@goanna

Yep. This guys had been petent trolls for a while.

Charged camera companies for "image preview" feature :-)

-Except they're giving the Khaki colourisation a pass.

I've seen a few newer films coming out shot on Fuji (a safe move, considering doubts about Kodak)

On Tuesday I watched a Blu-Ray of We Need to Talk About Kevin 35 mm (Panavision, Fuji Eterna Vivid 500T 8547) - and was astonished by what I perceive to be a digital aesthetic, but shot on film. It took on digital acquisition and beat it at its own game!

see 1.5 min trailer :

Then, immediately after, (it was $1 a video night; gotta return 3 features tomorrow!), I inserted the Blu-Ray of Contagion and the immediately noticed the decline in image quality. (My perception was not helped by a few cost-saving quick-flick techniques giving rise to continuity errors, fluffed lines and Jude Law's weird version of an Aussie accent). -So, my disbelief stayed un-suspended and I watched this very believable story in an detatched way, as I might watch the news.

There's a kind-of-comparable trailer for Contagion here:

I'm not really trying to compare two quite different films here - just sharing my $1 night experience of seeing one followed by the other :-)

So,the future of Kodak may indeed be under a cloud but I'd say the silver halide medium has a few tricks up its sleeve yet.

BTW, For me, digital acquisition as used in Contagion still works in the same way as The Social Network because it stays so close to reality that parts could could even be a dramatisation sequence within a documentary. With a credible plot like this, our minds make a smooth transition from documentary to narrative mode.

@nomad Thanks for alerting me to "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" which I hadn't seen.

It doesn't just look as good as film - it's one of those instances where digital does it better than film. When the video finally made it to my small town I was absolutely swept away by the story - and will have to rent it once more and this time try to concentrate on its technical side.

Kodak will shut all camera business

Eastman Kodak Co, the inventor of the digital camera, plans to get out of that business in the first half of the year as the bankrupt company looks to cut costs.

The decision to stop selling digital cameras along with pocket video cameras and digital picture frames marks the end of an era for Kodak, which also invented the handheld camera.

Via: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/09/kodak-idUSL2E8D94FS20120209

I saw many idiotic comments on it. One of the most significant things is Kodak almost completely outsourced all camera things for last years. Other firms stood behind them, so nothing will change much in reality. Most probably one of the leading partners will just buy brand to use in this niche.

I loved film. Tri-X, Kodachrome 64. But the truth is (stills anyway), how could you ever go back to 36 exposures. $.10-.20 per exposure for the film alone. NO control over the handling at the lab. And amazing fragility of your negatives. Dust, dirt, scratches.

We have essentially zero cost for our digital film. Instant comps. Zero cost for post production. Amazing control of images and ability to make perfect back-ups.

Film is dead...

And regarding vinyl. I'm sure some place still sells records, but I haven't seen an LP in any store I've gone to in years. In fact every "Record" store I use to frequent doesn't even exist any more.

True, Mr. Bryce E. Bayer was working for Kodak and killed his employer in the long run…

See "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" and tell me it doesn't look as good as film!

But I'll miss film too, it's connected with a large part of my life.

Technology does sometimes go backwards & get worse for a while; like the audiocassette which replaced reel tapes - for convenience, not quality. It was years before domestic cassettes were better than the reel-to-reels they replaced. (As for studios, they never did). As I said, it would be a bitter pill for Hollywood to have to go all digital right now, but the technology might get a kick-along and probably advance better.

Before we have a wake about Kodak and all that, I'm seriously concerned about moving picture media. I love my films (movies). Fuji film is often used as a print medium because most stocks have better blacks, at the cost of some dynamic range. DPs on American Cinematographer always speak apologetically about having to use [RED] instead of film for acquisition, "the producers made it clear we were under cost constraints... in the end I appreciated the extra work flow and the extra time with the actors," "I did my best to keep the highlights cool enough for digital," etc. It's too horrible to contemplate but could it really be that the industry might decide to swallow the pill and go digital?

Eastman Kodak is splitting into two - as was announced prior to bankruptcy. While everyone thinks of Kodak in terms of consumer cameras, things are different in the movies where, irrespective of what amateurs say, film is still the benchmark by which digital is measured. It's hard to imagine filmmakers abandoning the Vision 3 series if they can help it. http://www.fxguide.com/quicktakes/kodak-innovative-restructuring/

@Brian202020

You are not the only one...

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/577/using-focal-reducers-with-gh12-and-old-lenses

;-)

Kodak has a patent that I believe that could make them a ton of money. It's a focal reducer that can mount between a lens and camera body that would turn, for example, a 50mm f1.4 lens into a 25mm f1 lens. It's like the reverse of a doubler. The problem was that it also shrinks your CoC so back in the 35mm days there would always be vignetting. Now that a lot of still lenses are designed for full frame and m43 cameras are a 2x crop to full frame it is now a viable solution and you'd get no vignetting. Also the flange distances between older still lenses and mirrorless camera bodies means there is now room for such a device. It's the same technology that Olympus put in some of there 4/3's lenses. Olympus didn't infringe on the patent because it's not a separate device, it's part of the lens. I'll see if I can dig up more info on this and get back to you with links.

The result of zero innovation!