Mark Dunn

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/PCN120312_Q.pdf 100D was the only remaining 16mm. reversal stock. There has been no fast reversal since the demise of VNF. The only other options are colour neg, which comes in tungsten and daylight versions,and black and white.

Ayone looked at the Kodak site lately (not the MP section, just the kodak.com or .co.uk or whatever)? Very depressing. Only a handful of stills stocks left, and consumer film buried away in a corner without even its own heading to click on. I sold off my old stock last year as I haven't use film for 8- make that 9- years. If I wanted to buy professional rollfilm again tomorrow, I wouldn't know where to find it. Probably ebay. Where I sold it.

Not the latitude, just 2 stops of speed, so you are down to 25. 100D is the only reversal stock left and it's discontinued, so presumably you have as much as you need.

I think you are too late to get the stock. Kodak discontinued the emulsion on which the 8,16 and 35mm. versions are based in March. Prices on Ebay for what's left have gone mad. The process is no problem at the moment.

If the Ektachrome says E-6 then it's the current process and any E-6 lab can do it. Ditto the Agfacolor if it's process AP-44 as that's identical to E-6. IIRC, back then Agfa called its reversal products -color and not -chrome so do check. You can't recover colour from film processed as B/W. You could always wait and see if someone in the future resurrects the K-14 process; it's unlikely but not impossible. It happened with Polaroid, but that's a lot simpler.

Black and white is no problem and if it's no more than 30 years, nor is colour negative, as the processes haven't changed. Any professional lab can deal with it. Ilford are good for B/W but a clip test might be wise first. If the emulsion type don't mean anything to you, post some pictures of the cassettes here. As Matthew says, if it's reversal, Kodachrome is obsolete but it might be developable to B/W neg. Agfa changed their reversal process to E6 in the mid-80s. I've always use Dunns (no relation) dunns.co.uk

You could cut out the IP if you only need a few prints. The forst answer print grade should be good enough to show- after all students can't usually afford a second, which ought to be for small adjustments or personal preferences only, barring mistakes in the first.

+1. It's not on to queer someone's pitch on a professional forum. The European market could be much better, for all a North American knows. Unlessthe OP is trying to get the price down himself........

And a fortnight "handling time"? What's that about?

100D has been discontinued bu there are still a couple of expensive alternatives. Blowing up Super-8 to 16mm. would be extremely expensive. Why would you want to do that? You can cut Super-8 reversal just as well, with care, bearing in mind you are cutting original film and that splices will show somewhat.

If it says total darkness it's not on a daylight spool which would be the only exception. There's nothing in that black bag except film on a core. The original tape would have the stock specification printed on it.

from what I read that particular swallow isn't close to making anything resembling summer.

It's too bad the Kubrick exhibition hasn't been here and isn't planned to, considering he made most of his pictures here (and even gave his archive to my old college, LCP). Perhaps the curators haven't forgotten the scandalous closing of our only film museum, MOMI, years ago. Once I even managed to miss it in Gent by a couple of months.

A bit more evidence against rectified prints might be the reference in Jerome Agel's book to 'hunched backs' at Cinerama screenings. There are some extreme wide angle shots which must have looked very odd- Space Station Five interiors, some of the stuff at TMA-1, the carousel. It's like talking about some revered ancient artifact, isn't it?

Good for you. You can't even be sure of seeing it on 35mm. here anymore. I was fortunate enough to see the only 70mm. screening on January 1st., 2001, at the NFT here with a couple of Kubricks in the audience. Tickets were only £3.50 too. There is a pinkish shot in the hotel scene; it's high-key so more prone to tints, but I think it's intended.

It must be a very long time since a 'scope picture had a flat cinema release. Even TV screenings were pan-and-scan from 'scope prints.

Stanley Kubrick famously varied his practice. 'Barry Lyndon' was hard matted (using a camera gate mask) to 1.66 and SK sent a letter to every projectionist to ensure they got it right but 'The Shining', although composed for 1.85 and intended to be projected thus, was shot Academy, with no mask. 'Dr. Strangelove' was released on video with the AR varied according to the scene, having been shot in the same way as 'The Shining'.

The only way I would ever shoot Super-8 again is if I can get 50' of film that I can view straight out of the mailer for about £11, I suppose that's about $17 now, the price of my last cartridge of K40. That's not going to happen.

There's a wikipedia page about this tagged for lack of references. I wonder if the OP's Richard wrote that as well? They are measured in inches, of course.

My guess is that 100D was the same, or similar, formulation as one of the last of the stills Ektachromes Kodak canned in March so there was no prospect of the cine stocks surviving. One doesn't know why they didn't announce it then, unless they had a run scheduled.

In the interviews it sounds a bit like he's making excuses for a bad choice. Not to mention turning a 300-page book into ten hours.

$400 for a Canon 310XL is a bit cheeky, though. As to dying, I think it's being murdered.

It doesn't help you today, but I wonder if you have a claim against DHL for not following your instructions.

In macro mode, you focus with the zoom lever. The focus ring makes very little difference. The camera I have has a spring-loaded button on the lever- you zoom to wide-angle then pull up the button, whereupon the lever moves into the macro region. Move it back and it clicks back into normal zoom mode- where it clicks there is a change in focus from macro to wherever the focus ring is set.

"Expands"? What a cheek. I make that one in, one out.