Andrew Martin

They still haven't said who has designed their lenses, but once again, for the price they are selling them I doubt that they will be competition for Zeiss, Cooke and Panavision, as well as Angénieux.

According to wikipedia (and its wikipedia, so take this with a grain of salt) ? the lenses were designed for Red by Cooke. But like you said, its still hard to believe that the lenses will be anywhere near the quality of lenses costing 5 times as much. If they are in fact designed by Cooke, I would be flabbergasted if they are anywhere near the quality of the Cooke branded zooms ? it wouldn?t make sense for Cooke to do that from a business standpoint, they?d be shooting themselves in the foot.

Michael,

I too am very interested in Fomapan R 100. There doesn't seem to be many suppliers of the stock out there. Please tell me if you find anything regarding suppliers of Fomapan R 100 or labs that process it.

Andrew Martin

Hang on a moment! I think you're wrong.

 

When I last checked Kodak's annual reports (about a year or so ago), their motion picture film is turning a very healthy profit because they have relatively little competition.

I fully realize that Kodak is making healthy profits from filmstock. I was simply stating that motion picture filmstock is not (or at least, was not) their primary profit maker, thus they have not been as motivated to dramatically lower student pricing in order to maintain that market. But they should.

BTW - The cost of Film cameras and accessories is negligible. Film processing, TK etc is what makes film so cost prohibitive.

I know some have been arguing this point to a degree, but this is the matter that really demands attention. Kodak?s current solution is the student 16mm film kit, which is great but it is still cost prohibitive. Prices need to be lower for students.

Actually, there are, as of today, 6 major companies making color film. Kodak and Fuji just are the most well known out there. Don't discount Lucky, Mitsubishi, 3M, Solaris and a japanese company bought Konica-Minoltas film division and is putting themselves into the market.

 

For being dead, there sure seem to be a lot more players out there.

Who said film was "dead"?

Film is alive and well, and I want it to stay that way forever.

I have never heard of these companies making motion picture filmstock.

I think it is Kodak or Fuji that needs to lead the way.

When I am much older, I want film to still be an option because I know I will always want to shoot on celluloid for some projects. I think if they provide film to students for much less and establish a market with young filmmakers, it will help ensure that film will progress right along with HD technology, and that both will be available to filmmakers.

Just to preface - I realize that filmstock is not the major moneymaker for Kodak. That being said, the Kodak 16mm film kit includes processing and a one-light telecine to SD tape for 50 minutes of film for $1150. While this is a good deal compared to what the cost could be, it is still a great deal of money, especially for students. Now, I have no knowledge of how much money it costs to produce filmstock, especially since the film industry is a ?limited market?, but I would not be surprised if there is an astronomical mark up. There are only two companys making filmstock currently, one or both needs to bite the bullet if they still want to be making decent profits off filmstock 20 to 50 years from now. AND I know there are some that are going to say ?50 years, get real?, but the fact is that celluloid will always, or at least SHOULD always have a place in the arsenal of tools that a moviemaker has to tell his story. I really think they owe it to the film community to start offering lower priced film (at least to students).

I am 18 years old. I have shot on film (super 8mm, 16mm, and 35mm). I love film. But film is expensive, and I will have a hard time producing future student projects on celluloid because of that expense. Kodak, cut me a brake now and I?ll be sure to give you business in the future.

P.S I realize the image was produced for television but I thought you might have had a chance to see it projected at a post house or the like.

Andrew

I noticed the 2:35:1 crop. As I have considered using the Varicam and framing for 2:35:1, I found myself wondering how the 720p image might hold up when projected on a big screen. Have you had a chance to view the images on a large screen and if so, what did you think?

Andrew