|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Eastman Kodak Co.????
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Cleveland
Film Handler
Posts: 7
From: Omaha, NE, USA
Registered: Jul 2019
|
posted 07-09-2019 10:17 AM
The answer to this has been touched on, but here's a little more detail. Eastman was never primarily in the business of making cameras and film equipment. Their equipment manufacturing was secondary to film manufacturing, and always pursued as a way to increase the demand for film by providing more vehicles for it. When W.K.L. Dickson first requested samples of 35mm wide film from Eastman for his motion picture experiments for Edison, the company was still young, making wooden box and folding cameras. By the time Kodak began making precision movie cameras and projectors for the amateur, they were already the world's largest supplier of motion picture film, so they had no need to go into the business of manufacturing projectors or cameras. When they did set out to create an amateur market for motion picture film in the early 1920's, they invited Victor and Bell & Howell into the fold to make equipment for the new 16mm film format, and when they joined in the establishment (as a silent but very prime mover) the Amateur Cine League and its monthly magazine, they voluntarily shared prime center fold and back cover advertising space, first with Bell & Howell, and eventually, others. The more cameras that were sold by anyone, the greater the market for Eastman film products. They would never have manufactured anything like a theater projector because it wouldn't have increased their film sales. The projectors they did make were corollary to amateur camera sales, to provide full equipage and service for the amateur film market.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 07-09-2019 11:39 AM
I think that Michael's post pretty much answers the question.
Eastman's primary innovation was the ability to manufacture long rolls of film on a flexible base. The original Kodak box camera made use of this by making it possible for amateurs to take pictures with a small, simple camera without needing to learn how to do darkroom work or even load film holders. As a result, people could carry cameras with them on vacation and to events like weddings and graduations, where a 4x5 or 8x10 camera with wet plates would be impractical. The camera was a significant innovation, but the purpose for it was to sell film and processing services.
Polaroid was this way, too. They made the cameras (and sold them at a loss) in order to sell the film. As amaetur cameras go, both Kodak's and Polaroid's offerings were generally pretty decent products.
One does sort of wonder where the Eastman 25 16mm projector came from, though. It's pretty much the Rolls-Royce of 16mm machines, possibly only surpassed by the Kinoton electronic projectors. It certainly fills a need, but I'm not sure how a 16mm sort-of cinema projector would help to sell more film. The Pageant 16mm portables would have been more practical for home and school use, and 35mm would be a better format for cinemas.
And, yes, I'm not sure what a Kodak 35mm projector would offer than the other manufacturers didn't do just as well.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Cleveland
Film Handler
Posts: 7
From: Omaha, NE, USA
Registered: Jul 2019
|
posted 07-09-2019 04:31 PM
I would also like to clear up some other misconceptions and myths addressed above. First, Eastman had a very successful European market for its amateur cine products, in part because it arrived there as a single source, though that didn't last long. It was never as large a market as they held in the US, largely because 9.5mm was similar in image size and more successful in Europe than in the US.
I've always wondered where the myth that Eastman farmed out its manufacturing of cameras came from, because it's not true. Eastman had extensive manufacturing capabilities. The Camera Works division was specifically an equipment manufacturing concern, and unless the farming out happened in much later years, beyond the scope of my research, Kodak has always made its own equipment. Kodak made the Cine-Special in house, as it had made all of its equipment prior (the Cine-Special was originally intended to be a custom built-to-order camera, but production was moved to the Camera Works as demand required the larger production facility). They even went so far as to purchase the Nagel Camera Works in Stuttgart to gain an equivalence in the eyes of the public with German camera engineering. Perhaps in later years they farmed things out, but I've found no evidence for that in my research.
There is some confusion about the 16mm vs 17.5mm question. John Capstaff developed the 16mm system for George Eastman. Capstaff experimented with a number of formats to determine the smallest that could be used to project an adequate image. One of the sizes he approached in his experiments was 1/4 the standard 35mm frame, i.e., the 17.5mm frame. 16mm was opted for because it offered the smallest size that produced a good projected image, thereby also achieving a greater savings in film cost, which was the ultimate purpose of the reversal processing system he developed. That it was also too small to make splitting 35mm Nitrate film an economical endeavor was a fortuitous and desirable side benefit. Eastman went to Fort Knox-like lengths to ensure that no nitrate film was ever cut into 16mm strips, but that was never an objective in setting the size of the format.
There are also some mis-statments of market appearance. The Cine-Kodak was first on the market in July 1923; Victor appeared in August of that year, and the first deliveries of B&H Filmo cameras took place in February or March of 1924. I haven't been able to narrow that one to any closer date.
Hope that will help to clarify. All of this will eventually appear in an encyclopedic history of 16mm, hopefully to be published on the 100th Anniversary of the format.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Cleveland
Film Handler
Posts: 7
From: Omaha, NE, USA
Registered: Jul 2019
|
posted 07-16-2019 06:52 PM
Pinning down the correct first date for Bell & Howell Filmos is difficult, in part because there was no paper advertising until 1925, so there are no company documents to help. Even the first instruction book was undated. Alan Katelle wrote an article in the magazine "16 Frames" back in the 1990's in which he stated that first deliveries were made in Feb 1923, but when approached a couple of years before he died, he couldn't remember his source. Photo-Era magazine has the best clues in Herbert McKay's articles and references, but even those are still indefinite; pretty much eliminating December and narrowing the probable time to Feb-Mar 1924. There are other clues that suggest that 1923 was too early, like the timing and resolution of the discussions between B&H and Kodak over camera ID markings on the film (which appeared on the first Filmo cameras). I'm still looking into the literature to try to narrow the date further, but Alan was a reliable historian; I'm sure he had a source he trusted, and what I have found supports the early 1924 date. The hunt continues.
I don't understand the reluctance to credit Kodak with manufacturing its own products. They had a huge camera production facility in the Camera Works division. Like most manufacturers, they probably purchased some parts from contract suppliers, but they produced the products in-house.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic