Jump to content


Photo

THE END of Ektachrome


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#1 James Compton

James Compton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 311 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 December 2012 - 03:25 PM

http://motion.kodak....70514/index.htm

I wonder if after announcing the end of Ektachrome in the still photo market almost exactly one year ago, did KODAK plan to do this if sales did not increase in the cinema production market. BOTTOM LINE, KODAK is a corporation. If we as film devotees, don't buy film then film will simply go away. I consider film and the ability to shoot film a NECESSITY in my life. Perhaps we should budget $50-$100 bi-monthly to buy some Super 8mm film or 16mm or 35mm rolls. That same $60 per month that you would spend on cigarettes or alcohol or drugs use , can be
focused on sharpening your DP skills or making films or documenting life - be it yours or the lives of people you know. BUY FILM. It's the only way to save it.
  • 1

#2 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 13 December 2012 - 06:14 PM

I definitely plan t purchase film MONTHLY but I wasnt the biggest fan of Ekta. I love the Vision series of film and I look forward to shooting V3 500t which I havent shot yet. Loved the V2 though so no reason to think that V3 wont be better or at least as good.

You are right that film shooters need to come out with their pocketbook instead of wanking about film's demise.
  • 0

#3 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 14 December 2012 - 10:17 PM

The thing I just don't get is why Kodak doesn't try increasing the cost first. They say that it costs to much to produce relative to income from sales. Well... increase the cost. If people still want it badly enough, they'll still buy it. If not, then it will die. Just killing it off cause it's not making/loosing money seems silly to me. The same was true with Kodakchrome.

Polaroid basically did the same thing... then the Impossible Project came along and said "We're gonna charge $25 for a pack of film that produces 8 prints." WHAT!? Holy crap, who's going to spend that? Well... internationally, enough people to keep it profitable. Sure, they are not going to get rich off it and Kodak isn't going to pay off their billion dollars of debt. But still, maybe sell it off or give it away to someone else to try.

I guess I just don't understand.
  • 0

#4 Matt Stevens

Matt Stevens
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 December 2012 - 06:27 PM

I would have gladly paid $4 more per roll. Gladly!
  • 0

#5 Richard Ian

Richard Ian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Other

Posted 17 December 2012 - 11:24 AM

I'm in freefall - just discovered Standard 8 & !wow! no more Ektachrome. Still pinching myself to wake up. I'm an experimental filmmaker so teleciné doesn't do it for me, I need the smell & feel of celluloid acetate. At least black & white is holding up, we also (sometimes) get Foma reversal coming into the UK from the Czech Republic, so my filmmaking can continue. Cripes, it's like we're going backwards in time, to the era of the black & white silent silver screen!

Yes, Kodak, please GIVE your Ektachrome business away to someone who will run it, PLEASE. Don't let 70 years of ciné development slip into oblivion: at least give someone out there the chance to run profitably what was obviously a loss maker to you. Running Ektachrome on a small scale only makes sense.

Who am I talking to though - does Kodak actually listen to anybody? :-o

Let's hope there is still a place for reversal film in the world after the photo-emulsion has settled.

Ric
  • 0

#6 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2429 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 17 December 2012 - 11:40 AM

My guess is that 100D was the same, or similar, formulation as one of the last of the stills Ektachromes Kodak canned in March so there was no prospect of the cine stocks surviving. One doesn't know why they didn't announce it then, unless they had a run scheduled.
  • 0

#7 John Salim

John Salim
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Other
  • Essex, UK

Posted 17 December 2012 - 01:24 PM

My guess is that 100D was the same, or similar, formulation as one of the last of the stills Ektachromes Kodak canned in March so there was no prospect of the cine stocks surviving. One doesn't know why they didn't announce it then, unless they had a run scheduled.



I was once told by Kodak that Ektachrome 100D motion picture film was the exact same emulsion as 'stills' Ektachrome E100VS,
and like others on this forum, I'll miss this fantastic film.


John S :o
  • 0

#8 Richard Ian

Richard Ian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 December 2012 - 09:18 PM

What hope is there please that small firms might start producing reversal film? There is obviously a market for this film type. What are the technical hurdles against such a venture I wonder?

Ric
  • 0

#9 Berry Edwards

Berry Edwards

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 December 2012 - 08:26 AM

This is really rough; I love this reversal stock as well as the already discontinued plus X for their unique limited latitude and vibrancy which requires dead on accuracy when setting exposures ( a great teaching aid for both the novice and experimental cinematographer). Not to mention the economy of camera original and print in one as well as its ability to stick into an old projector and see your magic as well as flaws to improve upon. I agree with the other posters that stated that Kodak should have risen the price or at least hand this reversal manufacturing technology over to another smaller company to produce. This is a damn shame because I really, really love this stock because it also offers a different color palette than the negative stocks. Kodak I really hope you are reading these posts because there are some young video shooters who have yet to discover the true beauty of film, who will soon tire of the High Def look and will seek alternatives.
  • 0

#10 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 December 2012 - 11:22 AM

Once again it's not really about seeking alternatives, it's about funding alternatives.

As John sort of points out, I never avoided shooting film because I had some sort of obscure political aversion to it; I avoided shooting film because it was impossibly expensive, dozens and dozens of times the cost of the alternative for the sort of shows I get involved with.

It was never about the look - sadly.

P
  • 0

#11 Dan Sassa

Dan Sassa

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 19 December 2012 - 02:22 PM

It’s a shame; I love ektachrome 100d stock. Kodak does not care nor understand how this will affect many young people going to film school if all they can shoot on now is negative stock... Also it’s no surprise that Kodak was shady about discontinuing this stock, first with 35mm movie and print, then slide film, now super 8 as well. I hope this is the end for Kodak. They deserve to fall after this move and I hope their company ceases to exist following the demise of film. Oh and thanks very much for the short notice Kodak… another great genius move on your part…


............................
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

  • 0

#12 Richard Ian

Richard Ian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Other

Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:45 PM

Panavision UK know nothing about the discontinuance of Ektachrome, nor Silverprint (London). They are great firms, it's not their fault, Kodak have simply neglected to tell their professional outlets that 100D is no more. What a joke. Just who is running Kodak these days, Homer Simpson? Well at least there is still Tri-X reversal monochrome, that will give me some breathing space while I recover from the shock of the loss of Ektachrome.

Several times now I have noticed comments from dv shooters complaining that they are bored with the uneventful nature of dv footage - bland would be another word - take a look at all those sad dv plug-in effect simulation filters for cine film, I haven't seen one yet to demonstrate that the people manufacturing this stuff have looked at a real cine film for longer than five seconds, if that.

Yes, starting out on fully manual equipment is the way to go, that way you come away from the experience actually learning something.

Ric
  • 0

#13 Matt Stevens

Matt Stevens
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 December 2012 - 07:10 PM

And the Ektachrome 100D's are gone, baby... gone! Sold out everywhere. Only loony eBayers have them at loony prices. Glad I was able to pick up ten of them before they went ba-bye.
  • 0

#14 Philip Nasadowski

Philip Nasadowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 December 2012 - 09:46 PM

I was at Kodak's office in NYC (it seems like it moves everytime I buy film...), the guy says they have no more, but that B&H might get some (not much!) in the near future. In 16mm presumeably. He didn't say much about negative stock, though given how Kodak's office is now crammed into a corner of Panavision in NYC... A shame. Every time I grab film for the Bolex I wonder if it's gonna be the last time...
  • 0

#15 Andy Hager

Andy Hager
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Other
  • Detroit, MI

Posted 26 December 2012 - 11:12 PM

Facetiously, I really love how Kodak came along with all this too. Couple months back, they told all the super8 users about the wonderful addition of Vision3 50D film stock now available in the super8 format.

Now this, discontinuing Ektachrome 100D reversal! :( I'm really surprised there appears to be a stronger demand for black and white rather than color reversal?

I'm really now starting to believe the next shoe to drop here is all of Kodaks print films as later in 2013, the distribution network all change to digital projection. I hope I'm wrong with this!? Once in a while, I still like to make up an answer print and throw it on a conventional 16mm projector to watch.
  • 0

#16 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 27 December 2012 - 12:32 PM

What we need is an affordable Super 8 negative HD scan package. Something along the lines of what 35mm is scanning for now. That would make the format extremely attractive.
  • 0

#17 Richard Ian

Richard Ian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 December 2012 - 08:08 PM

I think we need some clued-in dudes to take over where Ektachrome left off - someone - anyone! please!!
  • 0

#18 Matt Stevens

Matt Stevens
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Other

Posted 28 December 2012 - 11:13 AM

What we need is an affordable Super 8 negative HD scan package. Something along the lines of what 35mm is scanning for now. That would make the format extremely attractive.

The places capable of delivering a good scan with proper color correction cannot do it for less than they are doing it for now. Factor in the R&D on the super8 gates and the cost to pay someone by the hour for super8 vs by the hour for 16 and 35mm, well.... :(

It's a sad situation. With color reversal you could get pretty good results from those guys with Workprinters. In High Def. Now that option is gone, unles you shoot with B&W Tri-X.

The writing is on the walls. Super8 is going to die a painful death over the next few years. I'd shoot ten times as much super8 negative as I do now if the scanning prices were half the going rate. of course, that's just a pipe dream.

By the way, I am not slamming the scanning houses. Not at all. They need to pay the bills.
  • 0

#19 Richard Ian

Richard Ian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Other

Posted 28 December 2012 - 02:02 PM

Super8 is going to die a painful death over the next few years.


This is very sad & also ironic - the music business rediscovered Super8 & a lot of bands opted for Super8 telecine videos to promote their music - looks like that may also go to the wall then? I find it hard to believe that Kodak have axed reversal colour film & yet will guarantee negative film into the future. I certainly can't afford telecine anyway & am basically indifferent to anything that separates filmmaker from raw film.

Fingers crossed for Tri-X though.

Ric
  • 0

#20 Matt Stevens

Matt Stevens
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Other

Posted 28 December 2012 - 05:57 PM

The rich folks shooting 8mm because it's retro cool and the music bands that use it can afford the higher rates charged by Pro8mm (which gets much of that business). The rest of us... only when we have the budget and that is not all that often. I am constantly asked to shoot super8 for friends or friends of friends or friends of clients who have seen my work and when I tell them what it will cost... they FREEEEEAAAK out! They ask me to do it for less and when I tell them if I do I won't make any money, they just pass on it.

And they end up shooting something with a DSLR.
  • 0


Opal

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Visual Products

CineLab

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Opal