Kodak to Ilford : Alternative Products.

"Keith Tapscott" wrote in message
...
Are Kodak planning to discontinue anymore B&W products or
is this chart simply to provide a guide to those who wish
to switch from Kodak to Ilford products?
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/kpie3.pdf
Its just a guide for former Kodak users who are looking
for replacements for discontinued Kodak papers. If Agfa
really does go out of business I would expect to see a
similar chart for Agfa papers.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

"Mike" wrote in message
news

Are Kodak planning to discontinue anymore B&W products
or is this chart
simply to provide a guide to those who wish to switch
from Kodak to Ilford
products?
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/kpie3.pdf

GIven that it is Ilford who put out the chart I would
guess they are
simply trying to get
you to switch to their film at the same time you switch
to their paper.

I would guess the Ilford will be gone before Kodak stops
making BW
film.


Thats debateable. Kodak seems to want to get rid of film
as soon as
possible. Unfortunately they can't do it until the rest
of their business
becomes profitable.


Kodak's other businesses are profitable now. There
continues to be a good market for film, particularly motion
picture film. While the industry has been experimenting with
digital (read television) imaging systems for theaters they
are currently much too expensive for most exhibitors and
film makers still like working with film. Ilford is a much
smaller company than Kodak and can operate profitably with a
smaller market. Remember, Kodak was a behemoth depending on
enormous markets for its operation. Even by cutting its
losses there is no way it could make up the lost revenue
from photographic materials. Its stock holders expect a
certain return and that in turn is generated by the revenue
from sales. Kodak has been scrambling to find a new business
or businesses to supply that revenue and IMO has been
reasonably successful at it. Ilford, OTOH, can probably
maintain a reasonable return on investment by absorbing the
remaining market for conventional photographic materials,
which it appears to be attempting to do. Once the great rush
to digital finishes there will remain a stable market for
conventional materials, which, while much smaller than the
original market, will still be substantial, and probably
sufficient to support some smaller players. Remember, Ilford
needs less to continue at its old level than Kodak.
I agree that Kodak will probably eventually discontinue
or sell its film business but not in the immediate future.
If it does, the most likely buyer would seem to be Fuji, who
has been their chief rival for some time now. Fuji does not
seem to be interested in abandoning the chemical
photographic business but their interests in it are in areas
that have remained fairly stable, certainly more so than
Kodak's, namely motion picture materials and photofinishing
equipment and supplies where it has been the low-end amateur
stuff that is the rug pulled out from under Kodak.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

Richard Knoppow wrote:

Kodak's other businesses are profitable now. There
continues to be a good market for film, particularly motion
picture film. While the industry has been experimenting with
digital (read television) imaging systems for theaters they
are currently much too expensive for most exhibitors and
film makers still like working with film.

Boy are you in for a surprise, all the US movie houses are switching
over to digital projection, and fairly soon. There is a huge waist of
money in making optical prints, something like $2B/year. The cost to
replace all the projectors is estimated to be around $6B. This year
the movie producers and the theater owners came to an agreement on how
to pay for all of this. The sanders are in place and the hardware is
being worked on as I write this.

As for film makers liking to work with film, not so much. Currently
almost all movie footage is scanned and edited digitally, "filming" in
digital removes this step.

Ilford, OTOH, can probably
maintain a reasonable return on investment by absorbing the
remaining market for conventional photographic materials,
which it appears to be attempting to do. Once the great rush
to digital finishes

What makes you think the rush to digital will finish? It would appear
that not only has
the decline of film not slowed down yet it is speeding up.

Scott

Digital projection that I have seen in theatres sucks and sucks badly.

If they stop using film, no more theatre-going for me. Besides, the
movies now are crap anyway....


Scott W wrote:
Richard Knoppow wrote:

Kodak's other businesses are profitable now. There
continues to be a good market for film, particularly motion
picture film. While the industry has been experimenting with
digital (read television) imaging systems for theaters they
are currently much too expensive for most exhibitors and
film makers still like working with film.

Boy are you in for a surprise, all the US movie houses are switching
over to digital projection, and fairly soon. There is a huge waist of
money in making optical prints, something like $2B/year. The cost to
replace all the projectors is estimated to be around $6B. This year
the movie producers and the theater owners came to an agreement on how
to pay for all of this. The sanders are in place and the hardware is
being worked on as I write this.

As for film makers liking to work with film, not so much. Currently
almost all movie footage is scanned and edited digitally, "filming" in
digital removes this step.

Ilford, OTOH, can probably
maintain a reasonable return on investment by absorbing the
remaining market for conventional photographic materials,
which it appears to be attempting to do. Once the great rush
to digital finishes

What makes you think the rush to digital will finish? It would appear
that not only has
the decline of film not slowed down yet it is speeding up.

Scott

Unlike the previous chart, this one also list comparable films and chemicals
as well as papers.

"Richard Knoppow" wrote in message
et...

"Keith Tapscott" wrote in message
...
Are Kodak planning to discontinue anymore B&W products or is this chart
simply to provide a guide to those who wish to switch from Kodak to
Ilford products?
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/kpie3.pdf
Its just a guide for former Kodak users who are looking for replacements
for discontinued Kodak papers. If Agfa really does go out of business I
would expect to see a similar chart for Agfa papers.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

UC spake thus:

Digital projection that I have seen in theatres sucks and sucks badly.

True that.

The only film I've seen that was done digitally (produced digitally but
projected conventionally on film) was Spike Lee's "Bamboozled". A great
film, but it looked like crap, like a huge television screen, with
visible scan lines and all.


--
.... asked to comment on Michigan governor George Romney's remark that
the army had "brainwashed" him in Vietnam—-a remark which knocked Romney
out of the running for the Republican nomination—-McCarthy quipped,
"I think in that case a light rinse would have been sufficient."

(Eugene McCarthy, onetime candidate for POTUS)

David Nebenzahl wrote:
UC spake thus:

Digital projection that I have seen in theatres sucks and sucks badly.

True that.

The only film I've seen that was done digitally (produced digitally but
projected conventionally on film) was Spike Lee's "Bamboozled". A great
film, but it looked like crap, like a huge television screen, with
visible scan lines and all.

Well it might be the only film that you knew was shot digitally, did
you see that last of the
Star War movie?

It is coming there is no doubt.
http://informationweek.com/story/sho...3601111&pgno=2
http://www.techweb.com/wire/hardware/173601376
http://informationweek.com/story/sho...leID=173402813

Scott

Scott W spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

UC spake thus:

Digital projection that I have seen in theatres sucks and sucks badly.

True that.

The only film I've seen that was done digitally (produced digitally but
projected conventionally on film) was Spike Lee's "Bamboozled". A great
film, but it looked like crap, like a huge television screen, with
visible scan lines and all.

Well it might be the only film that you knew was shot digitally, did
you see that last of the Star War movie?

No, I generally avoid overhyped, commodified, product-tie-in,
mass-culture stuff like that.


--
.... asked to comment on Michigan governor George Romney's remark that
the army had "brainwashed" him in Vietnam—-a remark which knocked Romney
out of the running for the Republican nomination—-McCarthy quipped,
"I think in that case a light rinse would have been sufficient."

(Eugene McCarthy, onetime candidate for POTUS)

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...

Richard Knoppow wrote:

Kodak's other businesses are profitable now. There
continues to be a good market for film, particularly
motion
picture film. While the industry has been experimenting
with
digital (read television) imaging systems for theaters
they
are currently much too expensive for most exhibitors and
film makers still like working with film.

Boy are you in for a surprise, all the US movie houses are
switching
over to digital projection, and fairly soon. There is a
huge waist of
money in making optical prints, something like $2B/year.
The cost to
replace all the projectors is estimated to be around $6B.
This year
the movie producers and the theater owners came to an
agreement on how
to pay for all of this. The sanders are in place and the
hardware is
being worked on as I write this.


I think you mean standards. If they are being worked on
they do not exist yet. In digital TV we still do not have a
"standard" more like 31 of them.

As for film makers liking to work with film, not so much.
Currently
almost all movie footage is scanned and edited digitally,
"filming" in
digital removes this step.

Digital editing has been around for a long time. I am
concerned with what the results look like on screen. You
will find that even stuff shot digital is often processed to
make it look like film.

Ilford, OTOH, can probably
maintain a reasonable return on investment by absorbing
the
remaining market for conventional photographic materials,
which it appears to be attempting to do. Once the great
rush
to digital finishes

What makes you think the rush to digital will finish? It
would appear
that not only has
the decline of film not slowed down yet it is speeding up.

Scott


You sound very definite, what is the source for these
statistics?
I think the strongest virtue of digital for the movie
industry is control of distribution particulary reducing
pirating.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

In article ,
Richard Knoppow wrote:
I think the strongest virtue of digital for the movie
industry is control of distribution particulary reducing
pirating.

Actually the strongest reason for going digital is a direct editing process.
You don't need to edit a film on a computer and then try to stick the
negatives back together in the proper order to create a print.

Distribution is also much easier. The compressed video can be encrypted
and sent over the Internet, satellite or optical disk. The problem is
that the current projection systems don't have the resolution of film.

This problem will disapear in a few years when Organic Light Emiting
Diode (oLED) technology becomes common. Current display screens are
limited in size, number of pixels and cost. oLED screens can be
manufactured in a process similar to printing with an ink ject printer.

The problem with oLED screens is that they have a relativley limited
lifetime, but in 5-10 years it will be cheap enough for a movie theater
to close for an afternoon, roll up and remove the old screen and unroll
and install a new one.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
You should have boycotted Google while you could, now Google supported
BPL is in action. Time is running out on worldwide radio communication.