THE END of Ektachrome
Posted 13 December 2012 - 03:25 PM
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.
Posted 13 December 2012 - 06:14 PM
You are right that film shooters need to come out with their pocketbook instead of wanking about film's demise.
Posted 14 December 2012 - 10:17 PM
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.
Posted 17 December 2012 - 11:24 AM
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.
Posted 17 December 2012 - 11:40 AM
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.
Posted 18 December 2012 - 09:18 PM
Posted 19 December 2012 - 08:26 AM
Posted 19 December 2012 - 11:22 AM
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.
Posted 19 December 2012 - 02:22 PM
Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:45 PM
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.
Posted 26 December 2012 - 07:10 PM
Posted 26 December 2012 - 09:46 PM
Posted 26 December 2012 - 11:12 PM
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.
Posted 27 December 2012 - 12:32 PM
Posted 27 December 2012 - 08:08 PM
Posted 28 December 2012 - 11:13 AM
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....
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.
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.
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.
Posted 28 December 2012 - 05:57 PM
And they end up shooting something with a DSLR.