Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

From: Tim Halloran <>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 10:05:14 -0700

Interesting little videos, but what do they have to do with "making film?"
When I saw your message I thought I was going to be linked to something about actually hand producing film stocks. Does anyone know of anybody who is doing this, or has thought of doing it?
I guess you meant "you could always make a film. No?

Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:17:20 -0700
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

I guess you could always make film?

From: Pip Chodorov <>
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <>
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Forbes editorial about Kodak

These are my sentiments exactly, and I also use Eudora.
But let's see what happens - maybe film will surprise us and survive.
Let's have this discussion in five years or so when instead of 6-8
companies making film perhaps there are only 2-3.

At 10:18 -0700 6/10/11, Aaron F. Ross wrote:
>It's OK, I always wear a flame-retardant vest while on the Internet. ;)
>BTW, as I said before, I'm not a hater. I just think critically about
>technology. Cases in point: I don't have a smartphone. I still have
>my collection of vinyl records. And I'm still using the same email
>program, Eudora, that I used back in the 1990s during the first round
>of "Flameworks" posts that forced me off the list. And why do I cling
>to these old ways? Not because they're old, not because I resist
>change, but because I have evaluated my needs and decided that these
>older technologies are better for me. New is not necessarily good,
>and old is not necessarily good, either. But in the case of celluloid
>film, very soon it will be a moot point, because you won't be able to
>buy it for love or money. --

FrameWorks mailing list

_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list

FrameWorks mailing list
Received on Fri Oct 07 2011 - 10:05:22 CDT