KODAK ditches K40 and announces a new stock

[charles g clark]

E-6? I run that through at home!!!

Now I am interested!

 

Mr Pytlak,

 

Any more formats (mainly 16 but 35 could be interesting!!) going to get this stock?

 

Regards,

Charles :)

[Alessandro Machi]

This is a chicken and the egg argument.

 

Kodak did not take Kodachrome away from Hollywood at its height of popularity;

 

What I am referring to is Kodak had a terrific Kodachrome 40 lab in Hollywood up until around 1988. The machine was presumeably moved to Palo Alto when Qualux bought out the processing service from Kodak around 1988.

 

Kodak promised that their lab technicians would "supervise" the processing centers that were now owned by Qualex.

 

Qualux soon after consolidated their processing operations to Texas and suddenly, Kodak was out of the picture.

 

Ergo, Kodak took a successfully running Hollywood Kodachrome processing service and basically pissed it away and never wanted to even give Kodachrome 40 another opportunity by reopening up a lab in Hollywood.

 

Kodak decided a long time ago that Super-8 was on it's way out and every couple of years they get annoyed because they realize if they had just properly supported the format, it would be thriving right now.

 

But in the bean counting aspect of life, it's difficult to prove that Super-8 film production helps create future generations of 16mm and 35mm production, so Super-8 is treated like it has no importance.

 

Meanwhile, all the digital video formats steamroller ahead because of the great success of mini-dv.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

At this point I think it would be insane for any film manufacturer not to have some kind of exit plan in place, wouldn't you agree?

 

Phil

[John Hyde]

The E-6 process is easily modified (e.g., "Push" processing).  Some people even develope their E-6 slide film at home.  If you "cross processed" KODACHROME film in ECN-2 or E-6, you would GET NO IMAGE, as KODACHROME does not have incorporated dye forming couplers.

 

As the technical data notes, KODAK EKTACHROME 64T is balanced for 3200 K.  For daylight, an 85B would be the normal filter used.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hello John,

 

I thought you might like to see some of the things people have been saying in the forums about Kodak's decision to drop K-40. I only hope there is some additional strategy behind Kodak?s thinking.

 

Joined: 21 Mar 2005

Posts: 13

 

Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 11:46 pm

Post subject:

 

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

 

Ah, the days of processing K-40 at Las Palmas Sweet memories.

 

Unfortunately, Alex, all we can do is take what Kodak gives us. We all know they will never provide the kind of support they gave us in the 80's. Sad to say, those days are over. Corporate brass will only see the bottom line for super 8 and never again consider it an investment in the future of film.

 

Strange, but, I was under the impression that they were going to add a good ektachrome film to their K-40 line. Instead, they just did a quick swap without having to invest in multiple film selections. Shows you how ignorant I was.

 

I suppose I am also ignorant in expecting them to at least release a fine grain, low ASA neg film to give us more options to K-40. -but then again, I guess I am way too optimistic there too.

 

Cry as we might, the death knoll for film still beckons - and, Kodak cares not! The digital age cometh!

 

Back to top

 

 

alan doyle

 

 

 

Joined: 27 Apr 2003

Posts: 77

 

Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 12:37 am

Post subject: K40...RANT

 

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

 

MAY THESE BEAN COUNTING COCXXXXXERS (edited by John H.) ROAST IN HELL...

 

 

UP UNTIL,SIX MONTHS AGO..I WAS HAVING FAIRLY HIGH LEVEL CONTACTS WITH COLETTE SCOTT..IN MOTION PICTURE WORLD WIDE SALES..IN ROCHESTER..

I WAS TRYING TO POINT OUT THAT SALES COULD BE INCREASED,WITH FAIRLY,MODEST INPUT FROM KODAK...

i had 2 meetings in london,and 5 conference calls lasting about 4 hours...

anyway,it all came to nothing..

anybody want to send her an abusive email be my guest..

the so called new kodak 64t stock is about 8 years old,in technology terms..

it is know,kodachrome..I HAVE USED IT IN 35MM...

THE SIMPLE REASON IS PROCESSING, COSTS OF SHIPPING AND SWISS FACTORY COSTS..

GOING E6 MEANS KODAK SELLS THE STOCK AND THAT IS IT..

I WOULD SUGGEST,WE DO NOT JUST EXCEPT THIS...

IF THEY RELEASED 45,50ASA NEGATIVE...

THIS WOULD BE A LITTLE LESS OF A BLOW..

ALSO GIVING USERS 1 YEAR,TO RETURN FILM IS PATHETIC...

ANYBODY IN THE STATES,KNOW A SPECIALIST CLASS ACTION LAWYER...

_________________

i shoot and sometimes i score

 

Back to top

 

 

Rich

 

 

 

Joined: 11 May 2005

Posts: 3

 

Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 12:45 am

Post subject: Re: K40...RANT

 

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

 

alan doyle wrote:

MAY THESE BEAN COUNTING COCXXXXXERS (edited by John H.) ROAST IN HELL...

 

 

Amen and congratulations on the most honest post I've seen on this subject all day long.

[\quote]

[Anthony Schilling]

Just the expected backlash.. If they shot anything besides K-40, they would not complain so much.. and will stop crying when they see the new stock.

[Alessandro Machi]

Hi,

 

At this point I think it would be insane for any film manufacturer not to have some kind of exit plan in place, wouldn't you agree?

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Lets face reality here. Super-8mm is akin to the donut maker who suddenly announces they won't be selling donut holes anymore. The excess material is sitting there, but suddenly the donut hole can't be made?

 

Kodak never invested any new strategy in promoting Super-8, they just tolerated it because it was like a donut hole next to the 35mm donuts, meanwhile mini-dv was promoted in a variety of ways and that has opened the flood gates for other formats to follow.

 

Even though I reviewed the CanonXL1s for a magazine when it first came out 3 and a half years ago, I would never have accepted work for hire with that camera.

 

I would in an instant have looked to create Super-8 opportunities for myself if I knew I could get Kodachrome 40 developed within a day. I still would.

[Alessandro Machi]

Just the expected backlash.. If they shot anything besides K-40, they would not complain so much.. and will stop crying when they see the new stock.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It's not a new film stock, and the three low ASA stocks which would look best in Super-8; K-40, Vision 100, and 50 ASA negative are not being supported by Kodak.

 

Super-8 is probably more of an outdoor medium than an indoor medium, yet the best three looking ASA stocks are not being supported by Kodak in the Super-8 format. That makes no sense and jeopardizes projects that I had planned on moving forward on.

[Anthony Schilling]

Your cup is half empy, have you shot the 500T in S-8, a 500ASA film in S-8 is amazing. 7217 is amazing as well. and the 64T will out perform and look better than K-40. seriously, K-40 is the muddiest of all stocks.. the only film that looked worse than K-40 was 7420.

[Brian Wells]

Hi,

 

I consider myself the "perfect candidate" for 8mm. I am 21 years old and have a primary background in video cinematography. I feel confident in my work being called cinematography as it's been more than point and shoot. I have exerted the same production values as used in film, but as a reality, I've had readier access to high-end video equipment more so than film. I'd like to start shooting film, and so that's why I say I would be the "perfect candidate" for 8mm.

 

But, I have no desire to shoot 8mm. I'd rather learn using a modern Super16mm camera and telecine using the best equipment and learn that way. Surely, it would cost less to own an old Super8mm camera, but the restrictions of the format just don't seem very appealing when I could rent a modern camera like an A-Minima for $175/Day+lens and while the film and processing do cost more, but all things considered, I think I'd be better off to learn on the same camera system and telecine that would be useful in a commercial scenario. So--when I make the move to seriously learn film--I will do it on Super16mm with equipment that makes sense to learn on.

 

I understand the only way to learn film is to shoot film. Then, great. The only way to learn to use a certain camera is to use that camera. I'd like to experiment with things that I don't feel I could do very well on 8mm and even if so, I'd still be better off to learn on Super16mm equipment.

 

Being the "perfect candidate" for shooting on 8mm equipment and film, well, I don't really care to.

I would feel better learning on a tool I could use professionally. Hope this makes sense.

 

Sorry for the lack of coherence and brevity in this message. I'm a little sleepy.

 

Thanks,

Brian Wells

[Patrick Neary]

this is madness.

 

Maybe someone has already pointed this out, but last time I looked, most of the major camera manufacturers had stopped making super-8 cameras. like, 20 years ago.

 

who's going to start a petition for that...

 

I LIKE super-8, (even K40) it's fun, but get a little perspective here....

[David Mullen ASC]

The trouble with that logic is that film is an expensive medium to learn on.

 

Professional equipment is meant to be used by professionals, so as a beginner, you have to learn on something cheaper to use at first, preferably something you own and can shoot as often as you like with. Not that a basic 16mm camera is so hard to learn to use; however, the expense of shooting with it means that you'll be happier if you had gotten some mistakes out of your system earlier.

 

It's like saying "my goal is to shoot in 35mm... so why should I use anything else to learn on?" Well, if you can afford to learn by shooting on a 35mm movie camera, more power to you. If Super-8 is not for you, I'd consider buying either a 24P DV camera or an MOS 16mm camera like a Bolex or Arri-S. But if you feel you can learn everything necessary and THEN get your hands on the camera by renting it, that's great.

[Brian Wells]

The trouble with that logic is that film is an expensive medium to learn on. 

 

Professional equipment is meant to be used by professionals, so as a beginner, you have to learn on something cheaper to use at first, preferably something you own and can shoot as often as you like with.  Not that a basic 16mm camera is so hard to learn to use; however, the expense of shooting with it means that you'll be happier if you had gotten some mistakes out of your system earlier.

 

If Super-8 is not for you, I'd consider buying either a 24P DV camera or an MOS 16mm camera like a Bolex or Arri-S.  But if you feel you can learn everything necessary and THEN get your hands on the camera by renting it, that's great.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I understand exactly what you're saying David. I'm working as an intern with S16mm equipment right now for a local D.P. and also work with a DVX100 for my own little projects.. I feel like all of it (film) is expensive to shoot. If I go the direction of paying for it, it would be nice to have the nicest possible results when I'm done.

 

One of my tasks as an intern is logging boxes of telecined tapes. The stuff from the mid-90's transferred on a Rank Cintel does not look anywhere near the quality of the newer stuff transferred on a Spirit. The tapes are labled which system was used. I guess if I shoot film, I'd prefer to have it look the best possible--and that costs money. So, I'm not sure if I'm heading that direction, frankly. I still have much to learn.. I'm young. Perhaps naive. However, the price of a transfer isn't any cheaper in this (narrow minded students) observation when shooting 8mm v 16mm. So, that's where I'm coming from.

 

..Still trying to sort this all out. Working as an intern is helping tremendously....

 

Brian

[Josh Bass]

As some of you may remember, I was looking to get into shooting super 8. K40 seemed like the way to go, as the rolls weren't too pricey, and neither was the transfer to tape.

 

With this new stock coming in, and the old one going out, will there still be something in the same price range (K40 was going for around $13 a roll, for a 50ft roll)?

[Alessandro Machi]

this is madness.

 

Maybe someone has already pointed this out, but last time I looked, most of the major camera manufacturers had stopped making super-8 cameras. like, 20 years ago.

 

who's going to start a petition for that...

 

I LIKE super-8, (even K40) it's fun, but get a little perspective here....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Did you know something like 40-50 million Super cameras were made between 1965 and 1980.

[Anthony Schilling]

I could rent a modern camera like an A-Minima for $175/Day+lens

You can own a really nice S-8 camera for that money. film is film, like David said, it's best to iron out your mistakes on a cheaper format. you can shoot some of the same stocks now in S-8 as in 35mm. use an external meter as well. you can transfer 800ft of S-8 or 16mm color negative for $175 in some places, but keep in mind you get 40 minutes from 800ft as opposed to 20 minutes in 16mm.

[Alessandro Machi]

Hi,

 

I consider myself the "perfect candidate" for 8mm.  I am 21 years old and have a primary background in video cinematography.  I feel confident in my work being called cinematography as it's been more than point and shoot.  I have exerted the same production values as used in film, but as a reality, I've had readier access to high-end video equipment more so than film.  I'd like to start shooting film, and so that's why I say I would be the "perfect candidate" for 8mm.

 

But, I have no desire to shoot 8mm.  I'd rather learn using a modern Super16mm camera and telecine using the best equipment and learn that way.  Surely, it would cost less to own an old Super8mm camera, but the restrictions of the format just don't seem very appealing when I could rent a modern camera like an A-Minima for $175/Day+lens and while the film and processing do cost more, but all things considered, I think I'd be better off to learn on the same camera system and telecine that would be useful in a commercial scenario.  So--when I make the move to seriously learn film--I will do it on Super16mm with equipment that makes sense to learn on. 

 

I understand the only way to learn film is to shoot film.  Then, great.  The only way to learn to use a certain camera is to use that camera.  I'd like to experiment with things that I don't feel I could do very well on 8mm and even if so, I'd still be better off to learn on Super16mm equipment. 

 

Being the "perfect candidate" for shooting on 8mm equipment and film, well, I don't really care to.

I would feel better learning on a tool I could use professionally.  Hope this makes sense. 

 

Sorry for the lack of coherence and brevity in this message.  I'm a little sleepy.

 

Thanks,

Brian Wells

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You sound confident about the equipment you want to use because you have already been exposed to that equipment in a working environment. Nothing wrong with that, it's an excellent way to decide what you want when you want.

 

The creative aspect of Super-8 filmmaking has more to do with the myriad of options found on the higher end Super-8 cameras and less to do with treating it like it's a smaller version of a minima. I guarantee you won't rent that minima to do some creative night time cinematography, nor just shoot shots to "learn", and experiment. You will rent the minima when you have a script in hand and also will be spending significant amounts of monies on other aspects of your film production.

And don't forget your insurance costs on whatever you rent.

 

One of my Super-8 films took me 10 nights to shoot and I did it on a one to one shooting ratio that required ONE cartridge of film for all ten nights of shooting. I was able to do several set-ups a night with no help whatsoever. The film was shown at a few festivals and even netted me a cash award at one contest while competing against computer animation projects.

[Alessandro Machi]

Your cup is half empy, have you shot the 500T in S-8, a 500ASA film in S-8 is amazing. 7217 is amazing as well. and the 64T will out perform and look better than K-40. seriously, K-40 is the muddiest of all stocks.. the only film that looked worse than K-40 was 7420.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So Phil Rhodes says Kodachrome 40 is grainy, Skratch say it's muddy, and Downix claims Kodachrome 40 wasn't Kodaks biggest Super-8 seller in years!!!

 

Any one else want to jump in with innaccurate information?

 

Oh yes, Mr. Pytlak claims that Kodak portable Kodachrome processing machines were around and could have been used to process Super-8 but there was no interest.

 

I talked to the inventor of those Kodachrome processors who made it abundantly clear they would not work for Super-8.

[Nate Downes]

So Phil Rhodes says Kodachrome 40 is grainy, Skratch say it's muddy, and Downix claims Kodachrome 40 wasn't Kodaks biggest Super-8 seller in years!!!

 

Any one else want to jump in with innaccurate information?

I never said it wasn't Kodak's biggest Super-8 seller, I said it wasn't a top seller no matter what the format. Super8 itself isn't a top seller, it barely exists. Kodachrome exists on Super8 only because it does on 35mm, the Super8 stuff are the edge-cuttings that would otherwise be thrown out when they cut-down the large sheets. 35mm stops selling enough K40, Super8 looses K40, simple as that.

 

Get over yourself, this isn't some grand conspiracy to deprive you of your film, it's just that the market has moved beyond Kodachrome. Sure, I'll miss it. But I'm not enough of a fool to delude myself into thinking it is some grand conspiracy to deprive you of the ability to make movies. I for one can't wait to shoot with the new E64T, if it is anything like the 35mm film version it is extremely impressive, and far more flexible than K40 ever could be. It opens up new opportunities for students to learn the fine art of filmmaking, opens up new options for those of us who still shoot with reversal. Heck, you were the guy demanding that Kodak put Vision 50T into Super8 when no such filmstock even exists, and you're talking about inaccurate information? The worst thing is, once corrected, you still insist on it.

 

You're a good guy, I like you, but grow up. K40 does us no good if the big-K can't turn a profit on it. Remember that, they need to make money on their film or else none of us will get any film. I've been wanting an E6 Super8 film for ages, well, I got it. And I'm glad it is coming. So buck up, we have some movies to make.

[Sam Wells]

Plus, you can shoot it (at least for now) in 16mm, maybe it's time to make the switch ?

 

I mean if you're really dedicated to this emulsion, follow it to where it is.

 

Maybe opening other possibilities as well.

 

-Sam

[Jack Honeycutt]

Unlike most of the folks here who are cinematographers, or budding cinematographers, I use K-40 in a different way. I like to film my friends & family, mail the film in to get developed, then project it on the big screen. I just *love* the BIG SCREEN. Mine is 85 inches by 85 inches. And K-40, properly exposed, looks great! My neighbors & friends have spent *TONS* of money on large Plasma & LCD screens for video. Any yea, it looks nice. But even my picky neighbors agree they can't touch the quality of projecting a tiny frame of Super 8 K-40 twenty five feet across the room.

 

The other thing I like to do with film is recover & restore old 8mm & Super 8 film for my family & move it to DVD for them. I know many will disagree with me, but IMHO I see no modern color film stocks that look as lovely as old K-II shot in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. (I *guess* it was K-II in 1950 - I could be wrong).

 

Before Kodak killed it, I shot Ektachrome 7240 in Super 8. I did not like the color. And I have looked at older Ekt film. To my eye, the only reversal film I can shoot & then drop in my projector that has the colors I like is K-40.

 

Yea, I *know* I can shoot a negative film, send it to a processing lab, pay a lot of money & have them mail me back something I can drop in my projector. But it is *way* too much money for me, and the colors don't look as nice as K-40 anyway. I suspect that many of you Super 8 folks don't project your films like I do because many of you shoot negative films. But for a guy like me, I am *really* going to miss K-40.

 

It is the last remaining film stock that looks almost as good as the old Kodak color film stocks from the past (IMHO). Sniff!

 

jack

[Patrick Neary]

>Plus, you can shoot it (at least for now) in 16mm, maybe it's time to make the switch ?

 

I mean if you're really dedicated to this emulsion, follow it to where it is.<

 

 

 

now there's a voice of reason! I have to admire Mr. Machi's dedication to K40, but I still don't understand the personal fuss over how many carts would potentially be sold per day in Hollywood....why not just go shoot the stuff as you like (and while you still can) and let the bigK worry about market share and sales and such...

 

http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/11/news/fortu....reut/index.htm

 

Coincidentally, Kodak seems to be in a bit of a transition, probably on account of their decision to discontinue super-8 kodachrome. ;)

Edited May 11, 2005 by PatrickNeary

[xoct]

I like to film my friends & family, mail the film in to get developed, then project it on the big screen.  I  just *love* the BIG SCREEN.  Mine is 85 inches by 85 inches.

 

jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Sorry to digress here, but jack, what kind of Super 8 projector are you using that fills a screen that large? I'm looking for a good projector. Thanks!