Pro-8mm WINS, EVERYONE ELSE LOSES...

[Alessandro Machi]

Does it have to come to this?

 

Kodak eliminated the ONE STOCK that rivaled and probably surpassed the Vision 50 Stock, Kodachrome 40. Kodachrome 40 was the one stock that Pro-8mm couldn't get it's mitts on, they had no control over the format of any kind.

 

And just like that, now the ONLY place that gas anything that comes close to the quality of Kodachrome 40, ONLY Pro-8mm carries, and that is the Vision 50 and Vision 100.

 

Is Kodak this unwise?

 

If you want to try and wrest Kodachrome 40 away, at least offer the Vision 50, the Ektachrome 64, AND the Vision 100 also.

 

This is an idiotic move and 16mm Kodachrome 40 will also be gone. Kodak killed off the product by not even having a presence in the Los Angeles area. If they had, Kodachrome 40 would have sold like hotcakes.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Alessandro: Your "conspiracy theories" are getting tiresome. :rolleyes:

[David Mullen ASC]

I serious doubt that Kodak is getting kickbacks from Pro-8mm. Super-8 is such a low-usage format mainly used by amatuers and filmmakers with little money to spend that it's hardly surprising that it isn't high on Kodak's list of priorities. No doubt if film ever died in a war with digital, someone would blame Kodak for wasting time propping up formats like Super-8 when they should have put their efforts in the major lines of sales, i.e. 35mm. So there is no winning here.

 

As for the release of a modern E6 64 ASA Super-8 film, I don't see why that isn't proof that Kodak wants to provide Super-8 users with a very high-quality stock. I wouldn't be surprised if it was even sharper and finer-grained than K40, or at least equivalent, so that pretty much throws out your conspiracy arguments right there!

 

I'm more concerned about the loss of Kodachrome 35mm still film, which is still much more valid and practical as a shooting format than for moviemakers who have to deal with issues like telecine transfer where color negative is more suitable.

 

I don't see you daily lambasting Fuji for not supporting Super-8 more...

 

This is all about a company trying to use its resources most effectively to deal with the onslaught of digital, and certainly Super-8 is not the place to put a lot of effort, the home movies format (the reason Super-8 was developed) war long lost to video cameras, leaving Super-8 in a VERY, VERY, VERY small niche market now. The number of stocks available in the market for Super-8 are MUCH bigger than you'd think would be normal -- in most cases, a company would just offer one stock. Instead, there are a number of color and b&w stocks available for Super-8.

 

The decline of Kodachrome is not about Kodak trying to kill the Super-8 market; it's a SIDE-EFFECT, a side-show, of the general decline in the use of Kodachrome in the 35mm still market line, mainly because Kodachrome stopped being the sharpest, finest-grain, most saturated color reversal stock YEARS ago (remember Fuji Velvia 50?), leaving the reasons for photographers to use Kodachrome to decline despites its MAIN selling-point, its archivability.

 

I'm sure that if Kodak only put out its 50D and 100T neg stocks in Super-8, someone else would be complaining that they really needed the 200T and 500T stocks instead for their project and crying foul.

[Alessandro Machi]

Check out a film like Kung Fu Rascals before saying that Kodachrome was not made for Super-8.

 

Then we'll talk.

 

No low ASA negative stock for a format that legitimately needs it, it's indefensible, don't even try to defend such a move.

[David Mullen ASC]

You're ignoring the fact that 50D and 100T neg stocks ARE available in Super-8, just not directly from Kodak.

 

And yes, any history book will tell you that Kodachrome was not made for the Super-8 format, only that the Super-8 format benefitted from the stock. But with an E6 equivalent coming out, you could just as well say the same thing about that ("Ektachrome 64T was made for Super-8!")

 

Besides, it could be argued if fine-grain and sharpness are your highest priorities, then Super-8 is the wrong format for you.

[Alessandro Machi]

Sorry Alessandro, but you have incorrect information.  :huh:  In 1997, Kodak invested millions to make KODACHROME processing more available at more labs with the K-Lab program:

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/pr...abs/index.shtml

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/Zmanuals/z50.shtml

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

This is just incorrect information. I spoke to the inventor of this processing system at length and he specifically said it was NOT designed for Super-8. It might work for 16mm but most definitely not for Super-8 because it didn't provide enough agitation.

 

 

As far as destroying existing K-14 processing machines from Kodak/Qualex labs, it's likely the machines were either too big or too old for other labs to want them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Kodak regionalized Kodachrome processing in the early 90's and in the process they destroyed their own market just to make a few extra short term pennies at a long term loss. Now years later after previously having destroyed the processing machines, Kodak justfies the kodachrome 40 decision by saying there are only two labs when they singlehandedly destroyed the very processing machines themselves!

 

I used to get same day Kodachrome 40 processed on Las Palmas Street in Hollywood in the late 80's. The machine was moved to near Palo Alto in the late 80's when Qualex bought Kodak out, then Qualex moved K-40 processing to Texas and the processing was never as good. I don't think they moved the machine to Texas.

 

That K-40 processor Hollywood was known as the most sophisticated k-40 processing machine ever made, and kodak destroyed it rather keep it running. Now if that isn't a conspiracy then conspiracies don't exist.

 

 

Alessandro: Your "conspiracy theories" are getting tiresome.  :rolleyes:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

As if there have been others, please name the other ones since you used the plural in your "statement".

 

Kodak not supporting K-40 processing in Hollywood when Yale and other labs would have offered it if Kodak had cooperated is the biggest conspiracy of all. The other one is this was pre-planned years ago and even if film sales increased Kodak was going to do this anyway, that too qualifies as a conspiracy. Instead of helping the Super-8 film market grow by helping small business owners run a Kodachrome Super-8 lab, Kodak destroyed their own inventory of processors.

[Alessandro Machi]

You're ignoring the fact that 50D and 100T neg stocks ARE available in Super-8, just not directly from Kodak.

 

Which is why I titled this topic Pro-8mm wins, everyone else loses.

 

The Super-8 film you mention is ONLY offered from a lab that has no clean room and FORCES ONE to buy their processing at the same time one buy the film.

 

It's not a legitimate trade, K-40 for Ektachrome 64. Throw in the Vision 100T and definitely the Vision 50T when it's released, (but promise it's future now), and it at least gives one the means to shoot outdoors. Super-8 makes for excellent outside cinematic opportunities, but not without lower ASA options.

 

And yes, any history book will tell you that Kodachrome was not made for the Super-8 format, only that the Super-8 format benefitted from the stock. But with an E6 equivalent coming out, you could just as well say the same thing about that ("Ektachrome 64T was made for Super-8!") 

 

I'm not really sure what to make of this statement. NASA has invented many products for their space program that have turned into products for the everyday mere mortal, tempur pedic, Tang, super-glue...(Ok I'm not sure about Super-glue)

 

Besides, it could be argued if fine-grain and sharpness are your highest priorities, then Super-8 is the wrong format for you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As I said, check out Kung Fu Rascals. It's the combination of the cameras and the low ASA stocks that make Super-8 such a viable format, if Kodak wasn't busy destroying all the Kodachrome 40 processors it owned rather than make them available to labs around the country.

[David Mullen ASC]

It's not a legitimate trade, K-40 for Ektachrome 64. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How do you know? Have you shot tests? Most of the modern E6 films up to 100 ASA match or surpass Kodachrome in grain, sharpness, and saturation.

 

It always sucks when your favorite stock disappears, but it's not like you are berift of a similar option.

 

Look, why not punish Kodak and stop shooting Super-8? THAT would show them! Has it even occured to you to THANK Kodak for keeping that format alive rather than accuse them of trying to kill it? Fuji hasn't supported Super-8 in years -- why not go after them instead of the only guy still making the stuff?

[Alessandro Machi]

I hope you understand that Pro-8mm has made out like a bandit in this latest move by Kodak and that is not good for the Super-8 format and all it's users.

 

That's the title of this topic post and I want to make sure nobody loses sight of that.

 

David, would you be upset if you were FORCED to buy processing services at the same time you purchased your film stock? Would you be upset if the lowest ASA negative film stock you could purchase that carried the Kodak name and Kodak level of quality was Vision 200T?

 

If the only negative film you were allowed to buy with lower than a 200 ASA had a distinct possibility of being recans and short ends and was loaded in a non certified dust room, would you be concerned? If this non kodak certified film would reproduce imperfections at 12 times the size of 35mm dust particles and scratches, wouldn't you demand Kodak's participation in the loading process?

 

Perhaps we're not as far off in thinking as you may think.

[David Mullen ASC]

All I'm suggesting is that rather than see these companies practically left that still support Super-8 as your enemies (Pro-8, Kodak, various labs, etc.) you deal with them as ALLIES in your efforts to keep the format alive and foster some sort of positive professional relationship with all of them (because companies like Kodak ARE still made up of people... and the important decision makers there are not as many as you'd think).

 

Because if these companies sees their consumer base as being so unappreciative and hostile -- and feel constantly attacked publically -- they will eventually feel no compunction of giving up on the format completely because honestly, it is not a high-stakes, high-profit market. You are all tied by this small format, and it's silly to treat them like your enemy, because they make it possible for you to shoot in Super-8 to begin with.

 

How enthusiastic do you think the top execs at Kodak will feel about coming out with new Super-8 products if they feel that their small consumer base are made up of unpleasant, unappreciative people? If I were them, my reaction might be "screw those jerks" if they were so unwilling to understand the market issues that guide these decisions. I'm not saying that companies don't make wrong decisions, but at least they'd be more willing to admit mistakes and make better decisions if you worked with them instead of against them.

 

This is even more true about specialty products that don't have obvious large-scale profits. It's a no-brainer for Kodak to develop a new 500 ASA motion picture color negative film because that's where the main money is. Coming out with a new Super-8 product is a lot trickier to decide on and it could come down to little things like some exec wanting to work with a community of users and vendors that are positive rather than negative to deal with. In other words, you don't want to be the guy that kills the whole thing by planting a negative image in the mind of some exec who reads these posts.

 

Look at your negative reaction to 64T coming out -- someone at Kodak who pushed for that, maybe even took a career risk to push for it, trying to provide a reasonable alternative to Kodachrome, whose disappearance was out of his control, might read your posts and say "gee, I guess I was wrong -- these guys DON'T want a new fine-grain E6 Super-8 stock to hit the market. They'd rather just keep whining about Kodachrome disappearing. I tried to help them... but I don't need this crap."

 

You've got a new E6 Super-8 film coming out, two color neg stocks available from Kodak, two b&w reversals, plus almost every Kodak and Fuji color neg stock at Pro-8 -- and all you can do is complain that it isn't enough? Frankly I'm AMAZED at those options available for such a niche market format.

[Sam Wells]

mainly because Kodachrome stopped being the sharpest, finest-grain, most saturated color reversal stock YEARS ago (remember Fuji Velvia 50?), leaving the reasons for photographers to use Kodachrome to decline despites its MAIN selling-point, its archivability.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True enough, but this doesn't take into consideration Kodachrome's unique dye sets and image structure. It's more than about the superlatives "sharpest" "most saturated"

 

No I don't have a marketing argument only artistic ones and we know how far they go..

 

I will note that Kodachromista William Eggleston seems to be one of the highest profile color still photographer in the US these days....

 

-Sam

[Sam Wells]

  I spoke to the inventor of this processing system at length and he specifically said it was NOT designed for Super-8.  It might work for 16mm but most definitely not for Super-8 because it didn't provide enough agitation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Excuse any possible ignorance on my part but why would S8 require more agitation than 16mm ??

 

-Sam (who is, from another perspective, surprised Super 8 still exists at all, but doesn't see any conspiracies here)

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm only speaking technically. Sure, Kodachrome has a unique look compared to an E6 film. But one of the reasons for its decline in the 35mm market years ago was that it used to be the reigning champ for fine-grained photography with decent saturation.

 

With films like Fuji Velvia and Kodak Ekachrome 100HC, Kodachrome's uniqueness was diminished and with E6 easier to get processed, there were fewer reasons to stick to Kodachrome. And Kodachrome no longer was the most saturated film on the market either.

 

But I agree that Kodachrome has a unique look and texture, although that is best seen with direct projection. If the material has to be converted in some ways -- scanned for magazine art, telecine transferred for video, etc. the subtle differences between Kodachrome and a slow-speed modern E6 stock are somewhat muted.

 

And nothing beats Kodachrome for long-term archivability, but that fact doesn't drive many consumers these days.

 

It's odd but I think color dyes added later in the process, rather than color-coupler technology, does give you unique qualities to the color. For example, I saw a few reels of the only Technicolor dye transfer print made of "The Thin Red Line" (shot on Kodak color negative) and the projected image "felt" more like it was period 40's photography, even though it was very sharp and fine-grained, because it reminded me of Kodachrome!

 

In some ways, I miss the demise of dye transfer printing more as a filmmaker. As a still photographer, I'd miss the demise of Kodachrome film more. Because filmmaking is almost ALWAYS about copying or converting the original to another format for presentation, not about direct projection of the original. So what matters most is the end product and getting it to look the way you want it to.

 

Sure, I can understand emotionally the panic when your favorite Super-8 stock -- and the best currently available -- is going to be obsoleted and you aren't sure that the alternative (Ektachrome 64T) is going to be as impressive. If I were a big user of EXR 50D stock in 35mm and I was told by Kodak to just use Vision-2 100T because they were going to obsolete 50D, I'd be upset because without a D.I., I can't get 100T to look like 50D. However, when working with an (honestly) dying format like Super-8 (dying compared to its heyday), heartbreak comes with the territory unfortunately.

 

In an ideal world, every format & process ever invented would still be available and we'd all be free to choose b&w or 65mm if that's what we felt was needed. But we don't live in that world.

[Alessandro Machi]

Excuse any possible ignorance on my part but why would S8 require more agitation than 16mm ??

 

-Sam (who is, from another perspective, surprised Super 8 still exists at all, but doesn't see any conspiracies here)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No need to be shy, step right in.

 

That's a great question and beyond my technical expertise, but I recall when I spoke to the designer of the more portable K lab, he was saying either the agitation wasn't enough for Super-8 or some other issue came to bear that related to the size of the Super-8 film not allowing for it to be properly developed.

 

I was of the impression that it might be possible to process 16mm, but not Super-8, with these streamlined Kodachrome processors.

 

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

 

Kodak saying that there are only two Kodachrome 40 Super-8 labs in the world and that is why Kodachrome 40 is being discontinued belies many issues.

 

It was Kodak that sold off their Super-8 processing services in the late 80's when Kodak themselves owned the very best Kodachrome processing machine ever made.

 

Kodak then took thriving Kodachrome slide processing business in the early 90's and regionalized it. Slides that could be gotten processed either same day or at the very most next day now took 2-3 days.

 

Whatever profit Kodak would have realized by regionalizing their Kodachrome processing service was thwarted by all the customers who relied on a fast turnaround, and who were so pissed off they reduced their reliance on slide Kodachrome 40. So then 5 years later, after first deadening a Kodachrome market that was solid, Kodak introduced a streamlined Kodachrome STILL processing machine, BUT, Kodak had already damaged their own Kodachrome market base by regionalizing the processing five years earlier.

 

Clearly, the logical strategy would have been to offer the new processing machines BEFORE regionalizing the processing centers. But the bean counters don't ever factor in the possibility of design and innovation as a way to stay competitive.

 

Kodak didn't necessarily plan on losing their market share, they probably assumed their customers would go along with regionalized slide processing, an example of Kodak not understanding their customer base.

 

Just as now, one K-40 lab in the Hollywood offering same day processing would be doing 200-300 cartridges a day within 3 months of operation and that would continue to go up Hollywood came to rely on same day or overnight kodachrome 40 processing. But more importantly, if Hollywood would have liked the look of Kodachrome 40 Super-8, than that just makes 16mm and 35mm even more viable on bigger budgeted productions.

[Alessandro Machi]

Check out this discussion among Kodachrome slide users...

 

http://www.nikondigital.org/discuss/showfl...sb=5&o=&fpart=1

 

One particular quote of note...

 

"I shot K-25 & K-64 for years. In fact, Kodak did a video on me in their old "Visions in View" series about my use of 120 K-64 for my aerial photo work. It was an excellent film when Kodak owned the labs to process it. When they were spun off to Qualux in the early 1990's, it went to hell fast! The question today is where would you have it processed? There are only a handful (2-4) labs left that can run the K-14 process.

 

Jim Cavanaugh"

 

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

 

If you destroy it, of course the demand will drop.

[Patrick Neary]

Just as now,  one K-40 lab in the Hollywood offering same day processing would be doing 200-300 cartridges a day within 3 months of operation and that would continue to go up Hollywood came to rely on same day or overnight kodachrome 40 processing.    But more importantly, if Hollywood would have liked the look of Kodachrome 40 Super-8, than that just makes 16mm and 35mm even more viable on bigger budgeted productions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have a hard time believing that 200-300 S8 carts are being shot per day in the entire Western US, much less just K40 in LA (much less just in H'wood!)

 

those are pretty specific *figgers*, sorry, but i'm trying to figure out exactly where your market research is coming from... :blink:

 

Kodachrome has been in the critical care unit for years, i think anyone remotely involved in still photography has realized that, it shouldn't be a big surprise that it is slowly fading away, it's kind of sad, but there are a lot of other filmstocks out there.

Edited May 10, 2005 by PatrickNeary

[Alessandro Machi]

I have a hard time believing that 200-300 S8 carts are being shot per day in the entire Western US, much less just K40 in LA (much less just in H'wood!)

 

those are pretty specific *figgers*, sorry, but i'm trying to figure out exactly where your market research is coming from... :blink:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The point is there are now three labs processing Super-8 film within a 5 mile radius of each other, and NONE of them offer Kodachrome 40. With same day or overnight Kodachrome 40, all kinds of new productions would have been able to use K-40 that would never even consider it now because of no local lab to process the film.

 

Quicky tests on pre-lit stages would be a perfect environment for K-40. The bottom line is, if you don't offer quick, quality processing, the use stagnates. The explosion of mini-dv proves the market was there for Kodachrome 40 if the processing would have been available.

 

If Kodachrome sales were just 1/2 of one percent of what mini-dv use is K-40 sales would be off the charts.

[Robert Hughes]

"The explosion of mini-dv proves the market was there for Kodachrome 40 if the processing would have been available."

 

Is there any supporting evidence for this statement? It seems this argument is confusing cause and effect.

 

I suppose, following this logic, that people grow old because they stop wearing diapers.

 

PS - I just ran down to the photo shop and bought 2 x S8 rolls of K40 to celebrate film.

[Sam Wells]

But I agree that Kodachrome has a unique look and texture, although that is best seen with direct projection. If the material has to be converted in some ways -- scanned for magazine art, telecine transferred for video, etc. the subtle differences between Kodachrome and a slow-speed modern E6 stock are somewhat muted.

 

It's odd but I think color dyes added later in the process, rather than color-coupler technology, does give you unique qualities to the color.

 

In some ways, I miss the demise of dye transfer printing more as a filmmaker. As a still photographer, I'd miss the demise of Kodachrome film more.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

1. I agree in part but having seen how - with very careful printing I'd add, Kodachrome's unique look and texture CAN hold up, I think the differences can be less than subtle..

 

Scanning I don't know but I intend to try...

 

(I've always thought theultimate "torture test" of a scanning / digital post / even digital projection process would be the attempt to "clone" Kodachrome.

 

2. Agree. Both Kodachrome and dye transfer prints - how should I put it - "feel" like B&W does.

 

3. Again - although I suspect (with the Disney nature films of the 50's as precedent) Tech IB would possibly be the best way to print Kodachrome !

 

 

 

 

All in all, Kodachrome's strengths are it's weaknesses; it's unique dyes don't quite match up with anything else, what gives it beauty in the original makes for very weird flesh to neutral,

etc.

 

It's to me an 'artist material', not an 'industrial material' and is worth preserving in that sense. (Bottom line notwithstanding, Kodak does not play down it's relationship to fine art as a public stance, and it works both ways I think).

 

Can't complain per se about a new (albeit not 16mm yet) E-6 stock since I've asked for it here. I just hope this isn't "be careful what you wish for.."

 

-Sam

[Alessandro Machi]

"The explosion of mini-dv proves the market was there for Kodachrome 40 if the processing would have been available."

 

Is there any supporting evidence for this statement? It seems this argument is confusing cause and effect.

 

I suppose, following this logic, that people grow old because they stop wearing diapers.

 

PS - I just ran down to the photo shop and bought 2 x S8 rolls of K40 to celebrate film.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

If it were 1993 and I said Super-8 would be more popular in 2003 than in 1993, you could say the exact same thing...prove it. Yet, basically, Super-8 has not gone down in popularity even though Kodak does no advertising for the format in any magazine.

 

Kodak didn't do enough to encourage additional processing locations for Kodachrome 40. Kodachrome Sales will automatically be limited by the completely inadequate kodachrome 40 processing options that Kodak didn't seem to want to increase.

 

And why would Kodachrome film be popular now? Well, how about the hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of NLE systems out there ready willing and able to edit. Do you know how much time and effort has been wasted trying to make video look like film by people who edit digitally. Lets just say that most everyone who's ever edited digitally has wondered how they could make some of their digital video projects look more like film.

 

Don't you think it's possible that a quick, quality K-40 processing option would have been embraced by editors as an additional tool to add to their post production palette?

[Matt Pacini]

Alessandro, seriously, you need to:

 

1. Lighten up.

2. Stop biting the hand that feeds you.

3. Take a class or read a book on basic business and.or capitalism.

 

Companies do not engage in conspiracies against their customers IF they are making a hefty profit off them. There's simply no reason to do that, but the fact is, the Super 8 market is an extremely niche market for Kodak.

Hell, I've only shot 20 rolls or so of S8 in the last three years.

Most serious Super 8 shooters are buy a handful of 50ft cartridges every few months, if that.

That hardly compares with what people shooting even low budget 16mm or S16 films do: fill up their freakin' fridge with film!

 

So give Kodak a break. They're still supporting the format.

Six years ago, they only offered two Super 8 stocks; K-40 & Ektacrhome 160 (yuck!).

It's not the end of the world.

 

 

Matt Pacini

[Alessandro Machi]

Actually it is the end of the Super-8 world for anyone trying to take advantage of the quality that Kodachrome offered, (in the right environment of course).

 

No Low ASA super-8 replacement stock makes this decision stink.

[David Mullen ASC]

Let me get this straight: 40 ASA is low but something 2/3's of a stop faster, 64 ASA, is too fast? Aren't you splitting hairs here -- would 50 ASA have been OK but 64 ASA is unacceptable?

 

Most people consider anything under 100 ASA to be slow.

[Alessandro Machi]

Let me get this straight: 40 ASA is low but something 2/3's of a stop faster, 64 ASA, is too fast?  Aren't you splitting hairs here -- would 50 ASA have been OK but 64 ASA is unacceptable?

 

Most people consider anything under 100 ASA to be slow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am adding the factor of the smallness of the film frame to the equation. So if 100 ASA is considered low in 16mm, then a 40 ASA would be considered low for Super-8.

 

I'm really curious if there will be a run on Kodachrome and the stock will be exhausted by the end of this year even though processing will be availabe through next year. This puts me in the position of having to make a big purchase now rather than as I need it.

 

 

(Edit note) If Ektachrome 64 is able to approximate Kodchrome 40, no harm, no foul. It's the not knowing that is a bummer.

[John Hyde]

I am curious as to why Kodak chooses to make K-40 for 16mm but not super 8? This fact really make their "environmental concerns" for discontinuing K-40 in super 8 an outright lie (since they still make it in larger less environmentally friendly formats).

 

I am also bothered knowing the fact that they certainly sell enough Super 8 K-40 to justify making a batch from a roll.

 

I think this is their way of sidestepping their Ekatchrome VNF film replacement. This way they only need to make one color reversal film. - Much more cost effective for Kodak.

 

Ultimately, I see this move as more of a cut back for the super 8 line than anything else.

 

Really sad to think that Kodak so little faith in the super 8 format as a tool to get the younger generation interested in shooting film.

 

Nearly every self-serving decision they make just pushes me harder to pick up a "film look" digital camera and leave the inconveniences of film behind forever.