Which Kodak filmstock do you miss the most?

Jarin Blaschke · May 16, 2004

By the by - I was recently at the Ilford website and found that their MP films are now on the 'discontinued' page. is this true? No more Ilford movie film??

Tony Brown · May 16, 2004

I'm starting to miss 5248!! On two recent jobs I've had to ship it in from London.

Whats going on Kodak? :angry:

John Pytlak RIP · May 17, 2004

It's a tough balancing act --- improving films like the new Kodak VISION2 films, yet keeping the older films on the market for those who prefer their "look", or just want a wide variety of films to choose from to suit a particular project.

The best advice is to work with your Kodak technical and sales representative to get the film you need. The older generation of films may not be stocked in all areas, as the "pipeline" and distribution is usually based on sales history and specific customer requests. In other words, if you know that you will be continuing to use 5248 or 5279, work with your Kodak rep to estimate your needs, so they can be met. If you have a special project that needs a particular film, the more notice, the better.

The latest information is always at "KODAK News and Product Change Notices":

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newslett...=0.1.4.17&lc=en

GeorgeSelinsky · May 17, 2004

So we've come up with this million dollar advertising campaign to boost the sales! Great idea, huh?"

Nobody's talking about a million dollar advertizing campaign. The changes I've mentioned would only require a modification of entries in their catalog. If that costs a million bucks then I really should get into offset printing :D

What I dislike is when I see a lack of efficiency. For the longest time Kodachrome wasn't listed in any professional product catalog, yet Kodak made it and someone somewhere kept buying it. I used to read Kodak's literature like a hawk, would be sitting in my tenth grade class with Kodak's black "films for the cinematographer" brochure and study film characteristics (my math teacher took it away once). I never knew, until years later when a girl walked into our film class at NYU with Kodachrome 25 from EKC in NY, that Kodak still made Kodachrome in 16mm. My teacher, who has been shooting film since the 50's, was also shocked (he used to shoot Kodachrome commercial a lot). Is it any surprise then that there has been a drop in demand and that Kodachrome processing costs a mint and a half? I certainly don't think so.

Same thing concerns Super 8. it was practically ignored in all professional MP Kodak literature for the longest time. Even though there were attempts like the VP-1 and the ES-8 processing machine, once these were dropped Super 8 seemed to fall back into the consumer department's literature, which was primarily read by grannies that hadn't heard of video yet, or crazy kids like myself who heard of the format and desparately wrote to Kodak for more information. As a matter of fact, when I got the letter from Kodak it never said anything about the existance of Plus X or Tri X in Super 8 either, only Kodachrome and Ektachrome. Before the internet, this was becoming a dark science.

- G.

John Pytlak RIP · May 17, 2004

AFAIK, Super-8 films were primarily part of the CONSUMER FILM catalog for many years. As amateur Super-8 home movies switched to video capture, those professionals who wanted Super-8 for it's unique look and production attributes looked to Kodak to treat it as a professional format. The VNF-1 camera films were added to the portfolio to replace the old EKTACHROME consumer Super-8 films, and the first color negative film was added.

Since professionals usually use Super-8 film as a capture media, with editing, post-production and distribution usually being video, it makes sense that Kodak is now offering 7217 and 7218 in Super-8:

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...PCN041604_Q.pdf

Unfortunately, the discontinuance of the VNF films affects all formats:

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...PCN040804_Q.pdf

Much as Super-8 is valued as a teaching tool for beginning filmmakers, few can argue that editing and showing tape-spliced reversal camera original is representative of today's filmmaking process. Today many filmmakers start with consumer or pro-sumer video formats and digital editing. Fortunately, many aspire to, and "graduate" to, film production and its aesthetic.

GeorgeSelinsky · May 17, 2004

AFAIK, Super-8 films were primarily part of the CONSUMER FILM catalog for many years. As amateur Super-8 home movies switched to video capture, those professionals who wanted Super-8 for it's unique look and production attributes looked to Kodak to treat it as a professional format. The VNF-1 camera films were added to the portfolio to replace the old EKTACHROME consumer Super-8 films, and the first color negative film was added.

But long before the VNF-1 Ektachrome was introduced, amateurs by and large stopped using Super 8. Back in the late 1980's practically everyone was shooting VHS, VHS-C, or video 8mm. Once in a blue moon I'd see someone with a Kodak sound Super 8 camera or something else, but very, very rarely (and like I mentioned above, this would usually be a person who simply didn't know about video and shot so little that they were fine using what they already had for many years - I know because I often took the time to ask). Already back then, people were looking at me with my Super 8 camera and saying "ever hear of video?" To add, I never saw anyone with a B&H filmo shooting 16mm home movies on Kodachrome 25/40 at all.

Only years later, like in the late 90's, Kodak began marketing Super 8 in the professional department - which to me was at least ten years too late. Before that many people didn't even know that Super 8 still existed, and we're talking film students and teachers at NYU, as well as other working pro's - not just people off the street.

The point is not to raise Super 8 to the level of Super 16 or 35mm, because it is more of a novelty format than a classic production medium, but to be aware of who uses it and where to best sell it. If it's still profitable to make, it is wise to sell it in a maximally profitable manner. Recategorizing a product shouldn't cost millions of bucks.

By the late 80's it was pretty obvious to me that most of those who used the format were experimental filmmakers and people like myself, who wanted to learn how to shoot and make films. At that time I think EKC was simply resigned to the format's extinction and was waiting for the inevitable. Had this not happened I think that the format would be in considerably better shape than it is today, it would not only be more popular but it would be more serviced by professional facilities, and the cost of shooting it would be less overall.

David Mullen ASC · May 17, 2004

In regards to Kodachrome 16mm, a decade ago the word I got from Kodak was that it was only available through an outside distributer (i.e. a middle-man) and could not be bought directly from Kodak, hence why it did not appear in their catalogues. Beats me why though. I also don't know why they didn't bother putting edgecode information on it. Or maybe it was just machine-readable keycode that was missing.

Any specialty stock that fills a small niche will be hard to make profitable; I don't think simply promoting it better increases the demand necessarily. Super-8, for example, is problematic for people shooting sync-sound movies, which is an issue that goes beyond the film stocks to the camera designs (few quiet, crystal-sync cameras) and the fact that beginners and amatuers don't want to shoot with a separate sound recorder. Video is simply easier to shoot all-around for the beginner. This is a case where convenience outweighs picture quality (not that I think Super-8 has a high technical quality level although it's pretty to look at.)

Color reversal was always bound to become a niche format compared to color negative, as soon as the problems of color negative were worked out in 16mm labs in the 1970's and 1980's. 16mm filmmakers wanted the speed and latitude of color negative and most were happy to dump color reversal when they got the chance. So acknowledging that color reversal can never become as successful as color negative for filmmaking, the question is how can Kodak keep offering the product and still earn a profit. One way may be to simplify and eliminate from the line-up of reversal stocks. Switching to E6 makes a lot of sense; since it is the primary color reversal format for 35mm still shooting, the stock is being manufactured ANYWAY -- all Kodak really has to do is cut it down to the 16mm and Super-8 sizes. So the real hurdle is getting labs to switch over from VNF to E6. If this happens and we have enough 16mm E6 labs out there, we may see some NEW stocks since all they have to do is release some of the other still camera stocks in the 16mm and Super-8 format. There's no R&D necessary. There might even be less pressure to be profitable as long as the 35mm still market E6 stocks are doing well.

GeorgeSelinsky · May 17, 2004

Switching to E6 makes a lot of sense; since it is the primary color reversal format for 35mm still shooting, the stock is being manufactured ANYWAY -- all Kodak really has to do is cut it down to the 16mm and Super-8 sizes.

I absolutely agree 110%. That has been a main argument of mine.

The problem that I see is that the prices of E-6 35mm MP raw stock have been through the roof (I mean, we're talking a 70% increase in price per foot). It didn't quite make logical sense. I understand that EKC doesn't want still photographers buying the stuff and spooling it down for cheap, but that's not a serious threat in my opinion. I know there are some issues with the film's backing that becomes an obstacle with motion picture use, but hopefully this can be resolved efficiently.

What concerns pressure for a profit, I've always dreamed that some engineer with some time on their hands could make an affordable 35mm to Super 8 reperforator, and come up with a good reloadable cartridge system. That would work wonders. Combine that with a small batch Super 8 processor and a home transfer device and the world of still 35mm stock is open to you, at a very good price per foot all around. So long as they make it in 100' rolls, it can be done. I think for a niche market something like this might work. After all, this isn't targeted towards the grannies with Brownies.

- G.

K Borowski · May 17, 2004

George: Actually, this machine has already been built. A guy by the name of Paul Cotto on the Shooting 8mm forum has recently completed construction on one of these machines, and as soon as he is through with some last-minute bugs, he says he will start offering very modestly priced reperfs of 35mm into double super 8, which can then be re-slit into two strips of super 8. Unfortunately, some of the economy is lost as he only gets 16mm out of every 35, but it should still be reasonable, and it also gives the S8 shooter the opportunity to work with other E6 fine-grained stocks like Fuji's Velvia or some of the EXR stocks that Kodak is too stubborn to release in S8 (maybe having something to do with the misnomer Pro8mm). I personally will be really happy when he gets a DR8 die made (which he says he may consider in the future).

Regards,

Karl Borowski

GeorgeSelinsky · May 17, 2004

Unfortunately, some of the economy is lost as he only gets 16mm out of every 35

When I did some calculations I figured that you could get three rows out of a perforated 35mm strip. I guess either I'm wrong or he wasn't able to get it to cut very well. Good for him anyway!

- G.

K Borowski · May 18, 2004

Yes, you're correct George 8x3=24 :lol: His primary reason for building it was to cater to Double Super 8, which is as I'm sure you know 16mm with Super 8 perfs, filmed down both sides in say a modified H8 or something of that nature. Others had the same complaint about it being somewhat wasteful, but we are glad to have it anyway. The thing was a very precision piece of equipment to build from scratch though, and I guess he even has it wired so that it is computer controlled. I will be happy to give it a try with some Velvia or EXR or something.

Regards.

Tony Brown · May 24, 2004

In other words, if you know that you will be continuing to use 5248 or 5279, work with your Kodak rep to estimate your needs, so they can be met. If you have a special project that needs a particular film, the more notice, the better.

Thats fine John but over the last 12 months I've shot in 15 countries. All commercial budgets that work out to £80,000 for each shoot day yet I can't get a stock that is supposedly readily available and not being phased out. It makes me look stupid and Kodak look like they don't give a toss. The jobs confirm sometimes a week before we fly so thats my time window. Just which rep am I supposed to deal with - they are not all as helpful as yourself I assure you.

Having been assured again and again that 5248 will not be phased out in favour of 5212, suddenly its hard to find, Turkey, Argentina, France......

Seems to me like it IS on the way out, which is fine, but it would be nice to know so that I can begin to learn how to adapt ratings/filtration/telecine instruction to help me maintain the look that I want,

John Pytlak RIP · May 25, 2004

Being UK based, you should probably work most closely with the folks at Hemel Hempstead, like Brian Kercher. Shipping within the EU can be done, but does need a bit of lead time.