what happened to RGB in L.A.?

[Thomas Worth]

It's just a minor customer inconvenience that Kodak could solve by setting up another way of getting those little cassettes of ECN-2 stock developed, perhaps by getting Laser Pacific involved.

That's a fine idea. Perhaps you and some of your ASC buddies could make a point to mention it to Kodak! It would help us little guys out tremendously. John, are you listening? :D

[Alessandro Machi]

If it's not a profitable business, not enough to pay for their own rent, then I don't see a major corporation like Kodak stepping in and buying it and running it at a loss just for publicity's sake. Especially considering that RGB Labs has no real affect on their major customers.

 

However, considering that most people shoot these little cassettes for testing motion picture stocks, Kodak SHOULD set-up a little ECN-2 processor at their Hollywood office and develop them for people on request -- I'm just not sure if a small ECN-2 processor is really possible to build, since there is the rem-jet removal step. Or they should send it over to Laser Pacific's ECN-2 lab, since they now own Laser Pacific, and offer to develop these cassettes of MP negative.

 

However, Kodak subsidizing or buying a private still lab like RGB with such a low profit margin doesn't make much of a business sense, and the argument that the lack of such a lab will ultimately hurt Kodak's motion picture stock sales is nonsense. The future use of motion picture color negative stock will not ulitmately be affected or decided by the existence or lack of existence of RGB Labs to develop stills. It's just a minor customer inconvenience that Kodak could solve by setting up another way of getting those little cassettes of ECN-2 stock developed, perhaps by getting Laser Pacific involved.

 

 

It just doesn't look good to have RGB down and out, especially if they were making money. It allows for competive industries to imply the most negative reasoning as to why the store is no more. It sounds like RGB is a victim of high priced real estate, but the appearance from the outside can tell a different story about the demise of film.

 

It sounds like RGB was providing a testing service that related to the use of Kodak Motion picture stock, someone at Kodak should care, one way or another about RGB's customers, rather than take the position that it has no relevance.

[David Mullen ASC]

It just doesn't look good to have RGB down and out, especially if they were making money. It allows for competive industries to imply the most negative reasoning as to why the store is no more. It sounds like RGB is a victim of high priced real estate, but the appearance from the outside can tell a different story about the demise of film.

 

It sounds like RGB was providing a testing service that related to the use of Kodak Motion picture stock, someone at Kodak should care, one way or another about RGB's customers, rather than take the position that it has no relevance.

 

Do you honestly believe this, that the existence of RGB Labs for developing stills has a worldwide influence on the perception of the viability of film for motion picture use? Have you ever been to RGB Labs? It's a small counter at a desk in an old building, something out of the 1970's. Ultimately, Kodak is right -- it has no real relevance to the motion picture industry. Most professional people test MP stocks by shooting them in a motion picture camera. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. It was a small mom & pop business. Its closing is sad and inconvenient, but has no real long-term effect on Kodak or the majority of its users. It would make no sense for Kodak to buy out their business and run it themselves -- I doubt their current equipment would live up to Kodak's standards if their name was on the building.

 

However, it would be nice if Kodak figured out a way to provide that service since they now own an ECN-2 lab in Hollywood.

 

You've got to stop seeing Kodak's motion picture business model being based on Super-8 users and other no-budget, low-paying customers working on the fringes of the industry, using tiny mom & pop labs. It's mainly propped up by the studios ordering millions of feet of print stock for worldwide theatrical distribution. If THAT source of income died, then you'd really have to worry about Kodak's long-term existence. Everything else is a sideshow really, K40 versus E64T, etc. Has no ultimate long-term effect on the viability of film for making movies. You have to look at what really generates the big money for Kodak.

[Alessandro Machi]

You've got to stop seeing Kodak's motion picture business model being based on Super-8 users and other no-budget, low-paying customers working on the fringes of the industry, using tiny mom & pop labs. It's mainly propped up by the studios ordering millions of feet of print stock for worldwide theatrical distribution. If THAT source of income died, then you'd really have to worry about Kodak's long-term existence. Everything else is a sideshow really, K40 versus E64T, etc. Has no ultimate long-term effect on the viability of film for making movies. You have to look at what really generates the big money for Kodak.

 

Sure, no one making big budget movies now ever started with Super-8 or did their first film tests with RGB labs......, you don't really believe that do you?

 

And Kinko's and Apple didn't start out of someone's garage either.......um, yes, they did. You'd be surprised to find out the number of huge corporations that were incubated in someone's home or garage, are you saying it is completely irrelevant for Kodak to now not bother with supporting any related business that helps incubate future Kodak business, because RGB surely did that.

 

It's precisely because RGB lab was located a stone's throw away from Kodak's building in Hollywood and has been around for a very long time that their closing should not be viewed as business as usual by Kodak.

[Brad Grimmett]

Sure, no one making big budget movies now ever started with Super-8 or did their first film tests with RGB labs......, you don't really believe that do you?

 

And Kinko's and Apple didn't start out of someone's garage either.......um, yes, they did. You'd be surprised to find out the number of huge corporations that were incubated in someone's home or garage, are you saying it is completely irrelevant for Kodak to now not bother with supporting any related business that helps incubate future Kodak business, because RGB surely did that.

 

It's precisely because RGB lab was located a stone's throw away from Kodak's building in Hollywood and has been around for a very long time that their closing should not be viewed as business as usual by Kodak.

Alessandro,

I think you're being a bit stubborn on this point. David clearly said, "However, it would be nice if Kodak figured out a way to provide that service since they now own an ECN-2 lab in Hollywood". But he's also saying that it's not in Kodak's best interests to go around funding related business' just because they deal in some small way with Kodak. I believe RGB dealt with Fuji too.....should Fuji take over RGB? It just doesn't make sense. If Kodak can find a way to do what RGB did, it would be great, but why would they want to re-open a business that has already failed? If RGB was SO important and so widely used then they would still be in business because they would be making more money. I certainly wouldn't want to put my money into a business that has proven that it will fail.....why would Kodak?

[Alessandro Machi]

Alessandro,

I think you're being a bit stubborn on this point. David clearly said, "However, it would be nice if Kodak figured out a way to provide that service since they now own an ECN-2 lab in Hollywood". But he's also saying that it's not in Kodak's best interests to go around funding related business' just because they deal in some small way with Kodak. I believe RGB dealt with Fuji too.....should Fuji take over RGB? It just doesn't make sense. If Kodak can find a way to do what RGB did, it would be great, but why would they want to re-open a business that has already failed? If RGB was SO important and so widely used then they would still be in business because they would be making more money. I certainly wouldn't want to put my money into a business that has proven that it will fail.....why would Kodak?

 

If David had merely made that one statement only, then that would have been the end of it.

But David then went in to attack mode.

 

RGB has been around at least 25 years, and I think way longer than that. Simply because someone chooses to not re-lease to a company does not mean that that company had a failing business. It's rather insulting of you to call RGB a failing business after their successful run of over 25 years and is EXACTLY the reason why it looks bad from a public relations point of view, and that is my point.

[Chris Fernando]

You've got to stop seeing Kodak's motion picture business model being based on Super-8 users and other no-budget, low-paying customers working on the fringes of the industry, using tiny mom & pop labs. It's mainly propped up by the studios ordering millions of feet of print stock for worldwide theatrical distribution. If THAT source of income died, then you'd really have to worry about Kodak's long-term existence. Everything else is a sideshow really, K40 versus E64T, etc. Has no ultimate long-term effect on the viability of film for making movies. You have to look at what really generates the big money for Kodak.

 

FYI:

 

 

Sent: 10/21/2005 8:25:00 AM

Subject: Re: Film is NOT Dead!!

 

 

Kodak

 

ROCHESTER, N.Y. - For the first time, Eastman Kodak Co. is generating more sales from digital imaging than from film-based photography, yet its massive makeover brought more pain in the third quarter - a $1.03 billion loss largely attributable to one-time tax charges.

 

Even excluding restructuring and other charges, analysts said Kodak's results missed Wall Street forecasts.

 

Kodak lost the equivalent of $3.58 a share in the July-September quarter, compared with a profit of $458 million, or $1.60 a share, a year earlier. Its loss from continuing operations, excluding one-time charges, was $103 million.

 

Sales rose 5 percent, to $3.55 billion, up from $3.37 billion in last year's third quarter.

 

Although stung once more by the rapid slide in film sales, Kodak found solace in its steady drive into the digital era. Its overall digital sales in the quarter surged 47 percent, to $1.89 billion, while revenue from film, paper and other traditional, chemical-based businesses slumped 20 percent, to $1.66 billion.

[David Mullen ASC]

But David then went in to attack mode.

 

Wait a minute, I seem to recall this beginning, as always, with you attacking Kodak -- in this case, for letting a small local company that they don't even own to go under.

 

I guess you feel you should be the only one to launch attacks. The rest of us are not allowed.

 

So if you were running Kodak, how many people in Rochester or Hollywood would you lay off in order to buy RGB Labs and get it up and running again?

[Alessandro Machi]

Wait a minute, I seem to recall this beginning, as always, with you attacking Kodak -- in this case, for letting a small local company that they don't even own to go under.

 

I guess you feel you should be the only one to launch attacks. The rest of us are not allowed.

 

So if you were running Kodak, how many people in Rochester or Hollywood would you lay off in order to buy RGB Labs and get it up and running again?

 

 

But if Kodak hasn't attempted the suggestion you made a few posts ago, they should be taken to task.

 

FYI:

Sent: 10/21/2005 8:25:00 AM

Subject: Re: Film is NOT Dead!!

Kodak

 

ROCHESTER, N.Y. - For the first time, Eastman Kodak Co. is generating more sales from digital imaging than from film-based photography, yet its massive makeover brought more pain in the third quarter - a $1.03 billion loss largely attributable to one-time tax charges.

 

Even excluding restructuring and other charges, analysts said Kodak's results missed Wall Street forecasts.

 

Kodak lost the equivalent of $3.58 a share in the July-September quarter, compared with a profit of $458 million, or $1.60 a share, a year earlier. Its loss from continuing operations, excluding one-time charges, was $103 million.

 

Sales rose 5 percent, to $3.55 billion, up from $3.37 billion in last year's third quarter.

 

Although stung once more by the rapid slide in film sales, Kodak found solace in its steady drive into the digital era. Its overall digital sales in the quarter surged 47 percent, to $1.89 billion, while revenue from film, paper and other traditional, chemical-based businesses slumped 20 percent, to $1.66 billion.

 

 

I don't understand the purpose of your post. Other than proving that if a company was actually profitable processing Motion picture still rolls, and was only driven out by an either an escalation of rent or the non-tendering of a new lease offer, all your post proves is how quickly many want to drive the nail into Kodak.

 

1.66 billion is nothing to sneeze at, and does not reflect "motion picture sales" at all, which increased, as it has every year for who knows how long.

[Charles MacDonald]

I am reminded that about 20 years ago now, their were a herd of folks with names like "lab47", "apoolo Film and Tape", "cord enterpries", "C&L Labs" who latched on to providing reloaded short ends and printing them as slides as a cheaper alternative to Slide film. Back then the stard print stock was optimised for short term theatre prints and so many folks who thought they were getting a "professional Film" and "Hollywoods secret wepon" actually have a box full of rather redish slides for their trouble.

 

Dale Labs was one of these, although the folks that stated that quickly decided that they should migrate upwards. RGB was another one who was right in the middle of the pack.

 

At the time the Photgraphy magazines quoted "Kodak" as saying - Probaly quite rightly that they considered this an abuse of the product and that it was something that they wanted to discourage. (Shortly therafter they did introduce a longer lived print stock)

 

Having folks that would do the slides from negs trick was quite handy, and I am sure doubly so in preproduction and location scouting.

 

I agree that it is more useful to small folks, as as David has pointed out, the Big guys can very well justify spending a thousand bucks to run a test. (including rentals, a print or two and a 400 ft roll of negative. In fact they probaly can't afford anything less, as a Hidden "gotcha" that is missed by an aproximation "test" Might be enough to result in a $100,000 reshoot when you have to get all the etxras back, fly in the talent, get more street closing permits etc.

 

For someone who is tring to learn of course being able ot run a test that uses the actual same film stock, in an approximation of how it would be used for the price of a sit down meal is an oportunity that will be missed.

 

Shoudl Kodak or Fuji Rush in for that reason.. NO, their target is David and his colleges, who when they decide on a film stock normaly end up buying a lot of it. (Figure if you will even a 5:1 shooting ratio for a 90 minute film, and you quickly get 100 rolls of 400ft 35mm film. Not including special effects, actors with the giggles and so on.)

 

Kodak and Fuji really make their money in the release prints, even though that stock is cheaper, againa ninty minute film takes 8100 ft of film per print (90 munutes at a foot and a half a second.) multipled by the number of screens the movie opens at.

 

NOW if you do want to have a service like RGB used to offer, perhaps their is a business plan that would work. their are many labs that do run ECN and ECP. Their machinery often only runs part of the day. Someone probaly could set up a front end business using the heat splcers that the big still labs use to splice the film together so It would not break in the processor and use the video anayizers and the printers when the lab is not using them to run off slides.

 

Actually one of the disadvantages of the process for a still photographer is a virtue for a movie test, the entire 36 exposures really have to be printed with one light. YOu could probal find somewhere in the LA area where the rents were low enough to set up, and still be in proximity to the folks doing the heavy lifting of running the processing machines.

 

As far as expecting help from Kodak (or Fuji) Kdak just closed their 3500 Eglington plant in toronto. For a time that was the main source of Movie negative in narth america (They have tried to do differnt things with that plant which was built to provide all the film used in canada before NAFTA)

 

The ad for the Auction for that plant and also some capacity hey we closing in Rochester listed a few tons of euipment including 100 Forklifts. The Kodak plant in Australia, and the KodaK Ltd plant at Harrow have also closed recently. If Kodak has any money to spend it will probaly be spent on gaining in the digital realm. Fortunatly for motion pictures having better filmstock to originate on probaly meets that goal. Continuing Making Black and white reversal films in spite of presure to stop using cromium bleach - primarly so folks in Film Schools will think kindly of the Kodak name probaly meets that goal.

 

If you wanted to duplicate what RGB was doing, I owuld not be surprised if Kodal would be happy to provide some introductions to lab managers... I would be shock it they would offer equity investment.

[David Mullen ASC]

I found out the other day that Kodak is something like a 12 billion dollar (a year?) company while Fuji is a 20 billion a year... I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but the point is that overall, Fuji is actually a bigger company than Kodak all-in.

 

So why not equally blame Fuji for not supporting RGB Labs? They apparently have deeper pockets than Kodak...

 

With Kodak going through such rough financial times, laying off thousands of people, a proposal like restarting RGB Labs under Kodak backing has to make good financial sense, and generally when corporations get involved in running smaller companies (this one with a staff of probably less than ten people), controlling costs gets harder, not easier, due to corporate overhead & management fees. In other words, whatever small profits a small lab like RGB managed to generate (not enough to pay for their rent I guess) would be even smaller if a bigger company got involved, so essentially Kodak would probably end up running the lab at a loss just for questionable PR purposes. Hence why I said that it does not make as much business sense, compared to, let's say, the idea of Kodak offering the same service out of their Laser Pacific ECN-2 lab. This is a time where the only expansion at Kodak that makes sense is into film/digital post-production services like at Laser Pacific or other ways to repurpose film in a digital world; otherwise, they are looking to trim the fat from their operations, which is why they are obsoleting so many low-usage film stocks.

[Charles MacDonald]

So why not equally blame Fuji for not supporting RGB Labs? They apparently have deeper pockets than Kodak...

 

Recalling hat RGB was actually using FUJI print stock to make the slides.

[Brad Grimmett]

RGB has been around at least 25 years, and I think way longer than that. Simply because someone chooses to not re-lease to a company does not mean that that company had a failing business. It's rather insulting of you to call RGB a failing business after their successful run of over 25 years and is EXACTLY the reason why it looks bad from a public relations point of view, and that is my point.

It's not insulting at all....it's just reality. If they were making a profit they would still be doing business. It's so simple....I'm surprised you don't get it. Just because a company has been in business for a long time doesn't mean that they'll be profitable forever.

As far as looking bad PR wise....that's just silly. So few people are affected by RGB's closing that it's probably not even a blip on Kodak's radar. They have much bigger issues to contend with. Issues that actually mean something to Kodak's bottom line have to take precedence.

[Chris Fernando]

I don't understand the purpose of your post.

 

RGB needed Kodak; Kodak, apparently, never needed RGB. Smile, it's just business :) .

[Brad Grimmett]

RGB needed Kodak; Kodak, apparently, never needed RGB. Smile, it's just business :) .

That's not true. Fuji makes film too. RGB never needed Kodak at all.

[Alessandro Machi]

That's not true. Fuji makes film too. RGB never needed Kodak at all.

 

 

The big unknown in this is did RGB "incubate" future bigtime Kodak customers.

 

Incubation is becoming more and more important to the film business and the business of film.

[Chris Fernando]

RGB never needed Kodak at all.

 

Wouldn't it stand to reason, though, that if RGB was marketing themselves as a place where you could "test" motion picture film stocks, that they would need Kodak much more so than Fuji, based on industry tendencies/practices?

 

Which brings me to my next question, as was stated by someone earlier in this thread; how many DP's were actually using RGB stocks and still cameras to test motion picture stocks?

[John Pytlak RIP]

Alessandro: If the services are in such demand, why don't you buy a lab like RGB or its equipment, and start a business offering the same services? :rolleyes:

 

I've discussed some of the issues related to trying to use stills to evaluate motion picture films in other threads. Few labs want to routinely run short lengths of color negative film through their ECN-2 production machines, because of the increased risk of one of the many extra splices breaking in the machine. Slides made from motion picture negative frames rarely reflect the "look" of a film in motion, or the color and tone scale obtained for a color-timed / graded image.

[Brad Grimmett]

Incubation is becoming more and more important to the film business and the business of film.

Really? Is it? I haven't heard any evidence of that. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I haven't heard that to be true either. Seems to me like incubation would be less important these days since more people start with digital than film. But I don't necessarily agree that there is, or needs to be, an incubation period for people to use film. The "film business" doesn't really have that much to do with film itself. The business is about making money. Film is just a tool they use to make and show their product. The business people could care less whether we use film to make movies or not. Whatever is cheaper and yields the best profit margin is what they want to make their products with. It's just simple business....but that doesn't mean I like it any more than anyone else. It's just the way things are.