How much would you spend for a cartridge of Super 8 film?
Posted 03 October 2011 - 08:56 PM
Right now Tri-X is about $11 from their distribution centers, which I think is really cheap. It's obvious that the company is basically subsidizing S8 as a gateway product these days, but if the chips were down, how high would you go?
This could be a real issue, and soon. Buyer acceptability of a higher price could be a big factor as to whether or not they keep it.
BTW, this may sound perverse, but I think filmmaking is starting to get fun again. Let the hacks and the mediocrities play with their digital cameras.
Posted 04 October 2011 - 04:03 AM
By the way, Kodak did very well indeed yesterday and has recovered all they lost in the past days, but nobody is spreading this, just the bad news.
Once more, "no news = Good news"
Posted 04 October 2011 - 12:00 PM
Posted 04 October 2011 - 12:24 PM
If I were paying for it in bulk, like with a 1000 foot roll of Double X, at 35¢/ft. that would be $3.50 worth of film. Kodak is making a very healthy margin on 8mm film sales, and labs are making a very healthy margin on processing.
Posted 04 October 2011 - 01:12 PM
Posted 12 October 2011 - 10:58 PM
I try to use film as much as possible because I love the look and want to continue to offer Kodak and the labs who process film the support. Admittedly, the cost of Kodak's film and their chemicals used for development make film too expensive for many projects. If Kodak were to lower the cost of these key components by thinning out their margins, film could be viable for film lovers who have a bit of wiggle room in the budget. Film will not ever regain its original status, but it still has a chance to dig in and hold on to a reasonable chunk of market share if Kodak plays their cards right.
Posted 13 October 2011 - 10:44 AM
Posted 13 October 2011 - 01:38 PM
Posted 14 October 2011 - 05:59 PM
Too bad Pro8's telecine is expensive. They won't much like the idea of my sending the film elsewhere to be scanned. One wonders if they will allow you to have your film developed with them, but not scanned.
Posted 17 October 2011 - 11:39 AM
I do it all the time.
One wonders if they will allow you to have your film developed with them, but not scanned.
I wish they would sell the film without processing for $20. I prefer Alpha Cine in Seattle for processing negative.
Posted 17 October 2011 - 02:50 PM
Posted 18 October 2011 - 06:38 PM
If it ever comes down to it, were film is produced in extremely limited quantity at very high prices, I would just be forced to shoot less of it, but would still do it. There's a magic in film presentation on the screen that just can't be replicated the same way by anything digital. The projector running, the lights darkened, the screen comes alive with film grain, contrast, hues, and a unique image structure that makes this analog realm so special and wondrous.
FOMA is back making filmstock again, and although Black & White only with their Fomapan R-100, I could settle for just that in the end, if I had to. I was outside shooting some EKTACHROME slide film earlier, and with an ancient KODAk made in the 50s, which has a sharp lens. Telling film based photographers and filmmakers not to use this wonderful analog technology, would be akin to telling a water color artist, oil or acylic painter, pen & ink, pencil, charcoal etc artist to forgo all that and just do something digital on their computer using a palette. There are so many ways to express oneself artistically, and who is to say one way is better than another. Anyhow.....I would stock up on enough film to keep me going to the end of my life, if they all ceased production tomorrow!