|
Author
|
Topic: Kodak getting out of still films
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted August 29, 2012 05:11 AM
It isn't any different in Great Britain,where we have had to watch our companies sold on to make money for other countries while our own workforces were discarded,Cadbury being a prime example,the deal made was broken by Kraft,but nothing was done about it.Call centres placed the other side of the world,because it's cheaper for a particular business,while
laying off there own workforce.
It's a bitter pill to swallow but that's how capitalism works,you are all slaves to the shareholders who want a quick
return, and it is sad that Kodak who gave the man in the street
the pleasure of photography is going to the wall,but it seems
that the public have been brainwashed into believing that the
pictures from mobile phones are more than acceptable, the
great god Digital has won.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Adsett
Film God
Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted August 29, 2012 10:49 AM
In response to Graham's question, I have not seen any advertising for Kodak film in years. They used to have a couple of full page ads for their motion picture film in every issue of The American Cinematographer, but I think they may have dropped even that.
35mm film has all but disappeared from supermarket shelves, although you can still get it some drug store outlets.
I read that cellphones have now replaced digital cameras as the principle means of taking photos, and the sales of digital cameras has plummeted.
Today, anybody can take a picture with zero knowledge of photography. Whether those pictures are even worth looking at is an entirely different matter.
--------------------
The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection,
Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade
Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar
Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Adsett
Film God
Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted August 29, 2012 12:04 PM
Hi Hugh,
I was talking to a professional cinematographer a couple of weeks ago and we were discussing this very issue. He said that the downside of digital is that just about anyone with a digital movie camera now thinks they are cinematographers! No knowledge of apertures, focal length, depth of field, shutter speed, medium shot, long shot, close shot, lighting, etc etc. Just point it and press the button. Perhaps that is progress and maybe I am being too critical here, and maybe digital really does equate to moviemaking for the masses. But I really resent it when TV news anchors reference their digital cameramen as cinematographers. That they aint! ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
One thing I do know for sure is that digital moviemaking and traditional motion picture film making are a world apart, particularly so at the consumer level where, as you point out, the whole art has been cheapened, and I'm not talking about money.
The death of Kodak is the death of movie making as we know it.
--------------------
The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection,
Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade
Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar
Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted August 29, 2012 03:28 PM
Well all I can add to that Rob is that some of the camera work
I've seen on television of late,in supposedly top rated shows is
absolutely dire.Where do they get some of these cameramen?
a tripod is alien to them,they can't hold a steady shot,they
hosepipe and have this knack for the staccato zoom,then pull
back and start the whole process again.Floyd Crosby,Harry Waxman,Tonino Delli Colli,Jack Cardiff and Douglas Slocombe
to name a few would wet themselves laughing at what passes
for camerawork on TV Drama these days.The work of news
gatherers is totally different, for the camera men involved in
some of the so called "entertainment" end,digital is good enough for them as it would be a shame to waste good film stock.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Graham Ritchie
Film God
Posts: 4001
From: New Zealand
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted August 29, 2012 09:51 PM
Thanks Paul, I think I should apply for the top CEO job at Kodak and form a team with the aim of putting film back on the map. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) Kodak, needs a shake up at the top, who seem to sitting back and letting things slide downhill.
The only way to guarantee that the image shot today can be around in many years time is by using film. Home movies shot on Kodak eg Standard8, Super8 and 35mm slides will still be watchable in 50 years time, so our great great grandchildren can still look at those images and go wow .
Film has had a long term proven track record, digital has not. Years ago people were told to transfer those old home movies to VHS tape, so they did, but as we now no, tape can deteriorate over time so the call went out to transfer your home movies "film transferred to tape that is" to dvd, so here we go again. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) In that time though, that original "film image" is still looking really good and providing you have a projector to show it, and there are still plenty of those around it will always look great.
Recording a digital image is fine if folk we are not worried about "longevity".
With Kodak moving away from film there is a real danger that folks precious digital photos will simply disappear in the years to come... to be lost forever.
Graham.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
