Yeah, they've binned it all, thrown in the towel on that one.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/colorReversalIndex.jhtml
— DISCONTINUATION NOTICE —
March 1, 2012
Due to a steady decrease in sales and customer usage, combined with highly complex product formulation and manufacturing processes, Kodak is discontinuing three EKTACHROME (color reversal) Films:
KODAK PROFESSIONAL EKTACHROME E100G Film
KODAK PROFESSIONAL EKTACHROME E100VS Film
KODAK PROFESSIONAL ELITE Chrome Extra Color 100 Film
We estimate that, based on current sales pace, supplies of these films are expected to be available in the market for the next six to nine months; however, inventories may run out before then, depending on demand.
This does not affect KODAK PROFESSIONAL Color Negative Films or KODAK PROFESSIONAL Black and White Films which remain a viable part of the KODAK PROFESSIONAL Film portfolio.
Please note: E-6 Chemicals will also continue to be available....Show more →
those of you who have a subscription to The Times of London web site or the paper edition might want to look up an article by Alex O'Connell from today (March 16, 2012). it documents the plans by movie distributors world-wide to cease distribution by film and only do digital projection. half of all screens worldwide at the end of 2011 are digital. there won't be any film projector screens left in the US by the end of 2013 and end of 2014 by Western Europe. that's why Kodak's statements about film production are meaningless even if they weren't in bankruptcy.
ken.vs.ryu wrote:
don't worry you can get your movie scanned by arriscan or convert you digital to film via arrilaser.
Pretty much all cinema is done by digital intermediate already. Few films are finished purely photochemically. The last Hollywood movie that I know of that was finished this way was There Will Be Blood. There might be others.
In a couple years, you'll have no place to show your film print, and presumably, because of this, people will stop making prints. I would imagine this will hurt Kodak's bottom line a good bit, but hopefully they'll figure a way to cope with it.
I give color film from main manufacturers, Kodak and Fuji, 2 years max. I hope after that some ambitious/crazy small manufacturer would buy the recipe of some good films and keep on supplying them.
what if they were sold at $100/roll of 24 exposures?
Herb...
edwardkaraa wrote:
I give color film from main manufacturers, Kodak and Fuji, 2 years max. I hope after that some ambitious/crazy small manufacturer would buy the recipe of some good films and keep on supplying them.
contas wrote:
As it's relevant to my profession, I know Eastman Kodak still makes profits in Medical X-ray films in both categories: Classical or wet film and Digital or dry film and ofcourse with them Kodak still sells automatic processor and laser printer - and there is no clear substitute for X-ray film in the future, so we can still believe Kodak can survive .
I'm not in the medical imaging field but I had a whole lot of imaging done recently and A lot of it did not appear to use film. They had the large slides but they fed them into some machine and the images were available on a computer moments later. Has anybody seen this process?
They use it at my dentist. I'm guessing it's an imaging sensor reactive to x-ray. They still ran out of the room while they shot me in the face with it.
ken.vs.ryu wrote:
They use it at my dentist. I'm guessing it's an imaging sensor reactive to x-ray. They still ran out of the room while they shot me in the face with it.
You make it sound so...violent
Indeed, many dental practices have migrated to digital x-ray technology. One of the advantages of using these sensors is that the beam intensity can be dialed down significantly, which has clear benefits for the patient as well as reducing occupational exposure. (That's why they walk out, because it's one thing to be exposed once every year or so, but another to administer several x-rays a day every day.) Like film photography, it also saves development costs and time, and the doctor and patient can get immediate feedback.
One disadvantage is that the sensor is much thicker than the traditional film--and it has a long cord attached to it. This can increase patient discomfort and make accurate positioning more difficult. Also, if the sensor is damaged, that presents a significant loss for the dentist in terms of both money and convenience, so some choose to retain film as a backup.
There could be many what if? But if they were sold at the price you're suggesting, I doubt many people would buy, if at all. I think we are paying already an expensive price for film. I personally would be willing to go as high as double of what I pay now.
HerbChong wrote:
what if they were sold at $100/roll of 24 exposures?
I agree that Kodak and Fuji films are probably gone after only a few more years, but surely Ilford has downsized enough to keep on going, haven't they?
edwardkaraa wrote:
There could be many what if? But if they were sold at the price you're suggesting, I doubt many people would buy, if at all. I think we are paying already an expensive price for film. I personally would be willing to go as high as double of what I pay now.
Yes, agreed. Besides, b/w is much cheaper to produce than color film, and with much more primitive material. Also, while digital sensors are able to replace and exceed color film in most areas (I still prefer the film look though) they are not able yet to reproduce the tonality of b/w film. So I think b/w will stay for much longer.
rattymouse wrote:
I agree that Kodak and Fuji films are probably gone after only a few more years, but surely Ilford has downsized enough to keep on going, haven't they?
espressogeek wrote:
I'm not in the medical imaging field but I had a whole lot of imaging done recently and A lot of it did not appear to use film. They had the large slides but they fed them into some machine and the images were available on a computer moments later. Has anybody seen this process?
To make a standard medical record, it needs a file in hard copy, and here the films from conventional X-ray or MRI or CT-scan are considered LEGAL.Any digital imaging like files in hard disk, USB, CD-discs, are suitable for consultations or references but not qualified as LEGAL.So film is still in need and in huge quantity as I know.
The process of conventional imaging:
Xray source --->film .
The process of digital imaging:
Xray source ---> digital sensor ---> hardisk ---> laser printer ---> film.
i think that is the minimum you can expect if quality were to hold. i suspect that the price will be around twice but with much lower quality once Fuji cuts back. Kodak will be the first but Fuji won't be far behind.
Herb...
edwardkaraa wrote:
There could be many what if? But if they were sold at the price you're suggesting, I doubt many people would buy, if at all. I think we are paying already an expensive price for film. I personally would be willing to go as high as double of what I pay now.
You make it sound so...violent 