Why is Kodak starting to discontinue E100D stocks?

[Jim Carlile]

Anybody else notice this strange discontinue notice last month?

 

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/PCN050510_Q.pdf

 

Kodak is getting rid of both double super 8 and the 35mm 1,000-foot core versions of their new Ektachrome 100D.

 

You'd think they'd want to push studio use of 35mm, instead of only offering the 400 foot rolls. And double super 8, though always available through special order, was a new offering for them that apparently didn't get much time.

[Charles MacDonald]

 

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/PCN050510_Q.pdf

 

Kodak is getting rid of both double super 8 and the 35mm 1,000-foot core versions of their new Ektachrome 100D.

 

I could see that it might be a production problem to make 1000 ft rolls. But it should not be harder to make Ds8 than to make 16mm

[andy oliver]

Anybody else notice this strange discontinue notice last month?

 

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/PCN050510_Q.pdf

 

Kodak is getting rid of both double super 8 and the 35mm 1,000-foot core versions of their new Ektachrome 100D.

 

You'd think they'd want to push studio use of 35mm, instead of only offering the 400 foot rolls. And double super 8, though always available through special order, was a new offering for them that apparently didn't get much time.

 

Thanks for sharing this info, wish i clocked the post before purchasing another DS-8 Bolex, this is terrible news. I thought super 8 was slit from 16mm ds-8 film.

I did hear a rumor that kodak were slowly pulling out of the reversal market, next on the chopping block i guess will be 7266 and 100D !!

[Nicholas Rapak]

From what I heard, the sales of DS8 were abysmal, below even that of R8 E100D. John Schwind reported selling less than 1,000 feet of it last year. I guess that when Kodak decided to make E100D the main Super 8 stock, the sales were not enough to justify keeping the cat number in stock.

 

In addition, I believe Super-8 is now slit from 35mm stock, although this is only a rumor.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Nicholas Rapak

[andy oliver]

From what I heard, the sales of DS8 were abysmal, below even that of R8 E100D. John Schwind reported selling less than 1,000 feet of it last year. I guess that when Kodak decided to make E100D the main Super 8 stock, the sales were not enough to justify keeping the cat number in stock.

 

In addition, I believe Super-8 is now slit from 35mm stock, although this is only a rumor.

 

Guess half of those sales were to me!! Planned to move over to 100D once my 12000 feet of ds-8 kodachrome was exhausted ( later this year ). This, i assume could have a knock on effect for Wittner who supply super 8 100D and ds-8 100d.....

[Nicholas Rapak]

Something else I just thought of...

 

If Kodak sells DS8 stocks, Wittner, KAHL, Pro8 and others are free to buy the cheaper-per-foot film, cut it down, and put it in their own carts. If they discontinue DS8, everyone is stuck using Kodak-filled carts. I have a feeling that most of the DS8 was sold to these few retailers, and now with 100D coming out from Kodak, these orders were canceled.

[Richard Tuohy]

Something else I just thought of...

 

If Kodak sells DS8 stocks, Wittner, KAHL, Pro8 and others are free to buy the cheaper-per-foot film, cut it down, and put it in their own carts. If they discontinue DS8, everyone is stuck using Kodak-filled carts. I have a feeling that most of the DS8 was sold to these few retailers, and now with 100D coming out from Kodak, these orders were canceled.

Certainly the second part of what you say is true: the companies that cut down ds8 for loading in super 8 cartridges will no longer be ordering ds8 for that purpose since kodak loaded 100d is now available. As soon as you have to consider the labour cost of loading cartridges it is much cheaper to buy kodak loaded 100d in bulk than ds8 stock and empty cartrides.

 

that said, I hope wittner has accesst to a ds8 slitter. I know GK does. Still, even if they have access, they are unlikely to have access to unperforated 35mm stock (which is what the velvia is cut from). I doubt kodak have changed their production principle back to super 8 being cut from 35. AFAIK ALL super 8 goes through a ds8 phase at kodak - ie it starts off as unperforated 16mm. So hopefully Wittner will still be able to buy it in volume for ds8 users...

[Jim Carlile]

DS8 100D is still available via special order, I'm sure, and with a minimum, it's just that Kodak had for the last several years put DS8 in their catalog as a regular stock item. Now with the 100D push I'm surprised that they would be cutting it so soon.

 

But more alarming is their cutting of the big 35mm cores. You'd think the fact that they are promoting this film bigtime for studio work would make them want to keep it in, at least for the time being.

 

BTW, any B/W negative camera stock can be processed as a reversal, with a little tweaking.... so it's not all hopeless. I suspect Kodak will come up with a universal B/W stock soon, possibly a T-Max? In the past they were not happy with the TMAX results for MP work, but with consolidation, who knows these days?

[John Salim]

 

BTW, any B/W negative camera stock can be processed as a reversal, with a little tweaking.... so it's not all hopeless. I suspect Kodak will come up with a universal B/W stock soon, possibly a T-Max? In the past they were not happy with the TMAX results for MP work, but with consolidation, who knows these days?

 

 

It's true any B&W neg film can be processed as reversal, but the problem is negative film has a 'tinted' base designed for reproducing a proper gammer curve in printing.

However, I think Jim may have hit the nail on the head by suggesting Kodak should supply TMax as MP film.

It's an ultra fine grain B&W film and would make a great reversal film as it's base has a very low D-Min ( but not as clear as print film ).

 

BTW, Kodak make a TMax reversal developing kit for making B&W transparencies.

 

John S :rolleyes:

[Chris Burke]

It's true any B&W neg film can be processed as reversal, but the problem is negative film has a 'tinted' base designed for reproducing a proper gammer curve in printing.

However, I think Jim may have hit the nail on the head by suggesting Kodak should supply TMax as MP film.

It's an ultra fine grain B&W film and would make a great reversal film as it's base has a very low D-Min ( but not as clear as print film ).

 

BTW, Kodak make a TMax reversal developing kit for making B&W transparencies.

 

John S :rolleyes:

 

 

Isn't the TMax 400 a new emulsion, one which Kodak claims to be the world's sharpest 400 speed. I'd love to shoot any of it. Love to see Fuji Acros in motion picture stock.

[Richard Tuohy]

The current plus-x and tri-x reversal stocks are on a grey tinted base anyway. Not sure why they did that or whether earlier generations (previous to the previous generation) of plus-x and tri-x were on a clear base.

[Jim Carlile]

Here's something interesting from the Kodak web site. This has obviously come up before:

 

Why doesn't Kodak finish and spool B&W T-MAX Film for use in motion picture cameras?

The following information is posted to address the frequently asked question "Why doesn't Kodak finish and spool B&W T-MAX film for use in motion picture cameras"?

 

History

Photographers familiar with the speed/grain relationship of T-MAX technology in the still film market often question the the feasiblity of using T-MAX products in a motion picture system. The Professional Motion Imaging (PMI) Business Unit requested we evaluate both T-MAX 100 and T-MAX 400 as a potential motion picture film several years ago.

Kodak personnel from the Systems Group originally evaluated T-MAX in 1990 using the "standards D-96 process chemistry. Projections indicated T-MAX did NOT offer the expected speed/grain relationship. The T-MAX products did not show a significant grain improvement relative to current motion picture camera negatives, 7222 and 7231. Although we were unable to explain why T-MAX did not show the expected results, project priority did not warrant further investigation at the time.

A subsequent investigation began in 1992 after PMI personnel learned new information from Kodak B&W / T-MAX experts. The experts suggested we may need an "optimized" developer to obtain the desired speed/grain relationship. PMI personnel developed a new test plan to include D-76, which is a recommended developer for T-MAX products. Although still a low priority, Kodak pursued a partnership with Ryerson Polytechnic University in Toronto, who agreed to execute the test in their facility. The advantages to this partnership included: strengthening our relationship with film Schools; minimizing the strain on Kodak resources; and, evaluating the T-MAX product in a customer motion picture lab.

 

Evaluation

Kodak and Ryerson Film Institute partnered in the venture and agreed on appropriate process and exposure conditions after running time of development series and determining approximate EI ratings for the T-MAX films. The team used the "standard D-96 and Ryerson's" modified D-76 process chemistries.

The team discussed and defined five different scenes with varying lighting ratios. T-MAX and Eastman camera negative stocks were processed to the same contrast and printed onto Eastman Fine Grain Release Positive Film, 7302.

Film students and faculty from Ryerson viewed the final projections and rated each scene for granularity, sharpness and contrast.

 

T-MAX 100 and T-MAX 400

Conclusions

1. The EI rating of both T-MAX 100 and T-MAX 400 in a motion picture system could be either 64 or 100. Current motion picture products are sensitometrically faster than the T-MAX products tested (See curves 1-4).

2. There is NO SIGNIFICANT granularity improvement using the T-MAX products in either the D-96 or "modified" D-76 process chemistries. This statement is supported by Kodak personnel and survey results from Ryerson students and faculty.

3. The T-MAX 400 provides greater under-exposure latitude that results in more detail in the shadow areas. However, this is achieved at the expense of "smokey blacks".

4. T-MAX products require increased fix times (i.e. five to six minutes) to remove silver and sensitizing dye. This requirement will probably not be easily achieved with most B&W processing machines as they are currently designed.

 

Recommended Path Forward

PMI will not pursue further testing of T-MAX 100 or T-MAX 400 as replacement products for either EASTMAN Double-X Film (EI 200) 5/7222 or EASTMAN Plus-X Negative Film (EI 64) 5/7231 stocks. This recommendation is based on the fact we were not able to achieve the original program objective of replacing current product with off-the-shelf camera negative stocks that exhibit significantly improved granularity.

[Dominic Case]

but the problem is negative film has a 'tinted' base designed for reproducing a proper gammer curve in printing.

Not really. The grey dye in b/w negative base has no effect on gamma. It's there to cut down on halation caused by internal reflection. Some light that passes through the emulsion then through the base is reflected at the back surface and strikes the emulsion a second time (from the back), slightly displaced. The dye absorbs about a stop of light each way, reducing the relected light to a quarter of what it would have been.

[K Borowski]

It's not surprising that Kodak is discontinuing product selection in a product that is barely selling.

 

At US$1,300 per 1000-foot (610m) core, I'm surprised ANYONE was buying '85 with it being more than twice the cost of neg. film.

 

 

 

And John, it's a *gamma* curve, as in the Greek letter G, representing the contrast of the linear portion of the characteristic curve of the film. It's a complex way of saying that it is the X axis over the Y axis portion of the graph plotting film density over image intensity.

[John Salim]

Not really. The grey dye in b/w negative base has no effect on gamma. It's there to cut down on halation caused by internal reflection. Some light that passes through the emulsion then through the base is reflected at the back surface and strikes the emulsion a second time (from the back), slightly displaced. The dye absorbs about a stop of light each way, reducing the relected light to a quarter of what it would have been.

 

I wasn't talking about the anti-halation backing ( before development ) but the film's remaining base tint after development.

Are you saying all B&W films with differant D-Min values produce the same D-Max when printed ?

 

John S :(

[Richard Tuohy]

I wasn't talking about the anti-halation backing ( before development ) but the film's remaining base tint after development.

 

 

So was Dominic. The anti-halation method used with current kodak b/w films ins't a backing at all, but rather the film-base tint method that Dominic was discussing. This isn't something that is removed during processing.

[Charles MacDonald]

Are you saying all B&W films with differant D-Min values produce the same D-Max when printed ?

 

The timing would be addjusted to give you your required D-max if you were working with two stocks which were other wise identical except for the grey dye. The darker one would need a touch more light to print. Since the fully exposed part would have the same amount of silver on both stocks so the greyer stock would also be just a touch darker in that part of the image (silver plus base) and so the higher lights would not make a difference.