Upcoming Film Price Wars - Kodak vs. Fuji...

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...

the short answer is that film is made in meter+ widths on machinery which
is then cut down to required sizes, including sheet film and 120 or 35mm.

I'd like to see someone try to roll up a 20 exposure 35mm Efke 25 stock.
That stuff is stiff enough to patch a battleship.

Bob Monaghan wrote:

the short answer is that film is made in meter+ widths on machinery which
is then cut down to required sizes, including sheet film and 120 or 35mm.

often, the same machinery is used to run a series of batches of different
film stocks which are then cut down and processed and sold over the next 6
to 18 months or more out of frozen film stocks.

so if a film emulsion is available at all, it can be made available in any
standard film size (up to 8x10" anyway) and on whatever format (including
620 as an alternate to 120) you want. It used to be that a distributor
could order (minim. order around $10,000, and pay in advance) for formats
like 5x7" even if such formats were not otherwise available on the
standard Kodak catalog listings. At wholesale, that is a lot of film.

Very important note on this, when you look at the specifications for some
films from AGFA, Fuji, and Kodak, there is a difference in film base
thickness between 35 mm and roll film sizes. This implies that roll film uses
a different thickness of base material, and is not always produced on the
same output with 35 mm film. Also, there have been some films that were
available in 35 mm, but not in roll films, and also the other way around.



Film for Classics showed there was a larger market than Kodak and others
admitted for classic film formats like 620 and 127 etc. Now we have a
number of such specialty formats available from major distributors (like
B&H, Efke..) and mfgers.

I would bet that a film-only mfger freed from corp. pro-digital politics
would probably provide more formats, rather than less, simply because once
the film emulsions are produced, the cutting and packaging equipment is
also already there and paid for, so it might as well be used.

My guess is that packaging might actually be more expensive than producing
the film. That is easily another cost factor for consideration.



Before then, we will have to endure the trimming of marginal (if still
profitable) formats and emulsions from major mfgers like Kodak while they
first milk and then kill off their film based cash "cow" ;-)

The final point is that the migration of film production to overseas
(China's Lucky Film plants for Kodak etc.) further supports the idea of
lower cost film products in the future, as underlying costs will be low.
It will be hard to prevent direct exports from China etc. if they (kodak,
Lucky film, etc.) try to over-price their film for the USA market (a side
effect of world pricing info and Ebay etc. on arbitraging such price
differences to near zero).

Or eastern Europe, small companies. Closeness to market is another issue.



So again, I think film costs are going down, and likely to stay down over
the long term...

Wallstreet analysts speculated two years ago that if the increase in
consumers using direct digital imaging started to pressure film sales, more
than reduced travelling affects film sales, then Kodak and Fuji would move to
reduce film prices to maintain volume, or increase market share. That
speculation might prove correct, which we should see within the next six
months.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!

Gordon Moat wrote:

Very important note on this, when you look at the specifications for some
films from AGFA, Fuji, and Kodak, there is a difference in film base
thickness between 35 mm and roll film sizes.

I believe that Ilford Delta 3200 and SFX use the 35mm film base
spooled on 120. I have not heard of any major difficulties
resulting from this, so perhaps the usual thinner base film
is not necessary for 120.

Peter.
--

Gordon Moat wrote:

Very important note on this, when you look at the specifications for some
films from AGFA, Fuji, and Kodak, there is a difference in film base
thickness between 35 mm and roll film sizes.

I believe that Ilford Delta 3200 and SFX use the 35mm film base
spooled on 120. I have not heard of any major difficulties
resulting from this, so perhaps the usual thinner base film
is not necessary for 120.

Peter.
--

Peter Irwin wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

Very important note on this, when you look at the specifications for some
films from AGFA, Fuji, and Kodak, there is a difference in film base
thickness between 35 mm and roll film sizes.

I believe that Ilford Delta 3200 and SFX use the 35mm film base
spooled on 120. I have not heard of any major difficulties
resulting from this, so perhaps the usual thinner base film
is not necessary for 120.

It could be a problem, if the same film is availble also as 220 or 620.
The exact problem being spool diameter.

-- Lassi

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:16:33 -0500, "jjs" wrote:

"Ron Todd" wrote in message
.. .

Because it doesn't make _enough_ of a profit.

Well, .... With market CD rates at 4% would you be willing to put
your life savings in a bank at 0.5% so home buyers would get less
expensive mortgages?

You don't know what the **** you are talking about so you toss out some kind
of irrelevant, weak-ass innuendo. Give it a rest. Get a job.


You really don't see why it is the same?

Lassi Hippeläinen wrote:

Peter Irwin wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

Very important note on this, when you look at the specifications for some
films from AGFA, Fuji, and Kodak, there is a difference in film base
thickness between 35 mm and roll film sizes.

I believe that Ilford Delta 3200 and SFX use the 35mm film base
spooled on 120. I have not heard of any major difficulties
resulting from this, so perhaps the usual thinner base film
is not necessary for 120.

It could be a problem, if the same film is availble also as 220 or 620.
The exact problem being spool diameter.

Maybe we have stumbled upon a reason why some 220 films are being discontinued.
If they required a different base, then it would be tougher to cut them for
other film sizes uses.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!

Lassi Hippeläinen wrote:

Peter Irwin wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

Very important note on this, when you look at the specifications for some
films from AGFA, Fuji, and Kodak, there is a difference in film base
thickness between 35 mm and roll film sizes.

I believe that Ilford Delta 3200 and SFX use the 35mm film base
spooled on 120. I have not heard of any major difficulties
resulting from this, so perhaps the usual thinner base film
is not necessary for 120.

It could be a problem, if the same film is availble also as 220 or 620.
The exact problem being spool diameter.

Maybe we have stumbled upon a reason why some 220 films are being discontinued.
If they required a different base, then it would be tougher to cut them for
other film sizes uses.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!

4x5 or larger film has thicker film base! I don't think they are produced
in the same batch.

"Gordon Moat"
Bob Monaghan wrote:

the short answer is that film is made in meter+ widths on machinery
which
is then cut down to required sizes, including sheet film and 120 or
35mm.

often, the same machinery is used to run a series of batches of
different
film stocks which are then cut down and processed and sold over the next
6
to 18 months or more out of frozen film stocks.

so if a film emulsion is available at all, it can be made available in
any
standard film size (up to 8x10" anyway) and on whatever format
(including
620 as an alternate to 120) you want. It used to be that a distributor
could order (minim. order around $10,000, and pay in advance) for
formats
like 5x7" even if such formats were not otherwise available on the
standard Kodak catalog listings. At wholesale, that is a lot of film.

Very important note on this, when you look at the specifications for some
films from AGFA, Fuji, and Kodak, there is a difference in film base
thickness between 35 mm and roll film sizes. This implies that roll film
uses
a different thickness of base material, and is not always produced on the
same output with 35 mm film. Also, there have been some films that were
available in 35 mm, but not in roll films, and also the other way around.



Film for Classics showed there was a larger market than Kodak and others
admitted for classic film formats like 620 and 127 etc. Now we have a
number of such specialty formats available from major distributors (like
B&H, Efke..) and mfgers.

I would bet that a film-only mfger freed from corp. pro-digital politics
would probably provide more formats, rather than less, simply because
once
the film emulsions are produced, the cutting and packaging equipment is
also already there and paid for, so it might as well be used.

My guess is that packaging might actually be more expensive than producing
the film. That is easily another cost factor for consideration.



Before then, we will have to endure the trimming of marginal (if still
profitable) formats and emulsions from major mfgers like Kodak while
they
first milk and then kill off their film based cash "cow" ;-)

The final point is that the migration of film production to overseas
(China's Lucky Film plants for Kodak etc.) further supports the idea of
lower cost film products in the future, as underlying costs will be low.
It will be hard to prevent direct exports from China etc. if they
(kodak,
Lucky film, etc.) try to over-price their film for the USA market (a
side
effect of world pricing info and Ebay etc. on arbitraging such price
differences to near zero).

Or eastern Europe, small companies. Closeness to market is another issue.



So again, I think film costs are going down, and likely to stay down
over
the long term...

Wallstreet analysts speculated two years ago that if the increase in
consumers using direct digital imaging started to pressure film sales,
more
than reduced travelling affects film sales, then Kodak and Fuji would move
to
reduce film prices to maintain volume, or increase market share. That
speculation might prove correct, which we should see within the next six
months.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!

Ron Todd wrote:

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:16:33 -0500, "jjs" wrote:

"Ron Todd" wrote in message
. ..

Because it doesn't make _enough_ of a profit.

Well, .... With market CD rates at 4% would you be willing to put
your life savings in a bank at 0.5% so home buyers would get less
expensive mortgages?

You don't know what the **** you are talking about so you toss out some
kind of irrelevant, weak-ass innuendo. Give it a rest. Get a job.


You really don't see why it is the same?

This was an anon-troll, look at the reply address.
--

Stacey