Kodak swears of film for photo cameras?
 

Check this out. Good thing they still sell a lot of film for movie cameras, but for how much longer??

heath

It'll be awhile before they completely phase out motion picture film, I like to think cinematographers would be akin to the oil companies trying to stop hybrid cars from becoming prevalent. They won't let them until digital has completely surpassed film in every way, and that'll be awhile.

Of course, I'll shut up about this, because I don't want to get into a film vs. digital (moving pictures) debate here.

heath

You have to be careful of those numbers. It says they have stopped making the APS camera. Nothing else has changed. Film sales are still 75% of Kodak's business amounting to, IIRC, $1.5 billion dollars.

Digital camera sales are only 25% of the camera buying market. That means 75% of the camera buying market is still film.

They were the worst stock of the Dow Industrial last year, losing 31% of it's value. Kodak will announce their 4th quarter results on the 22nd. Any bets on how far their stock will drop that day?

This is not true. InfoTrends Research says worldwide film camera shipments will drop from 48 million in 2003 to 36 million in 2004. While digital camera shipments will increase from 41 million cameras in 2003 to 53 million in 2004. In other words, digital cameras had 46% of the market in 2003 and will have 60% of the market this year. In North America it is even worse with digital accounting for close to 70% of camera sales if you exclude disposable cameras

I saw a graph that showed the sales of analog and DV camcorders. It flip-flopped pretty fast!

heath

>>This is not true. InfoTrends Research says

You're talking about shipments. I was referring to usage. Film cameras are owned by 75% of the picture taking users.

It's funny to read this story on the DV board. Since I too wished to avoid the silly digital vs film debate, I decided to shoot both and not worry about it. I go to filstock movie making board and the folks over there, I won't say are freaking out, but as Kodak is, as far as I know, the only source for color Regular 8 and Super 8 film, it's kinda spooky.

Over hear in digital land we can read this without the same sense of dread. Monolopies are a very bad thing. Kodak has us movie flm users by the throat.

As for still cameras, I really do wonder why digital still cameras are all the rage. I take digi stills with my VX as a matter of convience, but if I'm going out for stills, 35mm is the way to go. Now, once digi can capture the same picture quality as film (which I believe is only a matter of time) and several companies manufacture digital media (Which I think is likely as creating dv tape isn't as involved as filmstock.) We'll be OK.

DId I have a point, yes, Kodak is going to leave home filmstock users out in the cold. Even 16mm will fall. All they will make is 35mm and 70mm filmstock.

Someone call Japan, we need to get the quality up ASAP.

Many digital cameras surpass 35mm film and a few challenge and surpass medium format film. Even National Geographic has admitted the superiority of digital and has started doing completely digital articles (formerly it was a mix of digital and film).

Rob, sorry for the confusion, but when you said sales, I didn't think you were referring to usage. Usage figures can be very misleading. My household has a total of 12 cameras (8 film and 4 digital) but I don't think any of the film cameras have had film in them for several years.

What digital camera is the equal to 35mm? Which ones surpass it, in terms of resoloution?

BTW Your pics are fantastic! Nice to see some of the local wildlife!

I meant film sales for Kodak far exceed anything in digital. Film camera usage far exceeds digital usage because there are 3x as many film cameras used as digital cameras.

It's like saying hybrid car usage is up while overall auto sales are down. Well....ok, but....

Rob, I'm not following the figures your quoting. What do the 75% and 25% really refer to? Do you have a source for them?

Joe, most people would agree that the digital SLR's currently available meet or exceed current 35mm cameras. Cameras included in this list would be the Canon 1D, 1Ds, 10D, Digital Rebel, Nikon D1X, D2H, D100, Kodak 14n and Fuji S2. Several new models will be released in the next few weeks as we approach PMA (photo trade show).

In terms of resolution the Canon 1Ds exceeds 35mm in resolution as well as the Kodak 14n. But resolution isn't the whole story. Grain in film and noise in digital files must also be considered. Grain is the limiting factor in 35mm film. Cameras such as the Canon 1Ds and 10D are virtually noise free at lower ISO's. This allows the files to be enlarged to a very high degree. Unfortunately 35mm negatives subjected to the same degree of enlargement show considerable grain.

When Kodak announced they were not going to work on consumer film improvements and use that money for digital, their stock dropped because investors, obviously, thought this was a bad idea. Reuters and, I think, Business Week said although digital camera sales were increasing, but only 25% of the camera buying public said they would, or might, buy one.

The Canon 1Ds does not exceed film by a long shot. It only claims a 4K maximum image. Current motion picture films are scanned at either 2K or 4K with 2K considered the bare minimum acceptable scan. 4K scans are done for the better quality films, but is still not considered the high end for 35mm. Better scans can be made if the digital equipment was capable and could do it fast enough. Right now 4K scans are somewhat expensive and slow.

35mm is virtually grain free at lower ISOs. This allows the frames to be enlarged to 40 feet and more. Unfortunately, digital frames subjected to the same degree of enlargement show considerable pixelation and artifacts as well as washed out colors and lack of range.

Rob, you and I have been down this path before and our opinions diverge on the subject of digital vs. film. But the day Kodak announced the discontinuance of some film, their stock actually rose. Read any of the analysis of Kodak stock and you'll see it is a company in serious trouble because they refused to acknowledge the future was digital.

If we're back to talking sales, then it's easy to see that 35mm film cameras are fading fast in sales. Cameras shipped is a very accurate measure of what people are buying.

The Orlando airport (a major destination) has displayed some very large digital prints (20 x 30 ft.) and they are stunning. Better than anything I've seen with 35mm. No pixelation, no loss of dynamic range or loss of color as you describe. They were printed on Epson inkjet printers.

If film is handled properly, with expensive scanners, you can get hi-resolution digital files. But I think most people would rather spend the money on a digital rebel or D10 than a $1,500 4K film scanner. Drum scanning (which yields your best quality scans) is way to expensive for all except a select few and the service is very costly ($200 to $400 a scan). So, yes film can equal digital camera files but the cost of film processing, scans, and the time to scan isn't worth it. A typical 4k scan with grain reduction and dust removal turned on takes about 15 minutes on a Nikon 8000. Not exactly a great workflow when you have hundreds of files to process.


Link to figures from PMA report on digital camera usage. PMA predicted 30% of all households would own a digital camera by the end of 2003.

The PMA report says that, as of April 2003, 20% of households have a digital camera. I said 25%. They don't say how many have film cameras but you know you can walk down the street and knock on any door and find some kind of film camera.

They say by the end of the year it will be 30% but that's only 5% more. If it can be said the other 70% are still film, digital is in the vast minority.

I can't comment on prints I don't know anything about but I'm sure you know the color and light dynamics are nowhere near film. Even the scanners do not have the ability to pick this up, much less process it. And I'm sure these large prints were processed before printing to cover up any digital artifacts.