Where is super 8 headed?

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
[QUOTE]
Roger you are correct about one thing: That Kodak will NOT keep making it if it's not making them a profit. Therefore, since they ARE still making it, it MUST still be making them a profit! So until people start buying LESS of it than they are now, then Kodak will almost certainly keep making it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I never said that Kodak wasn't making ANY profit off of it; in fact, just the opposite. What I said is that corporations don't wait to halt production of a product until AFTER it stops making a profit because to do so would put them in the red, financially, regarding that product line. Instead, they determine if they are making ENOUGH of a profit to warrant future continuation of that item.

Therefore, as I said before, simply pointing to the existence of S8 K40 as some kind of "proof" that Kodak is still enthusiastic about the product means nothing. Kodak isn't going let themselves lose money. They will simply decided if they are making ENOUGH money to warrant the headaches and overhead associated with Kodachrome. If they aren't, then the product will stop, despite the fact that we love it, it is currently on the shelves and making SOME kind of profit. It isn't the simple existence of a profit that's important. It's the AMOUNT of profit that concerns corporations.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
[QUOTE]
And stranger still, if they had any intention of killing Super 8 would be the release of the Vision200T like they have this last year.
That contradicts all arguments about this, in my opinion. This is very significant evidence that they are not abandoning it, in my opinion.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, let's look at history to see if other companies' actions bare out this theory:

Super 8 cameras were pretty bland, nothing little home movie boxes until the years right before companies stopped making them. Then, in a burst of creative frenzy, all sorts of fancy, professional featured cameras came out; many of which are still around today. I can remember standing behind the counter of the camera store where I worked all those years ago saying the exact same thing you just said,"Hey, why would Canon or Elmo or Nizo put so much into development of these features if they weren't committed to the super 8 format?"

Also, Betamax machines became VERY sophisticated during the waning days of their existence. Why would Sony put so much development into something that they intended to abandon?

In the end, both super 8 and Betamax enjoyed incredible support and expansion of features all the way through the last year that they were produced. Then the next year, they simply weren't!

So, the introduction of Vision 200 means nothing to me, in the big picture. In fact, considering how grainy it is compared to K40, I really don't even see it as responding to the needs of the super 8 community at all. More to the point, why don't we have a Super 8 Kodachrome 200? That would be more useful to the super 8 community than grainy 200 speed negative that can only be used if it's transferred to video. Don't you find it a LITTLE suspicious that Kodak isn't introducing any new Kodachrome stock in super 8?

Ultimately, the Vision 200 was merely something that they could conveniently throw out there to see what would happen; another "feature" added to a product line just to see if anything different happens. Again, super 8 cameras and Betamax had LOTS of features added right before the plug was pulled on both.

Now I'm not being a dooms-dayer, really I'm not. I just see no point in looking at the weather and saying,"Well, it's clear skies today. That must mean it won't rain tomorrow."

Things change.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited December 06, 2001).]

[Matt Pacini]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MovieStuff:
[B] "A friend of mine owns a small photolab down here and has boycotted selling Kodak products for the simple reason that Kodak cuts the throats of independent shop owners by making them buy supplies at a higher price than you or I can buy them over the counter at wholesale clubs like Sam's, here in Houston. The bottom line is that, if you are a big company like Sam's, you can get a super-duper deal on product for re-sale. If you're a smaller shop, then you have to pay retail, just like everyone else, because you don't order enough. "

(Matt Pacini responds):
Sorry, this isn't just a Kodak thing.
This is universal.
My Mom and brother both owned 7-11 stores, and people would bitch and moan about the high prices, and even justify stealing from them, because everything was more expensive than the local supermarket.
Well, guess what?
If your the big supermarket, you buy 100 boxes of eggs. If you're the local 7-11 store, you buy 2 or 3 boxes. Who gets a better discount?

And it's not just Kodak that makes businesses maintain a certain minimum.
Almost every major distributor of any product available makes you do this.

Bottom line about Super 8 (and K-40) is, that Roger you are correct about one thing:
That Kodak will NOT keep making it if it's not making them a profit.
Therefore, since they ARE still making it, it MUST still be making them a profit!

So until people start buying LESS of it than they are now, then Kodak will almost certainly keep making it.

And stranger still, if they had any intention of killing Super 8 would be the release of the Vision200T like they have this last year.
That contradicts all arguments about this, in my opinion.
This is very significant evidence that they are not abandoning it, in my opinion.

Matt Pacini

------------------