5285

Rachel Oliver · March 8, 2004

Does anyone know if Kodak will ever release the 5285 reversal stock in 16? I would love that!!!

John Pytlak RIP · March 9, 2004

I believe that the issue has been getting 16mm E-6 processing.

Mitch Gross · March 9, 2004

Kodak cut a special run of this in 16mm that Bono Labs developed. Good for music videos or other special uses but it was very expensive, something like $.25/ft. to process as a special run. Just a very limited use product so it never really was a serious option.

GeorgeSelinsky · March 9, 2004

it was very expensive, something like $.25/ft. to process as a special run.

Hey, that's how much it costs to process 16mm Kodachrome :)

Seriously though, I think that it would make sense to reforumlate the RVNP/VNF emulsions to fit the E-6 process and just switch over all color reversal MP to E-6. From what I recall the VNF-1/RVNP process can be made to fit the E-6 standard by altering the SpGr of the color developer by 20%. That shouldn't really be a problem for reformulating the emulsions, all you could do is thicken up one color layer.

- G.

John Pytlak RIP · March 9, 2004

That shouldn't really be a problem for reformulating the emulsions, all you could do is thicken up one color layer.

Reformulating an existing film is NOT a simple task, and can often run to six figure development costs. But keep that "wish list" coming. B)

There are certainly more VNF-1 processes than E-6 processes for 16mm, so why would you want all the films reformulated for E-6?

GeorgeSelinsky · March 9, 2004

My reasons for introducing E-6...

First of all, E-6 is a pretty well known and established color process, and the chemistry is available for small and large volume processing.

Secondly, to make it an easier possibility to introduce an E-6 reversal emulsion, and help perhaps faciliate the introduction of E-6 in Super 8 which screams for the newer reversal emulsions (and to me, Super 8 has always been about the reversal look). Introducing VNF Ektachrome in Super 8 really didn't do it any good IMHO, I knew that when it was announced, having shot enough of it in 16mm.

I also keep waiting for the moment when someone will make a low cost 35->8 splitter/peforator, so people can simply buy those 100' spools of 35mm still Ektachrome (or any other emulsion of their choice) and slit it for repacking into cartridges.

VNF-1 and especially RVNP were designed to get the film in and out of the bath ASAP, when it was needed for the news. I don't see that being a priority any longer. If all labs ran E-6, they would charge regular VNF-1 rates for all E-6 work.

Kodak just recently switched the black and white reversal process, so I can't see the switch from VNF-1/RVNP to E-6 being that much more radical.

- G.

Rachel Oliver · March 10, 2004

I was actually thinking of using it on 16 for cross processing! I figured maybe Pro 8 would cut some for me? Unless I can find some of that limited Kodak stock. I saw some stills using this stock cross processed and loved it. I agree about super 8 crying out for this stock too.

R

John Pytlak RIP · March 10, 2004

Your best bet for now is to ask a repackager like Pro8mm to consider buying 35mm 5285 in bulk from Kodak and finish and repackage it.

GeorgeSelinsky · March 10, 2004

Pro 8mm unfortunately is a very expensive outfit. I understand they have overhead, business expenses, and they're not some charity. I just think it's a good idea to have an empowering tool like a 35->S8 splitter/reperf that Super 8 hobbyists can use. Super 8 users are used to things being cheap, from cameras to projectors to film to lab. Unfortunately, at least with the processing and video transfer, it's very costly and ineffective as of now, which is why I don't use it. Think of it this way, Super 8 uses up one quarter of the film that 16mm uses, but processing costs like $10 for 50 ft of film. I can get 100 feet of 16mm, four times that amount of film, processed for $11.00. Doesn't make economic sense, the replenisher consumption of the chemistry is one quarter.

- G.

John Pytlak RIP · March 10, 2004

You can't set price by image size alone. Large volume formats (e.g., 35mm) lend themselves to more efficient production processes. Smaller "niche" formats like 8mm or Super-8 are specialty items that are often much more labor intensive in manufacture or processing. If dedicated machines are used, you need to amortize the cost and maintenance of those machine across a smaller volume.

In general, it's more realistic to compare costs in terms of cost per minute, rather than cost per foot.

GeorgeSelinsky · March 10, 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (John_P_Pytlak @ Mar 10 2004, 11:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Smaller "niche" formats like 8mm or Super-8 are specialty items that are often much more labor intensive in manufacture or processing. If dedicated machines are used, you need to amortize the cost and maintenance of those machine across a smaller volume.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I agree, but the 8mm format, which was introduced originally to save cost over shooting in 16mm, is no longer in that niche that it once occupied.

Volume has gone down and naturally, goods and services will be more expensive. But when Super 8 prices nearly EQUAL 16mm, then the format totally looses its economic advantage. I think the format deserves a new approach, a more "do it yourself" avenue, as the consumers for Super 8 are different now than they were twenty-thirty years ago. I know Kodak is pretty much doing their share (and their prices for Super 8 film are very fair), I think the problem lies in third party innovation. Some of that is happening, like the "workprinter" device (http://www.moviestuff.tv), but it still needs more development. The 35->S8 splitter device and a better home processing tank would be of great benefit in my view.

- G.