Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Kodak Film Used for All Best Cinematography Nominees

This is topic Kodak Film Used for All Best Cinematography Nominees in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001821

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-26-2003, 01:33 PM:

ROCHESTER, NY, Feb. 24 -- Every motion picture nominated for an Academy Award in a major creative category for 2002 was captured on color motion-picture film from Eastman Kodak Company. This marks the 75th consecutive year -- since the inception of the Academy Awards in 1927-28 -- that the Oscar for Best Picture will go to a movie captured on Kodak film. [Cool]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-26-2003, 02:14 PM:

Kodak is a monopoly. They need to be sued and split up into many many smaller companies. Many employees need to lose their jobs. It is the American way. [Smile]

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 02-26-2003, 08:52 PM:

They would have done that already, but they could not afford cloning John Pytlak because every company needs one. [Big Grin]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-26-2003, 09:45 PM:

Fuji and Agfa are worthy competitors. Of course I personally think Kodak makes the best film. [Cool]

In other areas of the imaging business, there are numerous competitors:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/infoImaging/

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-26-2003, 09:52 PM:

FilmGuard was used on EVERY mojor motion picture released last year. Beat that! [Big Grin]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-26-2003, 10:00 PM:

So were Kodak PTR film cleaners, both in labs and in theatres. [Cool]

BTW, Kodak has been honored with the 2003 EPA Stratospheric Ozone Protection Award for the development of Particle Transfer Roller (PTR) film cleaning technology. As project leader, and having written the two SMPTE papers that introduced the technology, I travel to Washington D.C. in April to receive the award.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-26-2003, 10:13 PM:

Can you be sure that they were ALL Kodak PTRs though? Some people may have been using Speco and a certain release may have never seen a genuine Kodak PTR (athough I don't know how Kodak's could be superior or inferior to Speco's).

Filmguard does not destroy the ozone layer so it should be honored as well. Now that I think about it, the keyboard that I am typing this on does not destroy the ozone either. It deserves the same award.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 02-26-2003, 10:14 PM:

But which was used on more prints?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-26-2003, 10:17 PM:

And more importantly, which prints looked BEST at the end of the run? No contest. [Razz]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-26-2003, 10:26 PM:

But which can be used to clean original negatives, on printers and on telecines? [thumbsup]

The EPA Stratospheric Ozone Protection Award is because Kodak PTRs eliminated the use of chlorinated hydrocarbon solvents (1,1,1-trichloroethane)for film cleaning. BTW, in my SMPTE papers, Kodak ENCOURAGED other manufacturers to make and use PTRs as well.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-26-2003, 10:47 PM:

(I think most of us knew the real reasons regarding the ozone award, but hey it's fun anyway!)

Speaking of trichlourethane, are you aware there is a fellow who claims to be selling the original mixture of Vitafilm? He also claims it cures vinegar syndrome.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-27-2003, 05:53 AM:

Although the manufacture of new 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform) is prohibited by the Montreal Protocol environmental agreement, existing stocks can be used and recycled. So some film cleaning formulations may still use it.

BTW, Speco uses the Kodak (FPC) PTRs in their units. Most IMAX theatres use the Kodak PTRs as well.

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 02-27-2003, 06:58 AM:

I just want you to know that I saw every major motion picture made last year on Kodak stock with film-guard. Beat that