Todd Anderson

I think that would be a great compromise that most of us could live with, Tim. If they could keep 5222 for the 35mm crowd, but keep 7231 for the 16mm crowd, that would make sense. If we get nowhere with our first fight, perhaps more letters could stress the importance of 7231 over 7222 for just the 16mm crowd. Unfortunately, it would seem they would cut the 16mm from the same master rolls as the 35mm. But maybe there is a way... Todd

Hey Tim. Great write up over at filmshooting.com. If we can branch out even further beyond the cine enthusiast sites, that would be great, too. I think I am going to post something even as far fetched as the forum over at Criterion.com How about Flickr and some of the still camera sites? If Plus-X motion is going, maybe still is next on the list. Get those people motivated. Get them to follow the thread and watch for an upcoming date for a physical protest. Get them to send off e-mails to reps, as Tim Carroll suggests. And there are some very passionate 'name' directors based in L.A. that are hard core film proponents that could certainly help. I bet people like Spielberg and Tarantino don't even know this is going on. If someone can get a line on an e-mail address to their agents, I think there is a chance they would lend a voice. I don't think that is too far fetched. And I think Martin Scorsese and Christoper Nolan are pretty hard core film history buffs, too. These people grew up on black and white. I think it is pretty sentimental for these guys. I think we need to get Tarantino down at the physical protest in front of the Kodak building holding a sign. That should be a goal. Or at the very least, we need Tarantino to get a letter off to Kodak or into the L.A. Times. Perhaps all this is too premature, since Double-X still exsist. But my guess is that Double-X can't be too far off, too. If Kodak sees this go down without a rumble, I'm sure they won't think twice when the last B&W stock goes. Todd P.S: Tarantino just saved a small family owned theater chain in Los Angeles. I think he owns it now. It shouldn't be too hard to get the location. Perhaps we can get a copy of the petition and a letter to the management and have them forward it off. I'll drive it down if need be. Lastly, I know the cinematographer Roger Deakins has his own website and answers questions on the forum for students. Tim, how about you cut and past your words from filmshooting.com over there? Get Deakins to spread the word with some of his colleagues. Get them to send off e-mails to the reps.

Maybe someone can find out some information at the ASC: http://www.theasc.com/ I would also think that David Mullen here on the boards would be a great resource for this knowledge. Regardless, any film history enthusiast that has watched films from the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, etc., gets a sense of what we are talking about here. Any film student that is now, or in the future, being influenced by the early work of Goddard, Fellini, Bergman, Antonioni, Kurosawa, Hitchcock, or specific genere's, like Film Noir or early silent films will understand. And believe me, there will be many in the future. The fact is, as of now, if Double-X is on the chopping block next, to artistically achieve that "look" of true black and white will be forever lost. Nothing in the digital intermediate or telecine will achieve the same thing. -T

Let me know what you find out about Fuji, Colum. And Dan Hudgins over at reduser had this to say about Lucky Film in China: "If you can get enough people together to make a run someday of fine grain black and white, Lucky Film in China may be interested, I hear rumor that Kodak is selling buildings or land off they have contracted so much the last few years (anyone been out there to see what's going on?)" -T

I've respectfully asked for some help over at REDUSER. Feel free to monitor and contribute to thread below. http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43515 I would suggest other people to post on as many boards as they can. If you want to copy and paste any text from my reduser message, by all means do it. Twitter industry people. E-mail Kodak corporate. Film sites. What ever it takes. As an aside, this is a website that saved SAAB and put pressure on GM to not just sell them off at the end of last year. They got themselves heard. Perhaps there is something to be learned. They staged a bunch of protest all over the world. See link below: http://www.saabsunited.com/ http://www.saabsunited.com/2010/01/ Note: You probably need to scroll back through the archives to the end of last year to around January- February of this year to see the movement (since they are mostly reporting on current SAAB news; which is all positive) The second link above kind of throws you in the middle. Todd

As stated in another thread, we are looking at trying to organize a protest of some sort in front of the Kodak Hollywood facility (and perhaps concurrently or separately at the NY facility should be a goal, too) in a few weeks. I guess timing is probably important, so if it takes more time to generate enough interest for the event, then all the better. I guess if everyone (pros, filmmakers, amateurs, artists, educators, students and industry people) could start spreading via word of mouth, e-mail, blogging, student boards, etc., to colleagues, friends, and the such, the awareness of the the discontinuation of the Plus-X (or simply stated as B&W motion film if the point is better understood), and encourage them to send off an e-mail to Bill to add to the petition, that sounds like a positive first step. As word starts to spread, perhaps we could set a date for a physical protest. Perhaps just as important, as previously stated, if anyone has friends in the press, or contacts in the film and/or entertainment industry that may be of value to add some weight to the campaign, or can relay the artistic significance and the historical importance of the discontinuation of the medium, by all means share. There are obviously many filmmakers, artists and even just film lovers for that matter, some probably very influential and important, both in the U.S. and abroad in Europe, that are probably not aware of the matter in the least. And just as the readers of this board, they will no doubt be emotionally effected by the decision before it is too late. So I guess getting that awareness out there is pretty important. Use your contacts. The way I see it, in essence, black and white motion stock (sorry, just 5222/ 7222 doesn't cut it) and the huge legacy attached to it is being discontinued by a low profile quarterly notice as if it is just a lot of a particular line of paper towels. -T

Sounds good to me, Tim. Something like an upcoming Friday in a couple of weeks when the word starts to spread? Perhaps we should start another thread in the General Discussion forum in the next day or two to lay out a time and date. Would probably be good to get something going at the NY facility on the same day, too... I guess we should all start seeing what kind of contacts we have in the press, too. Anybody? I still can't believe it. Black and White Plus-X... all the history there. And it is just a line item on the CFO's spreadsheet he runs a sharpie through... -T

Yeah, Tom. I agree. Total BS. I bought a few 400' rolls of Plus-x today, too. I guess I'll add to that when I can. Anyone have any other ideas on how to get the word out to Kodak? It may be a slim chance to save, but it looks like petitions and blasts of e-mail to the corporate office is all we have at this point. Best to try those tactics now to see how they work since it will be the fight for color stocks in the upcoming years. Hopefully Fuji has a better business plan for what will become a niche market. -T

Bill, That sounds great about spearheading the professional petition. And I live about 25 miles outside of Hollywood. I think a phase two after the petition would be to have about a few hundred (or more if possible) people outside the Kodak Hollywood facility protesting. Of course, some form of media coverage would be very helpful. Yes. This may seem laughable at first thought (the cinematographers are a small niche of people) but I don't think it is unreasonable. If SAAB enthusiasts can save their brand, you would think film enthusiast would be able to save Plus-X... and I don't know why every ASC member wouldn't be up in arms about this a little bit.... ...and you might as well send off a letter to Spielberg's and Tarantino's manager's... maybe they'll put something in the media.... Kodak is basically killing off the link to their legacy of the golden age of hollywood with this announcement... you would think that town would care... And I completely agree, the Kodak B&W film stocks offer a texture in black and white that is a far cry from anything that is digital. That is one of films most valuable assests. I always thought that when motion film starts to get even scarcer, that black and white might be the saving grace because it may be easier to process and develop on a smaller level. With Kodak making this move... well, it is pretty depressing quite frankly. Todd Tom: Regarding your question about how long supplies will last, it may be hard to say. I would think if they have officially made the announcement it has, or is close to, already starting to be phased out at least on the production end. I think the best thing to do is to make your voice heard.

Hey Bill, If you have a specific e-mail address to corporate, perhaps it is worth while for as many people from the board to send off their concern on the matter to Kodak. Maybe we can start a new thread in the General Discussion area entitled, "Petition for non- discontinuation of Kodak 5231 / 7231", or what have you. I woke up this morning and it pretty much set it: their decision is ridiculous. Their black and white stocks are the only thing left that clearly look like classic film stocks. While the newer color stocks have great latitude, they are so clean they can verge on the side of looking digital at times. Making a Vision3 stock "b&w" at the digital intermediate stage or during telecine does not even come close to looking like 5231 / 7231. I just telecine such a test at 2K, and the results were night and day. You might as well just shoot digital and make it B&W. I wish Kodak would market "classic stocks" (5231 / 7231, and older EXR stocks, as well) as an alternative to the digital look and there own fine grained stocks. Yes, it is understood that I'm sure their stock holders are pulling the strings here. But in the end, as it is for the still market, their only market will be the film enthusiast, fine artist, hobbyists, etc. after large hollywood productions stop using film. Black and White stocks are HUGE for this former crowd. This is happening way too silent. Todd P.S.: Didn't Fuji or Ilford use to make a low speed B&W motion stock for the states, as well? Is there any other alternatives?

I just got off the phone with Kodak sales at the Hollywood location. And after a little confusion on the sales persons part, they seemed to confirm to me that 5231 / 7231 Plus-X is going away. So it doesn't appear to be a misprint. Double-X doesn't seem to be on the chopping block as of yet. But I'm with the camp that I would rather see 5222 / 7222 disappear first instead of 5231 / 7231. And I said this much on the phone (alas, just one vote) Anyhow one good with starting petitions or have any good ideas on how to relay the information to Kodak? Todd

This looks like a great deal if your next project involves shooting unicorns... http://cgi.ebay.com/Aaton-XTR-PROD-SUPER-1...#ht_4421wt_1034

"The cost saving was not an issue but the flexibility and lightness of carrying the Aaton XTR cameras with zoom lenses around the Jordanian desert became a deciding factor. The alternative was a 35mm camera with a zoom lens which was alone kilos heavier than the lighter weight Cooke lenses he was using." In the above quote, would it be safe to assume that there was an error in stating that they used Cooke (zooms?). I would think they meant Canon zooms, as the only S16 Cooke zoom was the older 10.4-52mm. Which while a fine lens, I would assume they needed the reach of the Canon long zooms (11-165mm or 11.5-138mm)?

My mistake. As has been pointed out, the price of $33,600 is for a set of "five" lenses (25mm, 32mm, 50mm, 75mm, 100mm). Not six. So, the per lens set price would jump up to $$6,720 per lens. Todd

As per e-mail for those who signed up for the newsletter (for those of you that haven't heard): "For your eyes only While you've been waiting patiently for information from Cooke, Cooke has been working diligently in Leicester, putting the finishing touches on the new Panchro. You are the first to hear this news - before it goes to press and before it goes public on our website. Therefore, you can be one of the first to pre-order the Panchro by Cooke: At NAB we showed you the drawings and promised great pricing, and we're delighted to confirm the Panchro by Cooke 18, 25, 32, 50, 75 and 100mm lenses start at just $7,400 each. A set of five lenses incorporating the 25 through 100mm focal lengths has a special price of $33,600. Deliveries begin end of 2009. You can order the lenses as a set or individually. Deliveries begin end of 2009. We are beyond mere drawings on paper. We will have the 25mm and 100mm Panchros available for viewing at IBC, Amsterdam, this September in Cooke Optics booth 11.D10. Contact Chris Brnic (chris@zgc.com) at +1-973-335-4460 for more information and to place an order. For updated specifications on the Panchro by Cooke, go to www.cookeoptics.com. If you have other questions, please reply to this email." I still hope they surprise us and make them T2.4. But I guess that may be unlikely for fear of cannibalizing their S4's. Doing the math, the set price would bring the per lens cost down to $5,600 a lens, which is pretty remarkable. Though, I wish the pricing on the single's were closer to the $6,500 range. Todd

Luke, Getting back to some advice for you (having been there before myself), I would try to see if you could hold out until you can afford an Aaton closer to the $5,500 range. You can probably even find an LTR54 for less, as it is a buyers market for 16mm gear at the moment. This is versus buying a Eclair ACL (which may be the only sync sound camera in your budget range) for the $2,000 - 3,000, then putting another $2,000 into converting that to S-16, which will put close to $5,000 anyhow. Another very good suggestion (especially if you are just finishing to DVD or Blu-Ray), would be to just buy a 'Regular 16mm' camera and letterbox your footage in post for a wide screen look. The 16mm stocks are plenty sharp with less grain these days to hold up to using less of the negative in telecine (again, assuming that you are not blowing up to 35mm, which unless you get a distribution deal to pay for that, chances are that may not be in the cards for your first feature) Instead, concentrate on telling the best story you can, and save going the full S-16 route for you next feature. Also, not only are the Regular 16mm cameras going to be a better deal (buy a good condition Eclair ACL which can do sync sound), but the high quality glass for those cameras are going to be less expensive for you, too. For instance, if you look hard enough, you can find a Zeiss MKI 10-100mm T2 zoom come up on ebay for $2,000, or a Cooke 9-50mm T2.5 lens for $1,500. Pair one of those up with an ACL for $1,500- $2,000 and you will have telecined footage that looks incredible. If you don't have the funds for one of these lenses, you can come across an Angenieux 9.5mm - 57mm F1.6-1.8 zoom for probably $500 (you may even luck out and find the HEC version of that lens for the same price). And or/ you can also find some Cooke Kinetals and piece them together for primes. In fact, if you get an ACL, there is a good bet that it may come with a 12-120 Angieneux — that while it has a bad reputation as being a coke bottle (mostly because most of them are worn out and unserviced) it is still possible to get a nice image out of that lens at a certain level. (I would suggest sending it over to Duclose Lenses and they could probably adjust and collimate it for $125). I will say one thing about the 12-120 Angieneux, that is a great portrait lens (no diffusion required) on the long end of the zoom —and sharp — with a really warm feel. And maybe you have a story that fits that particular tone of the Angenieux. Don't be bought into the hype that you always need a super sharp Zeiss lens for your story. Best of luck, Todd

David, If by 'lucky' you mean I have acquired an obsessive compulsive addiction to buying cine lenses over the last two years... then I guess I'll take that as a compliment ;-) But truth be told, I'm still shuffling some of this stuff around as to what I'll keep and what I'll hold, but there is no question that a 'sane' person would sell some of my glass off for other purchases!... but I'm not quite there yet.... Best, Todd

I've seen a few Aaton XTR's going for as little as $5,500 ebay. Though, you probably want to set aside some money for an overhaul for any used camera. Zoom lenses for S16 are about half of what they were two years ago (meaning a Canon 8-64mm that was around $8,000 prior are going for around $4,000) Because of the economy and the infiltration of RED, Super16mm is at an all time low on the used market (with some exceptions). I bought two XTR's, and a lot of glass last year at such prices. If you can hold out, there are some decent deals. There is one DP (Tony Stewart), who has listed his Aaton XTR on ebay a few times now (last time it was at $6,250 and that includes a top handle video tap, and if I am not correct, an overhaul was done recently) and I'm sure he would take $6,000 for it. I think one of the reason it hasn't sold yet is because he only has a (4) in feedback on ebay. But I bought his Canon 7-63mm and it was in excellent condition, so that listing is legit. By the way, a video tap for an XTR can cost you half that cost alone, if not more. Pretty good deal in the long run if you weigh that against a Eclair ACL after conversion and some of the headaches associated with that, along with a video tap solution, not too mention it is a much more modern camera. Todd

Thanks, Matt. I've heard a lot of great things about the Angenieux Super16mm Zooms. And I think they even marketed their 10.5 -138mm zoom as, "equal or better than the primes of the day" (there was an ad for a television show that was shot exclusively with that zoom in the early 90's). And in the back of my mind, I am curious if the Angenieux S-16mm zooms have a similar 'look and feel' to the Optimo 35mm zooms (which I love the look of). Granted, they have the older HR coatings,... but curious if they had a similar look. I suppose the only other downside to the Angenieux zooms versus the Canons is the size. The are much larger (at least the 10.5 - 138mm)! Having said that, because I came across such a great deal on both a perfect condition 11.5-138mm and 7-63mm ($4,000 each if you can believe that), I went the route of making a purchase of some Canons without trying out the Angenieux's first. Looking forward to doing some tests. Would you say the wide end of the 6.6-66mm is as sharp (or sharper?) than superspeeds? Reasonably stopped down to f4, or so? (even if it suffers from a passable amount of barreling, etc) Todd

Hi Matt, How would you compare the 7-63mm to the 6.6-66mm? And as well, how would you compare the 7-63mm to SuperSpeeds? Thanks. Todd

Stephen, How many total sets of S4's do you think Cooke has produced? One hundred fifty? Two hundred? Any indication that you have noticed looking at the serial numbers? Todd

Hi Tom. I have to agree with you about most lenses performing at two stops from wide open. And I think your point about the telecine versus print is valid, too. And while I obviously see that it would be ridiculous for a DP who regularly shoots big budget features owning their own lenses, as one would want to choose on a technical level the best tool for the job (speed, primes verus zooms, specialty lenses, etc), as well as on an artistic level want to choose the most appropriate lens that captures the characteristics, tone, and mood of the story. And that would obviously mean owing a rental house case of glass. Not to mention your point about the responsibility of the the glass "owing you" when something goes wrong in the middle of a big budget project. However, I still feel that Cooke is 'softly' catering to the RED market by getting their feet wet here. Even on their website introducing the lenses they have this blurb: "In addition many purchasers of digital cameras like Red also want a full set of lenses for an affordable price." Now that can certainly mean rental, too. But I kind of read it as an option to these few thousand other RED customers that are lining up to pay about $20,000 for a set of primes. Or the people that were paying $27,000 for a set of used Zeiss Standards on ebay. These are the people that will probably make their one set of "house lenses" work for all applications (be that of a technical or artistic merit) So I have to agree with Saul, in that I also think Cooke should step back and look at there marketing of these lens and consider the T2.3 stop. I feel they would be much more attractive all across the board. Again, I think it is more of an uncertainty on their part as to what they may do to there existing line, versus, that they can actually get an acceptable T2.3 stop out of the new Panchros. Of course, I love the look of Cooke's.... so I would still take these even if they were a stop slower over other options... and just wait around for those low cost RED HMI's to hit the market ;-) Todd

Hi Stephen, But don't you think that by leaving them just as rental lenses Cooke may be limiting there market potential for the future? I mean, who would have thought that Zeiss would have been coming out with compact primes? Why not take advantage of this 'new' market? Would you say depending on how far along the design is, would it be of benefit for Cooke to evaluate the market a bit closer and re-evaluate the speed? Maybe introduce them at T2.3—as the originals— even if there was a slight compromise wide open? Would if be fair to say that the original Panchros probably needed to be stopped down to a T2.8 (if not T4) for them to perform well. And while this is not accepted today, nonetheless, how many people still rent Super Speeds for the T1.3 stop, even if they have a different look wide open at T1.3, versus T2 and above? A better market potential introducing them as T2.3? Interestingly, there is a blurb in this article on creative cow that mentions something to the degree of, "the price point also brings the benefits of Cooke lenses to independent filmmakers, film students and documentary makers...." Now hopefully they mean 'students of film', too, as opposed to just 'trust fund kid film students'! ... http://news.creativecow.net/story/861709 . Todd p.s: And yes Stephen, that does make your 20-60mm seem state of the art! Which if you remember correctly, I acquired as well after inquiring you about yours. Did I tell you I have tracked down three original Century rehoused speed pancrhos for a fair price? A 32mm and a 75mm for $1,800 each. And a 50mm for a bit more... getting serviced now..

I'm excited about this. Where is everybody else? Stephen Williams??? The T-stop of 2.8 obviously seems like a cap as to not cannibalize their S4's. Now if Kodak is possibly sitting on a fine grain 800 speed Vision3 stock, maybe T2.8 could become the new T2? Regardless, I really hope Cooke throws out a competitive price. I know they are looking out for themselves by not under cutting their S4's, but I think at this day and age with all the new lens options coming out, not to mention the way RED has disrupted the whole ecosystem of camera and lens rentals, they would be better off to sell the lenses at closer to $5,000 a piece and sell the volume to this new "prosumer digital 35" market, and keep the S4's for the their legacy niche market (i.e. high end film production). I know that this is probably hard for them to swallow at this point, as I would think they are probably thinking of introducing them at closer to the $7,000 - $10,000 mark (half the price of the S4's), but I think the volume move, even if it means displacing the future value of the S4's, would be their best business plan for future vitality. Agree? Disagree? I also thought it was a nice classy touch of introducing them as, "Panchro by Cooke". Todd

I did some investigating into what Super16mm originated material existed out in the market on Blu-ray. I was mainly looking for some material that was 'all' Super16mm (as opposed to some of the mixed 35mm / Super16mm productions like "The Constant Gardener", "28 days later", etc, And I was looking for something that would have been most likely have been transfered on a 2k Spirit from the original negative; etc. Here is what I was able to uncover: "Life on Mars" Blu-Ray; (series one and two) Original BBC television series from a few years ago. Bottom-line: footage looks really outstanding. Shot with Panavision Primos and Kodak stock from what I understand. Probably the best current example of Super16mm on Blu-ray. "Pride and Prejudice" Blu-ray (1995) This is an older adaptation from almost fifteen years ago. I'm sure it was probably shot on Zeiss superspeeds. (It has that Zeiss 'look') Bottomline: for obvious reasons, not as 'clean' as the Life on Mars footage, but this footage looks exceptionally well. Actually, I was quite blown away. The transfer is really remarkable considering this was Super16mm on pre-Vision stock. A real eye opener on how well the scanning technology has gotten. Also, as a bonus on the P&P disc, there is even a short documentary on the restoration from the original negative. Kind of interesting. Anyhow, some good examples on anyone who is trying to sell Super16mm to producers (pick up the "Life on Mars" sets) ... or for seeing a slightly older 16mm production resurrected for the historic value / possible borderlining geek complex regarding film grain (you know who you are) ... pick up the P&P set. By the way, these titles can be purchase at Amazon.co.uk. And I'm in the US, and both titles are region free and play fine on my player in the states. That is what I have uncovered so far... Best, Todd