Good ways to store analog photographic materials for the long term have been well developed.

Not so well for digital storage systems.

-- glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Time will tell, eh? Meanwhile Kodak dropped prices on some films recently. What does that say about their finances? 
 

KODAK PRICE DROPS ARTICLE

 

BTW it’s not entirely old news, this happened at the end of 2023. Might have been a seasonal promo? The above link & screen shot below are from the same period, I believe.
 

Next time I see my buddy at Retro Photo Reading I’ll ask him about it 

 

IMG_9610.thumb.jpeg.ed3b9c532ea80f1484ae70200a94d8d7.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...