Low Contrast Reversal

[Marty Hamrick]

George Selinsky brought up an excellent question on the super 8 forum about a low con reversal for super 8 and 16mm.I'm curious about how much demand could there be and if there is a possibility we could see this in the not too distant future.John P.what do you think?Any possibility of a "born again ECO?"Could open open up some possibilities for the small independent using super 8 and 16mm with a workprinter.

[John Pytlak RIP]

I'll discuss it with some of my colleagues, but I suspect the business case is dead on arrival. I'd rather put the MILLIONS of R&D dollars that would be required into new films for the VISION2 color negative family rather than into reviving 30 year old technology. Other than being more forgiving of poor cutting/splicing practices (scratches and dirt print/transfer as black), what advantage would a low contrast reversal camera original have over modern color negative film?

[David Mullen ASC]

Honestly, I don't see a big enough market to make it worth Kodak's trouble. Low-con reversal users would be sort of a niche within a niche market. With so much of the 16mm and 35mm infrastructure set-up for negative film and for telecine transfer, reversal film is really just for people wanting a special look for their project, or for Super-8 users -- and half of those still would want normal-contrast reversal for direct projection. So what are we talking about here -- a percentage of overall Super-8 users, a few projects needing a special look (and half of those would probably want the look of normal reversal, not a reversal that mimics color negative), and those people who want to shoot 16mm and project the original. The entire 16mm color negative market, as big as it is, is still not particularly profitable for Kodak.

[Marty Hamrick]

I'll discuss it with some of my colleagues, but I suspect the business case is dead on arrival.  I'd rather put the MILLIONS of R&D dollars that would be required into new films for the VISION2 color negative family rather than into reviving 30 year old technology.  Other than being more forgiving of poor cutting/splicing practices (scratches and dirt print/transfer as black), what advantage would a low contrast reversal camera original have over modern color negative film?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I hadn't thought about it in awhile until I saw it posted earlier and I got to thinking about the folks who are using the Workprinter.I looked on some of their forums and their looking for something to fill the gap between Kodachrome and negative.There are some out there experimenting with transfering negative on the workprinter and they're having some minor success.The orange masking is giving them problems.They love the Kodachrome look,but don't like the high contrast.A low con reversal would seem to fill the need for them,but like you say,there probably isn't enough of a mass market to make it profitable.

[K Borowski]

Honestly, Kodak doesn't need to develop or reincarnate any new stocks. The arrival of the E-6 line in 16mm opens up the door for 8&16mm filmmakers. I know for a fact that Kodak is in the process of researching other stocks from their still line for use as MP films. We just need to send a strong message that we filmmakers need a stock like 7240, with low contrast, moderate speed, and tungsten color balance. Coming from a still photography background, I know that Kodak has some incredible slide films in E6, several of which would be suitable for MP barring any problems with the type of backing that is used. So I'm sure that these problems will be addressed eventually. We just have to give them some time to work out all the kinks.

 

~Karl

[Christian Appelt]

IIRC, during the 1980s some labs specialising in optical blowup work offered Kodachrome 40 pre-flashed (giving it a low-level exposure) to reduce contrast during enlarging to 35mm.

 

For super-8 this is not going to be practical, but any Double Super 8 and 16mm reversal stocks could be treated that way.

Unfortunately, one of by binders with old film tech ads, leaflets and price lists is missing, but I recall an article (from Filmmaker's Newsletter, possibly) that did explain how to pre-flash reversal stock in your own 16mm/DS8 camera.

 

Sure, it's a lot of work and additional handling of unexposed film, but it seems more realistic to me that a lab can be talked into pre-flashing a number of 16mm reversal rolls than expecting Kodak to make a new emulsion. :)

[K Borowski]

That's the thing though. There's no need for new stocks, just modification of the current E-6 stocks. It doesn't make any sense to me at all that Kodak doesn't make more of its E-6 stocks available besides E100. I mean, they'll be making MONEY, won't they?

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Again, like I said in my very initial posting about Super 8, I am not for creating special low con STOCKS from scratch, just a low con E-6 PROCESS, that is take an E-6 film and develop it so it has the low contrast that ECO did. This way you can send your Ektachrome to a lab with the markings "Normal Con" or "Low Con".

 

Preflashing isn't an easy option for Super 8.

 

- G.

[Sam Wells]

I don't know about the practicality of creating a separate E-6 process.... but I honestly don't know enough about E-6 processing to say much.

 

As for a lower con E-6, well Kodak managed to create a higher con, high saturation E-6 especially as Fuji had demonstrated the possibilty (Velvia).

 

-Sam

[Sam Wells]

Sure, it's a lot of work and additional handling of unexposed film, but it seems more realistic to me that a lab can be talked into pre-flashing a number of 16mm reversal rolls than expecting Kodak to make a new emulsion.  :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

An interesting idea, I would probably try DIY.

 

Having seen a bunch of Kodachrome printed on the now defunct 7399 I can say it is unique and can be gorgeous, although not without some issues (skin tones especially).

 

I mean you would otherwise have to jump through some pretty large hoops to come close to it.

 

I do think I can get an "E-6" look with 45, especially pushed. But I worry about the future of an EXR stock like 52/7245 now.......

 

-Sam