Jump to content


Photo

Kodachrome : Don't let it die


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 John Adolfi

John Adolfi
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 342 posts
  • Producer
  • Fulton, N.Y.

Posted 04 June 2005 - 07:24 AM

I for one. Just one individual would like Kodak to reverse their decission. What more can we do to let them know this is a bad decission from our perspective? Get rid of the Ektchrome 125. Even ddrop the Black and White. I'd rather see all those dropped if it meant keeping Kodachrome. With the increased negative stock, we might as well sell our projectors then. I have a Bauer T-610 Stereophonic projector in mint condition with two original Bauer speakers. Any takers?
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 June 2005 - 11:34 AM

Even drop the Black and White. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Hey, wait a minute -- I've shot more Super-8 movies in Plus-X b&w reversal than color!
  • 0

#3 A.Oliver

A.Oliver
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 348 posts
  • Other
  • Croydon UK

Posted 04 June 2005 - 03:49 PM

I for one. Just one individual would like Kodak to reverse their decission. What more can we do to let them know this is a bad decission from our perspective?  Get rid of the Ektchrome 125. Even ddrop the Black and White.  I'd rather see all those dropped if it meant keeping Kodachrome. With the increased negative stock, we might as well sell our projectors then.  I have a Bauer T-610 Stereophonic projector in mint condition with two original Bauer speakers.  Any takers?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I agree, keep kodachrome at any cost, what i do not understand is why kodak stopped there flagship product that being k25. Me thinking aloud here, i always assumed super 8 k40 kept the 16mm k40 going, i would love to see 16mm k40 given the chop in favour of 16mm k25. K25 offers less grain, better saturation, sharper images and it looks right in daylight, k40 just dont look right in daylight.
  • 0

#4 Joseph Gioielli

Joseph Gioielli
  • Guests

Posted 04 June 2005 - 04:38 PM

I hope that Kodak may change their mind, but I doubt it. I read the statement from Kodak, sounds like half the story to me, but whatever. They want to kill K40, it's their company.

You know what really frosts my muffins? Why didn't they make the "new" stock the same ASA as k40 so those of us that don't have "pro" cams could still shoot color reversal.

Sad really
  • 0

#5 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 04 June 2005 - 10:01 PM

Why didn't  they make the "new" stock the same ASA as k40 so those of us that don't have "pro" cams could still shoot color reversal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Any "new" Super-8 stock will come from the existing line-up of films, optimized for camera transport. The sales volumes just don't justify a totally new formulation.
  • 0

#6 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 05 June 2005 - 12:18 AM

Any "new" Super-8 stock will come from the existing line-up of films, optimized for camera transport.  The sales volumes just don't justify a totally new formulation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


If Kodak wouldn't have held back the Ektachrome 64 for so long, and gotten it out there, and shown off it's versatility BEFORE axing Kodachrome, much of the angst currently being felt might have been avoided.

Also, for some reason, Kodak didn't reach out to their "loyal to the end" customer base to see if anyone wanted to take over the processing of Kodachrome. I think if all the intellectual knowledge Kodak has in regards to Kodachrome processing, including information where all the inventory of Kodachrome processors might still reside, might have made it possible for Kodak to have continued making Kodachrome 40 for Super-8. Simply raise the price a bit to purchase the stock so it wouldn't lose them money, and then make just a small effort to market the uniqueness of Kodachrome 40.

Finally find just one show, just one television show, European or otherwise, to shoot with Kodachrome, and Kodachrome could go on.
  • 0

#7 Landon D. Parks

Landon D. Parks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1731 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 05 June 2005 - 01:32 AM

In a way I see kodaks reasoning. I hardly ever hear anything about super 8 anymore. Usually if someone is going to shoot on super-8, they will just turn to DV. While this may not be the best choice, it's still the route most take. While super-8 film has to be the easiest film to work with and there are still labs to process it, most of the cameras are older, and people prefer the functions (and sometimes) the look of the newer 16, 35, DV and HD cameras.

Lets face it, super-8 is an old format! There might still be a fan base for it, but to the general population see's it as dead (Few labs to process it, ect), and kodak, while trying to serve the public as much as possible, has to make a profit to stay in buisness.

It's not like there killing super-8 all together!

PS)

And find just one show, just one television show, European or otherwise, to shoot with Kodachrome, and Kodachrome could go on.

Most TV shows have either stayed wth 35mm, 16mm or have switched to DV or HD. I think Super-8 is, and always was, fairly an amature format. I never heard of any major network using super-8. So I can't see how a single network would be enough to keep the type of stock up and running.

My advice to kodak would be this: continue making that type of film. Just dont make so much! OR just do an "On-demand" thing where if someone wants that type of film, they can order it and kodak can make it for them. I think to kill it all together is kind of harsh.

Some people wont agree with me, and may even get down-right mad at me, but in my opinion thats the way it works.
  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 June 2005 - 01:35 AM

I've heard that the Kodachrome Super-8 processing machine is much larger and more complex than one for other reversal processes, so I wonder if that's one reason that Yale or Pro-8mm would never consider taking over that business.

As for the notion that you "can't" use a 64 ASA film stock in a camera that only recognizes 40 ASA, that only make sense if you plan on using auto exposure only to shoot. Otherwise, it is easy to adjust the f-stop manually for a 2/3 stop difference, whether or not you use the internal meter or an external one.

Besides, this is not a new problem: E160 was replaced by E125, and most cameras could not read the notch for 4X b&w reversal.
  • 0

#9 Joseph Gioielli

Joseph Gioielli
  • Guests

Posted 05 June 2005 - 02:18 PM

David, what I ment about the ASA issue was that most of the "consumer level" cameras didn't have a manuel exposure option on the f/ stops. Yes, you are right, if you have manual control, no probllem. Sorry, I could have been clearer about that.

Now that you will need to have manual exposure control to stay in the game, the price of those cameras will go up even higher than they are already. I'm not sure how much money one wishes to invest in older, second hand equipment. Repairs are expensive and time consuming if avaliable. Then you have the increased processing costs as well.

At this point, after I shoot the 8mm film I have, I guess I'm done with it. I'm more comfortable investing 16mm. To be sure, it still costs more than Super8, a lot more, but I think it's a better return for the money.

If I had a better Super 8 set up, I might feel differently. I just think it's sad.
  • 0

#10 Anthony Schilling

Anthony Schilling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1053 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR

Posted 05 June 2005 - 09:30 PM

C'mon! I just got another camera for $25 that reads 64ASA
  • 0

#11 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 05 June 2005 - 10:00 PM

While super-8 film has to be the easiest film to work with and there are still labs to process it, most of the cameras are older, and people prefer the functions (and sometimes) the look of the newer 16, 35, DV and HD cameras. Lets face it, super-8 is an old format!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


A Canon 1014XLS made in 1981, (is that old?), was the camera of choice for a filmmaker who had very little filmmaking experience, yet his film was a finalist at Cannes in the short film festival, beating out over 3000 other entries to be one of 9 finalists. If you believe that a mini-dv camcorder has more "functions" than a super-8 camera you are sadly mistaken. Virtually any function found on a mini-dv camcorder can be replicated with an NLE system.

It's actually the Super-8 cameras that have many more functions on them, this even includes 16mm and 35mm. I would suggest that Kodak has done a horrible job at educating younger film and video students if they believe a mini-dv camera has more "functions" than a super-8 camera.


There might still be a fan base for it, but to the general population see's it as dead (Few labs to process it, ect), and kodak, while trying to serve the public as much as possible, has to make a profit to stay in buisness.


Well, in this instance what would have been interesting would have been if Kodak had involved the public to see how much emotion and gusto was still out there for Kodachrome 40, rather than co-mingle the announcement with the 40th anniversary of Super-8 and with the introduction of Ektachrome 64.

It's not like there killing super-8 all together!


True, but Kodachrome 40 Super-8 is broadcast quality, and many are holding their breathe to see if Ektachrome 64 will be as well. Technically speaking, any film can be broadcast quality if one deals with the original, I am speaking of broadcast quality from the viewpoint of small grain structure.

PS)
Most TV shows have either stayed wth 35mm, 16mm or have switched to DV or HD. I think Super-8 is, and always was, fairly an amature format. I never heard of any major network using super-8. So I can't see how a single network would be enough to keep the type of stock up and running.


ha ha, not a single network, a single show from just one country in the world would have been a wonderful publicity jolt for Kodachrome 40.


My advice to kodak would be this: continue making that type of film. Just dont make so much! OR just do an "On-demand" thing where if someone wants that type of film, they can order it and kodak can make it for them. I think to kill it all together is kind of harsh.

Some people wont agree with me, and may even get down-right mad at me, but in my opinion thats the way it works.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 


It's a interesting proposition, instead of officially killing Kodachrome 40, make it available only when a certain amount is ordered. However, the processing lab or labs might not be around for the next run.
  • 0

#12 Nate Downes

Nate Downes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1638 posts
  • Florida, USA

Posted 06 June 2005 - 08:43 AM

You've hit the crux of the problem:

running the Super8 K40 lab is the real issue, it's not cost-effective for Kodak.

The best solution would be if someone were to step up and take over K40 Super8 processing for them in europe. In america, there is Dwaynes, but in Europe, which is the prime consumer of K40 Super8, there is noone but Kodak. If someone were to approach Kodak and say "Hey, if I took over Super8 K40 processing for you, would you please keep K40 Super8 alive?" Kodak might reconsider. Cut some deal with them, allowing them to be a middleman (any film sent into Kodak you'd process for them), maybe add in E6 and B&W processing, plus film-transfers (imagine sending in your K40 and getting the film *and* a DVD back).

But, everyone here is all talk, noone willing to put their money where their mouth is. I'm dirt-poor, otherwise I'd do out the details and break-even analysis.
  • 0

#13 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 06 June 2005 - 08:55 AM

Get rid of the Ektchrome 125.


Wasn't this discontinued just under a year ago?

love

Freya
  • 0

#14 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 06 June 2005 - 12:59 PM

Wasn't this discontinued just under a year ago?

love

Freya

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Yes.
  • 0

#15 filmfreund

filmfreund
  • Guests

Posted 07 June 2005 - 12:01 PM

Our petition has reached more than 10,000 cartridges per year! That means it is signed by 11% of all users of K40 worldwide. We will try to arrange a meeting with Kodak people end of June.

Please sign in the petition: www.schmalfilm.de

We will discuss the topic of processing machines. There would be one - for not too much money. It belongs to Kodak, isn't uses at this time but must be "refreshed". They could use it in Switzerland and say goodbye to the old machine - or they could give it to a private lab. But they must want to do it! And we have to do everything that they really do it. So: keep on to protest! Juergen
  • 0


Visual Products

Wooden Camera

The Slider

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

CineTape

Opal

Glidecam