PetaPixel

Hollywood Throws Kodak Film a Lifeline, Will Keep Using it for Movies… For Now

Good news for film photography lovers: Kodak film may be okay for at least a few more years. The company has signed new contracts with four major Hollywood movie studios that will allow it to provide film for movies at least through 2015.

The studios — Disney, Warner Brothers, Paramount, and NBC Universal — agree to continue buying Kodak print, camera, and sound recording films in exchange for discounts.

Hollywood is one of the main markets keeping Kodak’s film business alive. Although it was at once time overshadowed by photographic films as Kodak’s primary source of revenue, the tables have turned in recent years as the consumer film photography industry has shriveled. Motion picture films now account for the vast majority of Kodak’s film revenues.

The Democrat and Chronicle reports that Kodak’s entertainment film business raked in $695 million in sales in 2011 and $438 million this year. It’s expected to drop by another $100 million next year.

If you’re rooting for Kodak’s camera film to pull through, you might want to start hoping for Kodak credits at the end of movies — the fates of the two films are inextricably linked.


Image credit: Teatro Kodak – Hollywood by Chitio Rendón


 
  • jdm8

    I’m surprised the studios did that. Most theaters in my area seem to have switched to digital projection, and the edge film has on acquisition is fading pretty quickly.

  • http://twitter.com/intensitystudio Antonio Carrasco

    Kodak is just staving off the inevitable at this point

  • jef

    lol, this has nothing to do with the final projection of the film. These sales are referring to the recording of the principal photography. All of the films shot with kodak film are transferred to digital anyway, whether that be for projection in theaters or blu-ray etc.

  • bush

    shooting on film just looks so much better. digital is sterile and lifeless

  • Larry

    The end is near

  • jdm8

    Principal photography was what I meant by acquisition, I had forgotten the term for it. I thought film was marginalized even for that use too.

  • http://twitter.com/kinematicdigit Terrance Lam

    A larger portion of this is probably for archiving. All studios still archive on film 3 copies at least. Even when principal photography goes all digital, studios will still prefer to archive on film for a long time yet. However archiving alone will reduce the market significantly in the future, someone will still produce that medium in some capacity even when Kodak finally bites the big one.

  • http://twitter.com/mgagle Matt

    Yes! Nothing compares to Kodak film for superior quality and reliability!

  • http://www.facebook.com/JohnAdorjan John Adorjan

    I’m confused or I found a glaring typo,
    “the fates of the two films are inextricably linked.” Should read two FIRMS not FILMS?

  • John W.

    I think they’re expecting us to know that “camera film” means film for still photography (I assume movies are made using cameras too so it wasn’t obvious to me either). So I think they do mean “films” — we can still buy 35mm film but only because Kodak’s film business is being kept afloat by sales of movie film.

  • http://www.petapixel.com Michael Zhang

    Right, that’s what we meant — consumer photography films and the cinema films being purchased by Hollywood studios

  • name

    5219!

  • http://twitter.com/intensitystudio Antonio Carrasco

    digital – you’re doing it wrong