PETITION against elimination of Kodak 5231/7231

[Bill DiPietra]

Hi everyone.

 

As you probably know by now, Kodak is eliminating 5231/7231 from its catalog and a LOT of us are up in arms about it.

 

I have offered to personally write the body of a very professional petition to Kodak under my corporate heading. So if you would like to be included in this, send your contact info to bill@richprod.com so that I can put in the e-mail.

 

You may send as much contact info as you like, but please send at the very least, your FULL NAME and E-MAIL address.

 

NOTE: YOUR INFORMATION WILL NOT BE SHARED WITH ANYONE OTHER THAN KODAK!!!

 

PLEASE feel free to check my website. That is the corporate heading that I will be writing the petition under.

I will also post the body of the petition (without names or e-mail addresses) in forum before sending it off to Kodak.

 

Thanks a lot! Let's keep this stock alive!

[Tim Halloran]

Thanks for initiating this--I've sent you my info.

 

Any chance that you can include the 7265 in the petition? The discontinuance of the Plus-X reversal is just as much of a loss to me as the 7231.

 

Tim

[Todd Anderson]

As stated in another thread, we are looking at trying to organize a protest of some sort in front of the Kodak Hollywood facility (and perhaps concurrently or separately at the NY facility should be a goal, too) in a few weeks. I guess timing is probably important, so if it takes more time to generate enough interest for the event, then all the better.

 

I guess if everyone (pros, filmmakers, amateurs, artists, educators, students and industry people) could start spreading via word of mouth, e-mail, blogging, student boards, etc., to colleagues, friends, and the such, the awareness of the the discontinuation of the Plus-X (or simply stated as B&W motion film if the point is better understood), and encourage them to send off an e-mail to Bill to add to the petition, that sounds like a positive first step. As word starts to spread, perhaps we could set a date for a physical protest.

 

Perhaps just as important, as previously stated, if anyone has friends in the press, or contacts in the film and/or entertainment industry that may be of value to add some weight to the campaign, or can relay the artistic significance and the historical importance of the discontinuation of the medium, by all means share.

 

There are obviously many filmmakers, artists and even just film lovers for that matter, some probably very influential and important, both in the U.S. and abroad in Europe, that are probably not aware of the matter in the least. And just as the readers of this board, they will no doubt be emotionally effected by the decision before it is too late. So I guess getting that awareness out there is pretty important. Use your contacts.

 

The way I see it, in essence, black and white motion stock (sorry, just 5222/ 7222 doesn't cut it) and the huge legacy attached to it is being discontinued by a low profile quarterly notice as if it is just a lot of a particular line of paper towels.

 

-T

[Bill DiPietra]

To those who have already sent me their info, thank you. I'm going to let the list build as much as possible as write the body of the petition (power in numbers!)

 

As Todd stated, it's best if people send their own personal e-mails to Kodak as well. If they get enough pressure from the artistic community, maybe Kodak will rethink this drastic decision.

 

Timothy, I will definitely put something in about 7265. I didn't even see that until you mentioned it. Thanks.

 

KEEP THE E-MAILS COMING!!!

 

I am currently enrolled as a Media Arts grad student at Long Island University in Brooklyn. I know all the faculty and most of the student body so I am going to try to get as many names together as possible.

 

I will be in touch. In the meantime, KEEP THIS THREAD ALIVE!!!

[Todd Anderson]

I've respectfully asked for some help over at REDUSER. Feel free to monitor and contribute to thread below.

 

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43515

 

I would suggest other people to post on as many boards as they can. If you want to copy and paste any text from my reduser message, by all means do it.

 

Twitter industry people. E-mail Kodak corporate. Film sites. What ever it takes.

 

As an aside, this is a website that saved SAAB and put pressure on GM to not just sell them off at the end of last year. They got themselves heard. Perhaps there is something to be learned. They staged a bunch of protest all over the world. See link below:

 

http://www.saabsunited.com/

 

http://www.saabsunited.com/2010/01/

 

Note: You probably need to scroll back through the archives to the end of last year to around January- February of this year to see the movement (since they are mostly reporting on current SAAB news; which is all positive) The second link above kind of throws you in the middle.

 

 

Todd

[Bill DiPietra]

Can anyone point me to a website or other document that would list a good number of films that were shot on Plus-X? As we all know, many of today's filmmakers have been brought up in a digital world and don't really what "Plus-X" is without an explanation. That applies to a lot of my classmates and I am trying to get them on-board with this, but I'd like to be able to cite a few well-known examples for them.

 

Thanks in advance for any help.

[Bill DiPietra]

Can anyone point me to a website or other document that would list a good number of films that were shot on Plus-X? As we all know, many of today's filmmakers have been brought up in a digital world and don't really what "Plus-X" is without an explanation. That applies to a lot of my classmates and I am trying to get them on-board with this, but I'd like to be able to cite a few well-known examples for them.

 

Thanks in advance for any help.

 

Never mind. Found it through IMDB's tech section.

[Rod Otaviano]

Thanks for the initiative, Bill.

I just sent you an email.

[Bill DiPietra]

Can anyone point me to a website or other document that would list a good number of films that were shot on Plus-X? As we all know, many of today's filmmakers have been brought up in a digital world and don't really what "Plus-X" is without an explanation. That applies to a lot of my classmates and I am trying to get them on-board with this, but I'd like to be able to cite a few well-known examples for them.

 

Thanks in advance for any help.

 

 

It appears I spoke too soon when I thought I'd found a listing of Plus-X films at IMDB. So if anyone knows where I can find a listing, please let me know.

 

Thanks!

[Andy Forbes]

When I was researching 5222 & 5231 I came across the site of Patrick Ryan O'Hara who has a couple of PDF's for download that mentions some of the more recent films shot on Kodak stock but it is by no means comprehensive.

 

The two PDF's are Shooting For Black & White in the Learn Section. As you say the IMDB was not good for targeting a particular stock.

 

Can we stills shooters also add our voice to this?

[John Salim]

Can anyone point me to a website or other document that would list a good number of films that were shot on Plus-X? As we all know, many of today's filmmakers have been brought up in a digital world and don't really what "Plus-X" is without an explanation. That applies to a lot of my classmates and I am trying to get them on-board with this, but I'd like to be able to cite a few well-known examples for them.

 

Thanks in advance for any help.

 

Bill, I do believe some of 'Schindler's List' was shot on Plus-X negative.

To me this movie is one of the best examples of B&W cinematography ....and would have looked even better if release prints were on B&W print stock ( which of course for obvious reasons it couldn't be ).

 

John S :rolleyes:

[Todd Anderson]

It appears I spoke too soon when I thought I'd found a listing of Plus-X films at IMDB. So if anyone knows where I can find a listing, please let me know.

 

Thanks!

 

 

Maybe someone can find out some information at the ASC:

 

http://www.theasc.com/

 

I would also think that David Mullen here on the boards would be a great resource for this knowledge.

 

Regardless, any film history enthusiast that has watched films from the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, etc., gets a sense of what we are talking about here. Any film student that is now, or in the future, being influenced by the early work of Goddard, Fellini, Bergman, Antonioni, Kurosawa, Hitchcock, or specific genere's, like Film Noir or early silent films will understand. And believe me, there will be many in the future.

 

The fact is, as of now, if Double-X is on the chopping block next, to artistically achieve that "look" of true black and white will be forever lost. Nothing in the digital intermediate or telecine will achieve the same thing.

 

-T

[Tim Halloran]

I would suggest other people to post on as many boards as they can. If you want to copy and paste any text from my reduser message, by all means do it.

 

Twitter industry people. E-mail Kodak corporate. Film sites. What ever it takes.

 

Filmshooting.com taken care of:

 

http://www.filmshooting.com/scripts/forum/...=193946#p193946

 

Get the word out, for sure. Whatever it takes.

 

Tim

[Tim Carroll]

I called Kodak yesterday, and they referred me back to my rep. As I'm in Chicago, my rep is Ericka Frederick. She told me the best thing to do was send your rep an email (in this case I sent it to her), expressing the reasons why you think Kodak should reconsider their decision, and your rep will send it on to the right people at Kodak.

 

Here's the email I sent:

 

To Kodak Motion Picture Management,

 

It was with sadness and dismay that I read of the discontinuation of Eastman Plus-X Negative Film 7231. I run the Arri16S.com web site, which is dedicated to the thousands of folks who still use the little Arriflex 16S camera, and who visit my site each year (over 17,000 last year alone). These are folks who want to shoot film in our "digital age" and I would think that they're just the type of folks Kodak would want to attract.

 

One of the great things about shooting 16mm film (as opposed to digital) is the beauty of Black & White. There still isn't a way to "desaturate" digitally captured color to get the same rich blacks, bright whites, and beautiful grays that you get from black & white negative film. And in the 16mm format, there is no better Black & White film than Plus-X Negative 7231.

 

Double-X, 7222, is not a substitute in 16mm. The grain structure of 7222 is overwhelming when blown up from such a small negative. 5222 is a beautiful stock, as demonstrated by Gordon Willis in "Manhattan" and by Stephen H. Burum in "Rumble Fish", but 35mm 5222 doesn't need the extreme enlargement that 16mm 7222 does.

 

Is there a way to continue 7231 and 5222 while eliminating 7222 and 5231. That would seem to be a good compromise if Kodak is trying to decrease their Black & White offerings.

 

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Best,

-Tim Carroll

www.Arri16S.com

 

I think if we all start sending emails to our reps, I think many of them will get forwarded to the right folks at Kodak, and maybe if they see an uproar, they will reconsider. I also think Bill's petition is a good idea. The more uproar that we cause, the better the chance of changing this.

 

Best,

-Tim

[Todd Anderson]

Hey Tim.

 

Great write up over at filmshooting.com.

 

If we can branch out even further beyond the cine enthusiast sites, that would be great, too. I think I am going to post something even as far fetched as the forum over at Criterion.com

 

How about Flickr and some of the still camera sites? If Plus-X motion is going, maybe still is next on the list. Get those people motivated. Get them to follow the thread and watch for an upcoming date for a physical protest. Get them to send off e-mails to reps, as Tim Carroll suggests.

 

And there are some very passionate 'name' directors based in L.A. that are hard core film proponents that could certainly help. I bet people like Spielberg and Tarantino don't even know this is going on. If someone can get a line on an e-mail address to their agents, I think there is a chance they would lend a voice. I don't think that is too far fetched.

 

And I think Martin Scorsese and Christoper Nolan are pretty hard core film history buffs, too. These people grew up on black and white. I think it is pretty sentimental for these guys.

 

I think we need to get Tarantino down at the physical protest in front of the Kodak building holding a sign. That should be a goal. Or at the very least, we need Tarantino to get a letter off to Kodak or into the L.A. Times.

 

Perhaps all this is too premature, since Double-X still exsist. But my guess is that Double-X can't be too far off, too. If Kodak sees this go down without a rumble, I'm sure they won't think twice when the last B&W stock goes.

 

Todd

 

P.S: Tarantino just saved a small family owned theater chain in Los Angeles. I think he owns it now. It shouldn't be too hard to get the location. Perhaps we can get a copy of the petition and a letter to the management and have them forward it off. I'll drive it down if need be.

 

Lastly, I know the cinematographer Roger Deakins has his own website and answers questions on the forum for students. Tim, how about you cut and past your words from filmshooting.com over there? Get Deakins to spread the word with some of his colleagues. Get them to send off e-mails to the reps.

[Todd Anderson]

Double-X, 7222, is not a substitute in 16mm. The grain structure of 7222 is overwhelming when blown up from such a small negative. 5222 is a beautiful stock, as demonstrated by Gordon Willis in "Manhattan" and by Stephen H. Burum in "Rumble Fish", but 35mm 5222 doesn't need the extreme enlargement that 16mm 7222 does.

 

Is there a way to continue 7231 and 5222 while eliminating 7222 and 5231. That would seem to be a good compromise if Kodak is trying to decrease their Black & White offerings.

 

 

I think that would be a great compromise that most of us could live with, Tim.

 

If they could keep 5222 for the 35mm crowd, but keep 7231 for the 16mm crowd, that would make sense. If we get nowhere with our first fight, perhaps more letters could stress the importance of 7231 over 7222 for just the 16mm crowd. Unfortunately, it would seem they would cut the 16mm from the same master rolls as the 35mm. But maybe there is a way...

 

Todd

[Tim Carroll]

Unfortunately, it would seem they would cut the 16mm from the same master rolls as the 35mm. But maybe there is a way...

 

I thought about that, and it would require them to still make both stocks, but they could get alot more 16mm rolls out of a master roll of 7231 if they didn't have to cut 5231 out of it, and same with the 5222 without having to cut any 16mm strips. So they would still have to make both stocks, but only about 2/3's as many master rolls of 5222 and 1/3 as many master rolls of 7231.

 

Best,

-Tim

 

PS: By the way, I posted something about this on CML.

 

PSS: Here is a form that you can use to email your Kodak Sales Rep. Fill in the information and put your views about 7231 in the comments section.

 

Contact your Sales Rep Form

[Tim Gray]

How about Flickr and some of the still camera sites? If Plus-X motion is going, maybe still is next on the list. Get those people motivated. Get them to follow the thread and watch for an upcoming date for a physical protest. Get them to send off e-mails to reps, as Tim Carroll suggests.

 

It's already being discussed on some of them. I'm a stills shooter that uses Plus-X. It's unclear to me whether or not the motion picture film is cut from the same stock as the stills film. If it is, I think stills Plus-X is gone too...

 

Haven't seen it mentioned on flickr as of yet.

[Satsuki Murashige]

I emailed you Bill.

[Charles MacDonald]

How about Flickr and some of the still camera sites? If Plus-X motion is going, maybe still is next on the list. Get those people motivated. Get them to follow the thread and watch for an upcoming date for a physical protest. Get them to send off e-mails to reps, as Tim Carroll suggests.

.

 

there is a thead on the "analogue Photography users group"

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/74845-...mune-seems.html

[Bill DiPietra]

Thanks to everyone who e-mailed me today. As of right now, we have 15 names (not including myself.) KEEP 'EM COMING!!!

 

Tim, thanks for posting what you did on filmshooting.com

 

Andy, by all means, this is ABSOLUTELY opens to stills photographers as well. After all, Plus-X still film could be next.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Bill DiPietra

[Bill DiPietra]

And I think Martin Scorsese and Christoper Nolan are pretty hard core film history buffs, too. These people grew up on black and white. I think it is pretty sentimental for these guys.

 

Yes, I'd like to get Marty's take on this. I used to have the contact information for his company but don't anymore.

 

Anyone know how I can get in touch with someone who could at least relay a message to him?

Edited April 9, 2010 by Bill DiPietra

[Bill DiPietra]

FYI...

 

I've completed a first draft of the petition and posted it in PDF format in a new thread titled, "Plus-X Petition - FIRST DRAFT."

[Tom Jensen]

While I admire your efforts and sad to hear this news, I don't think anything will convince Kodak to change their plans. This is not a profitable stock and with the digital age amongst us, sprockets are dead and dying. I don't like it either but I don't see it being stopped. Kodak is just reading the writing on the wall. They are a business and with the profitability margins rising in the digital world and the profitability margins dropping in the film world, the stock is hard to justify. The first to go will be the still photo stocks and then the movie stocks. Everything will be digital one day. Eventually, there won't even be projection stocks. Films will be delivered to the theaters by a signal and projected digitally. That's the future.

[Bill DiPietra]

While I admire your efforts and sad to hear this news, I don't think anything will convince Kodak to change their plans. This is not a profitable stock and with the digital age amongst us, sprockets are dead and dying. I don't like it either but I don't see it being stopped. Kodak is just reading the writing on the wall. They are a business and with the profitability margins rising in the digital world and the profitability margins dropping in the film world, the stock is hard to justify. The first to go will be the still photo stocks and then the movie stocks. Everything will be digital one day. Eventually, there won't even be projection stocks. Films will be delivered to the theaters by a signal and projected digitally. That's the future.

 

Tom,

 

While I don't disagree, there is a big difference between just sitting on sidelines and going out on the field and at least trying for the fifty-yard field goal.

 

Regards,

Bill