Kodak to cut 20% of staff

Carlos M. Icaza · January 22, 2004

I thought I post this on the "Off-Topic" forum. What are your thoughts on this news guys?.... What impact do you think it might have on "film"......

You can read the entire article at

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/22/news/compa...dex.htm?cnn=yes

"Photo company to take $1.3B-$1.7B charge as it eliminates up to 15,000 jobs.

January 22, 2004: 6:12 AM EST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Eastman Kodak Co. said Thursday it will slash its work force by 20 percent and take up to $1.7 billion in charges over the next three years as the company accelerates a painful shift away from the waning film photography market.

Kodak, which unveiled a new strategy in September to shift investments into digital markets, said it will cut 12,000 to 15,000 jobs worldwide, a move it expects to save the company $800 million to $1 billion by 2007..... "

John Pytlak RIP · January 22, 2004

As you may have read in the press, today Kodak announced a growth strategy, where the company plans a three-year program to enhance its competitive position. Here is a link to the information on the Kodak website:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressRelea...040122-02.shtml

Here is a letter from Eric Rodli, President of Kodak Entertainment Imaging to our customers, giving more detail about how this strategy affects Entertainment Imaging:

___________________________________________________________________

January 22, 2004

Dear Kodak motion picture customer:

This week you may have heard some updates on Kodak's new business strategy, as well as plans to lower our cost structure.

The structural changes announced are not a reaction to temporary earnings or business pressures. In the consumer world, the digital reality is now, and Kodak has no choice but to adapt to the digital model, which is characterized by faster growth, tighter profit margins, aggressive pricing and swift product turnover.

Please do not interpret this as Kodak 'abandoning' film.

Refocusing our R&D investments applies primarily to our consumer and medical imaging businesses, where the demand for digital imaging products and services is growing rapidly. Reducing costs in these areas also allows for Entertainment Imaging to continue its efforts to deliver the best film products - and best value possible to our motion picture customers.

Entertainment is still a film business, and film will remain an important part of the imaging chain into the foreseeable future. The success of our VISION2 product proves motion picture film's continued viability in the marketplace, and justifies future investment in silver halide. Nothing approaches film for its quality, resolution, dynamic range, flexibility and archivability.

At the same time, EI is expanding its digital participation, and we are making selective and strategically important investments to do that. One such investment is the acquisition of postproduction company Laser Pacific. This broadens our participation in the TV post arena, and brings exciting new digital/hybrid competencies to Kodak.

We believe that, in our industry, digital solutions make the most sense in the post production arena?so that's where you'll see the majority of our digital participation in the short term. And this includes our silver halide investments, which are incorporating a full systems approach for more flexibility in post.

We're working hard to supply you with the technology for what we foresee as a film/digital hybrid world. As such, within Entertainment Imaging, Kodak?s commitment to and investment in film continues. In fact, we continue to dedicate over 70% of our motion picture R&D budget to film technology. Additional announcements later in the year will attest to that fact.

Know that we remain passionate about film building. We are committed to all our customers in the creative community and to developing a full range of tools and services to help bring your vision to the screen, more faithfully, efficiently, and at the highest levels of quality.

Sincerely,

Eric Rodli

Eric Rodli,

President Entertainment Imaging

Senior Vice President Eastman Kodak

__________________________________________________________________

March 10, 2004

Kodak sues Sony

http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsArticle...storyID=4530069

Phil Rhodes · March 10, 2004

Hi,

Oh, this should be interesting. I suspect that at least some of this is to do with the fact that in the US, you can patent software and formulae, particularly relating to image compression. Most of the civilised world has thrown out this idea on the basis that you shouldn't be able to patent the fact that one plus one equals two, but in Japan you can damn near patent the fact that it is Tuesday and charge calendar makers for fifty-two instances a year, and they have the world's most voracious, snarling, barely-restrained-on-choke-chain intellectual property lawyers.

Such fun!

Phil

Mitch Gross · March 10, 2004

I don't know the details of the case, but the fact that two other manufacturers pay licencing fees indicates that there might be something to Kodak's position. It's an interesting fact that big corporations are in court often with one another at the same time they are doing business with one another, many times concurrently.

March 10, 2004

I remeber when Bell & Howell sued Minolta for using their AF patent in their AF SLRs. It was for big bucks and Minolta laid low for a while and lost a lot of business to Canon.

The Japanese manufacurers don't sue each other, or not much; they almost always negotiate things among themselves. They get often burned in the US. But Sony has gone trough all of this many times and probably figured out that it will not cost them more fighting it in the courtroom than to pay what Kodak wants.

Both Kodak and Sony are going through tough financial times and both are trying to move into the digital domain as quickly as they can.

Hey Mitch, how about some peace. I like you and I respect you.

Joe

Mitch Gross · March 10, 2004

Hey Mitch, how about some peace. I like you and I respect you.

I don't know what to say, other than I'm willing to if you alter the nature of your contributions to the forum. You're mostly all-pro HD and anti-everything else. You blast out huge posts stuffed with statistical info that often doesn't correspond to one another and can be misleading in the conclusions you draw. It's sorta like what my old Statistics professor use to call the difference between Accuracy and Precision--it's very easy to use numbers to make very precise statement, but they can easily be highly inaccurate.

I never claim to be an expert on subjects in which I don't have solid experience and knowledge. I know a lot about various 16mm cameras because I've used so many of them. I know Kodak filmstock a little better than Fuji because I have more experience with it. I know some of the basics of a program like Final Cut Pro but I would never claim to be an expert on it. I've spent tons of time in edit bays, transfer rooms, optical houses, and god knows on sets garnering personal practical knowledge. I do know a sizeable chunk about HD, but I certainly don't know everything. But I certainly do know people who are experts in the field, and I highly respect their opinions and knowledge base. When someone from a major effects house tells me about subsampling issues with the codec Sony uses for their HDCam format or a DP shows me how the Cine Alta's prism block causes major color fringing or a sound designer can play a track for me and illustrate how he can remove subtle low-frequency film camera rumble but can do little with the f900's high-pitch VTR whine, these are pieces of info that I believe and respect. I don't want to be a total Sony basher here, and Panasonic products have issues too, such as a real pain in the ass pixel-mapping interface for blemish correction.

My knowledge is real-world, practical knowledge. I've been doing this for more than 15 years and interested in it all since I was a little kid. When I speak about a camera issue or one system's advantages compared to another, it is from personal experience. That's the way I try to participate and contribute to this forum and other's like it.

Look at some of the other members of this forum. David Mullen has a huge knowledge base, both from direct personal experience and from his voracious appetite for reading every journal and periodical ever written on cinematography or related subjects. Phil knows an incredible amount about video technology, editing systems, computers and electronics and mechanics in general. George Selinsky has a deep understanding of the chemistry of film developing. This list goes on. These are people who speak from their own personal knowledge base to help others expand their own. When they don't know something, they ask, and someone who does know contributes info. I would have no problem asking Phil or Alvin about burning a DVD as they know far more on the subject than I.

I know a lot of stuff and there's a lot more that I don't know. When someone asks a question I respond to the limits of my knowledge, and often the responses of others helps expand my knowledge base. I don't choose to start just telling people knowledge that they didn't particularly ask for, as I don't find this a useful discourse.

So when I see threads such as the one you started recently that had your guess as to what technologies and products MIGHT be introduced at next month's NAB show, I really have to ask what the point is. If someone wants to discuss sampling rates of various compression formats than fine, and as has been done these can be argued about. But to pontificate on something that frankly no one asked... Well, maybe you should set up your own personal blog somewhere for that.

I'm not trying to be harsh, but you've done a lot of posting in just a few weeks and it generally goes in a very particular direction, so this is the position it puts me in. This forum is a community, like an open cocktail party in which we discuss issues of cinematography. Sometimes you come off as a guy who may have had too many drinks and is getting a little loud. ;) But that's okay for any of us every once in awhile. Phil's harsh, dry humor can REALLY rub people the wrong way sometimes, myself included. But that's an occassional thing, while your style has been near consistent.

I do respect some of what you say, but I don't particularly care for the style in which you present it or yourself. IS that too mean? Is there someway to extend a proper olive branch?

March 11, 2004

Hey Mitch; I totally apologize. I apologize to everyone else too. This is my situation: I'm working on a preproduction in a different country. It is a second time I'm here on a film project. I meet a lot of people, get to know a lot of new people.

Now I have some break and some things start developing that I wanted to do a long time ago. Someone wants to put up some real cash to open a studio here, with me. The craftsmanship here is excellent and forget any US union wages. You can get things done here dirt cheap. The studios have been shooting here for a while and bitching how everything is expensive. They're still keep on coming back. Well, after being here the second time, we can get things done for 1/4 of the cost the studios are paying, and just as well and just as quick.

Now, we can rent here practically anything, but I came out with the idea of getting some CineAlta stuff dirt cheap, if possible. So I'm doing a lot of phone calls, read a lot of stuff. Sure film is better but the budgets we'll have etc., I think that we would be best off using CineAlta, on most projects, to start with, and I'm checking into a way if it would be possible to create our own CineAlta cameras for less. I'm no expert on this and I'm glad you guys are chewing my ass, even though it hurts.

That's where I come from. Anyway, things are getting really interesting down here.

I'll try to keep the voice toned down.

Have a good one,

I'm going to sleep.

Brad Grimmett · March 11, 2004

The craftsmanship here is excellent and forget any US union wages. You can get things done here dirt cheap.

Oh, I see. You're a producer. No wonder you know so much. ;)

Mitch Gross · March 11, 2004

Joe, no harm no foul. It can be a difficult thing to discuss ideas as they are still churning inside one's own head. Gets me into arguments with my wife all the time. :(

While I think your idea for a homemade HD camera is a noble effort, I fear that it is fraught with possibilities for problems and issues, areas that you'll never no are problems until you start dealing with them. By the time you're done with the project it could easily rival the cost of a Cine Alta while delivering inferior images. There's no law that you need to own a camera starting out, although by the posts I see by people here and on other sites you'd think there was! You could certainly consider a long-term rental or lease-to-own purchase. Frankly, if a piece of equipmenthas not paid for itself plus some in two years (preferrably 18 months), then I don't consider it a wise business investment. This has been my thinking with film & video equipment, and I'd feel all the more certain of this in the ever-changing world of HD technology.

For the money you're thinking, if you do purchase you should seriously look into the Kinetta when it debuts next month. It's already been sneaked (is that a verb?) in at least one magazine, I think Millimeter. But there are other companies with other products coming soon. I wouldn't want to be spending my money buying something that I'd have to experiment on to rebuild into something else right away. Let someone else spend their time and money doing that. Isn't this where this thread started, with Kodak pledging to keep their R&D in cine films?

Rest easy, and let's make tomorrow a new day.

March 11, 2004

Thanks Mitch.

I'll just wait for NAB. I heard that there will be bunch of new HD stuff but this year everyone is under NDA.

I was not actually going to build a camera; I was basically going to hook one of those point-of-view box cameras and feed it into hard drives. But I'm no expert. Hope that the Kinetta is not too expensive and it does 1080/24p. I don't want anything else.

Joe