Please help circulate these Kodak petitions

[Alain LeTourneau]

Please help circulate the following petitions.

 

 

For continued production or reformulation of Eastman 7361:

 

http://www.40framesdirectory.org/petitions/kodak02/

 

 

 

For creating E6 process Eastman 7250 and 7399:

 

http://www.40framesdirectory.org/petitions/kodak01/

 

 

 

Regards,

Alain LeTourneau

Pamela Minty

 

------------------

40 Frames Directory

Portland, Oregon USA

[K Borowski]

Please help circulate the following petitions.

For continued production or reformulation of Eastman 7361:

 

http://www.40framesdirectory.org/petitions/kodak02/

For creating E6 process Eastman 7250 and 7399:

 

http://www.40framesdirectory.org/petitions/kodak01/

Regards,

Alain LeTourneau

Pamela Minty

 

------------------

40 Frames Directory

Portland, Oregon USA

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Unfortunately, there is almost no chance that these films can be saved. According to a reliable source, sales of these films were halving every year for the past few years. Quite simply, no one was using them anymore. However, I do think there is merit in attempting to get the Eastman Kodak company to release some of its older E6 emulsions (not the "E" series, which has a high degree of color saturation quite different from the low contrast emulsions of the VNF-1 line) with MP perfs. There are a few films, such as 6117 (Ektachrome 64), EPY-64 (Ekta 64T), EPT-160 (Ekta 160T), and EPJ-320 (Ekta 320T) which would adapt well in the MP world. Don't hold me to this, but I believe that either the 160 or 320 speed tungsten film is low contrast. Also, a reformulation of the VNF-1 films or simply over- or underdiluting existing E6 chemistry can provide the means to process these films with the E6 process. There are so many options here that are not being explored by EK and it is a damned shame. However, the prime consumers of these films were newscrews (haven't used it since the early '80s), auto crash test labs (are going digital now that high speed digicams are out), and a few independent filmmakers (who don't shoot nearly as much footage as crash test labs with cameras running at 1000 fps). Clearly it is the fault of the consumer, not Kodak that these stocks are going to way of ECO and K25 and 4-X.

[Alain LeTourneau]

Unfortunately, there is almost no chance that these films can be saved.  According to a reliable source, sales of these films were halving every year for the past few years.  Quite simply, no one was using them anymore.  However, I do think there is merit in attempting to get the Eastman Kodak company to release some of its older E6 emulsions (not the "E" series, which has a high degree of color saturation quite different from the low contrast emulsions of the VNF-1 line) with MP perfs.  There are a few films, such as 6117 (Ektachrome 64), EPY-64 (Ekta 64T), EPT-160 (Ekta 160T), and EPJ-320 (Ekta 320T) which would adapt well in the MP world.  Don't hold me to this, but I believe that either the 160 or 320 speed tungsten film is low contrast.  Also, a reformulation of the VNF-1 films or simply over- or underdiluting existing E6 chemistry can provide the means to process these films with the E6 process.  There are so many options here that are not being explored by EK and it is a damned shame.  However, the prime consumers of these films were newscrews (haven't used it since the early '80s), auto crash test labs (are going digital now that high speed digicams are out), and a few independent filmmakers (who don't shoot nearly as much footage as crash test labs with cameras running at 1000 fps).  Clearly it is the fault of the consumer, not Kodak that these stocks are going to way of ECO and K25 and 4-X.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I will note the information you provide for alternatives to the current/remaining Ektachrome stocks. I believe there is a E6 dupe films that exists that could replace 7399.

 

I agree with your comments about a the consumers being responsible, and would also state that when film programs started allowing thesis films to be finished on video the educational curriculmn started to shift its emphasis. And when economic hard times hit, such as now, it remains hard for many to justify shooting film esp when convinced that DV looks "just as good". Bottom line doesn't hold up to quality, DV is cheaper but it does not look better.

 

I see the roll of 7361 being a valuable educational tool for those who wish to shoot, edit and print on reversal. It's definitely one of the most affordable options. Eastman should strongly consider keeping 7361 as an FTO (finish to order) stock, so that it does not sit in storage but will be batch made when ordered. In addition, the minimum order for 7361 by labs could be raised.

 

7361 is a stock that has a very unique quality, nothing close to what a print on 7302 looks like. Rich black, silvery whites, good optical sound quality (thanks to those rich blacks and low noise). The options are disappearing and the Kodak palette is increasing manufactured with a telecine colorist in mind.

 

When the cheaper options disappear, the interest from many film programs and independents will deminish as well. DV will become the only option.

 

For me personally, I will no longer shoot 7265 and 7266 if the option to print w/o an interneg disappears. Shooting PXR and TXR has allowed me to shoot 100' or 400', project, and edit w/o a work print. It's a cheap way to work. I've also work printed as well as some projects require this. Having options when working is nice.

 

 

Thanks for your comments,

 

Alain LeTourneau

[Alain LeTourneau]

One other important note that I forgot to include above has to do with archival material created in the reversal process.

 

These films will no longer be circulated in the form they were intended to be shown. I've screened Ektachrome prints from the 1960s that looked absolutely brilliant in color. No fading, and wonderful color saturation.

 

 

Alain LeTourneau

[K Borowski]

From what I've heard and seen with regard to VNF, the film is only archival if stored properly (something which few people bothered doing back in the '70s). Any film is archival when stored properly, but Kodachrome is the only one I know of that can truly maintain its colors at room temperature. VNF on the other hand, has not been seriously updated in decades, is very grainy, and is not even intended for use as a true "artistic" film. It's applications were and are for a few more months primarily commercial. The reversal film that was designed with art in mind was called (ironically) Ektachrome Commercial, or, more affectionately, ECO. The 25 ASA rating gave this film respectable grain as opposed to the corse, grainy, low contrast structure of VNF. Again, the film is nice on standard-def television and on a moderately sized projector screen, but it certainly isn't likely to hold up well on the big screen, although it'd do better than something like DV or VHS or beta. I love VNF, but the fact is that no one wants to do things the way they used to be done, like making prints and editing the analog way. I feel this is a great shame, but I can't change the market on my own. People are and probably always will be enamored with getting the best results per least amount of effort. People will abandon movie film in general just as they did still film as soon as digital gets up to speed. There might be a few more devotees to MP film than there are to still film due to the greater amount of artistic applications in cine as opposed to the more documentary/journalistic applications of still film, but there is still going to be a continual decline. Let us act now to prevent the last of the old reversal stocks, K40, from going the way of VNF and fight to keep 7361, which I agree is a valuable asset and also seek a replacement for 7399 and maybe 7240 and 7239. Such a consolidation of E6 between still and cine units can only bolster sales of E6 and keep it in a healthy state of production. So many still photographers are just shooting C-41 and scanning or going DSLR route nowadays that it makes one wonder how much longer even E6 will be around.

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

[Alain LeTourneau]

Let us act now to prevent the last of the old reversal stocks, K40, from going the way of VNF and fight to keep 7361, which I agree is a valuable asset and also seek a replacement for 7399 and maybe 7240 and 7239.  Such a consolidation of E6 between still and cine units can only bolster sales of E6 and keep it in a healthy state of production.  So many still photographers are just shooting C-41 and scanning or going DSLR route nowadays that it makes one wonder how much longer even E6 will be around.

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

 

Thanks Karl Borowski for all of your supportive comments and insight. I think a little historical perspective is defintely in order here and appears to be lacking in most conversations about the future of film, particularly the 16mm format.

 

I am amazed at the people I know who shoot film (although almost exclusively negative stocks) who remain truly unaware of the changes happening at Kodak with reversal stocks, not to mention the unique and unmatched quality of these stocks. The wide palette of films is slipping away and if we don't use it we lose it.

 

Please take a moment to endorse these petitions and help to circulate them. If you are a member of IATSE 600 or know of individuals who are please see that these petitions are circulated amongst members.

 

 

Best,

Alain LeTourneau

[John Pytlak RIP]

I am forwarding the concerns and comments from cinematographers posted on various user groups to the key decision-makers for the B&W and color reversal film product lines.

 

In any postings, correspondence, or petitions, it would be helpful if you gave some indication of the annual volume of each film you purchase, and if the way you use the film is unique (e.g., a few users indicated they used EASTMAN Reversal BW Print Film 7361 as a camera original film).

 

Many users of these small volume products buy their film "over the counter" or from a dealer, so this additional information is useful in understanding how the film is used, and who is using it.

 

To quote Bob Mayson, Kodak Vice President and General Manager of the Image Capture Group:

 

This decision has not been taken lightly and is brought about by two fundamental reasons. Kodak?s proactive

environmental strategy calls for the elimination of several component parts in these products and falling sales

volume due to lack of demand. Unfortunately, this combination of factors prohibits our ability to enter into a

research and development program to re-engineer these products. You can imagine, we are very disappointed to

have to make this decision.

[Matt Pacini]

Honestly, the whole petition thing is just silly to me.

 

Kodak is a company, and like every other company, they are in business to sell products that people want to buy.

If they discontinue something, it's because there are not enough purchases of that product to justify selling it.

They aren't discontinuing something because they're a big, bad company who likes to piss people off, and they're not discontinuing something because someone hasn't whined enough.

(Do I really need to give a lesson in simply economics here?)

This isn't politics, it's good, old fashioned supply and demand capitalism.

 

If we buy it, they will make it.

 

If you want to "petition" Kodak to keep a product, then do it by buying more of that product.

 

Matt Pacini

[K Borowski]

Thanks for your help John. I still owe you a drink for helping to get K40A DR8 back in production :D I feel that it is of the utmost importance for Kodak to continue to provide some sort of low-contrast reversal stock as well as print stocks in B&W as well as color reversal. I must admit that I use little of either at the moment, but when I start to do more and more independant films, I certainly want to have release prints and backup copies of my work. Digital just doesn't cut it for me. Certainly there are others out there who feel exactly the same way as I do. I wish that Kodak could keep 7399 in production for just a little while longer (maybe even doing a batch of DR8) so that all of that valuable footage shot on VNF has a chance to be copied. However, the problem again comes down to no one but auto crash tests labs using it anymore and the halving of sales of the VNF line every few years. Then again, why would 7399 be in production with the camera VNF films if noone were making dupes of their footage? On the other hand, 7361 is clearly a valuable commodity in the future as well as the present. The idea of improving the B&W reversal films but not improving the corresponding print stock is laughable. Imagine coming out with EXR films and not improving the old print stocks to match! 16mm reversal might not be Kodak's biggest market, but neither is 8mm. These formats are a stepping stone for student filmmakers, who are much more likely to keep shooting film after getting their first budgeted film if they have film to work with as students rather than DV tape and computers. The message that the discontinuation of 7361 sends to me is that I had might as well just output on tape rather than actually take the time and money to have prints made. What would Kodak do if all of the Hollywood filmmakers of tomorrow took the same approach? Please keep in mind that your actions now are going to play an influence on the filmmakers of tomorrow.

 

Alain: Sorry, but I'm just a high school film enthusiast. I'm still working on my first film. I'm just really in to the whole process and I read up on how the whole process works and what the different characteristics of the different film stocks are. I agree that our pallette is shrinking. It's even scarrier when you take into account the companies who have ceased all manufacture of MP film. Agfa, Ilford, and Ansco come to mind. It's a real shame that 16mm filmmakers are left with only Vision2, Vision, and EXR negative films (does anyone even know what Kodachrome is anymore?) which are totally unsuited to a small-budget film in my opinion. Reversal is finer-grained than negative (or at least has the potential to be that way if only the Kodak Cine divisino would invest money in R&D like the still branch does) and harder to light for, providing an excellent learning tool. It is also the most economical since it can be projected right out of the camera. I don't know if there are others like me who choose to edit the analog way. I like to know that even if all of my computers crash, my files corrupt, my programs fail to work, that I'll still have a copy to run through a projector. Take care and good luck to you who actually have the money to shoot 16mm shorst. I hope that Kodak continues to take 16mm reversal seriously. I'll try my hardest to make sure that they do. One thing about your petition though: Kodak would take 10,000 signatures on paper much more seriously than 10,000 signatures in cyberspace. My two cents.

 

~Karl Borowski

[Alain LeTourneau]

Honestly, the whole petition thing is just silly to me.

 

Kodak is a company, and like every other company, they are in business to sell products that people want to buy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Matt,

 

7276 and 7278 were reformulated into 7265 and 7266 because educators and independent filmmakers spoke up and said it was important for Kodak to do so.

 

And the same happen for those insignificant little pieces of splice tape called

Press tapes.

 

 

Matt, I understand your skepticism, however I do not understand your tone.

 

 

Regards,

Alain LeTourneau

[Sam Wells]

The point is many of us have a lifetime investment in the use of Kodak's materials.

 

When one commits to shooting a film on ANY given material i.e. film stock, one is commited to a system of materials; neg/pos, reversal, B&W, color etc.

 

It gets very problematic when key components of any "system" suddenly become unavailable.

 

-Sam