Petition against Production Stop of Kodachrome 40

[Nate Downes]

I'm curious John, is it possible to purchase Super8 K14 equipment still? And if so, what is the price?

 

This should shut up a lot of the biggest critics, seeing what the cost is.

[John Pytlak RIP]

I'm curious John, is it possible to purchase Super8 K14 equipment still?  And if so, what is the price?

 

This should shut up a lot of the biggest critics, seeing what the cost is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Evidently, there are several used Kodak K-LAB machines on the second-hand market for around $45K (these were designed for 35mm still film, and are not useable for Super-8).

 

New full-sized machines are likely to cost much more, and could be custom made by one of several companies that make machines for other film processes.

 

As a production machine gets old, it is often difficult to move as parts get corroded or brittle or unavailable. Large production machines are often tied to complex replenishment or recovery systems, and require bulk chemical mix facilities and the chemical expertise to mix and analyze the processing solutions.

[A.Oliver]

Why invest in k-14 processing equipment when the filmstock is not being made to put through your investment. Will kodak still offer the chemicals to process the film?

i have a nasty feeling that kodak may pull the plug on 16mm k40 next year.

Why did kodak ditch k25 in favour of k40, especially now super 8 k40 has gone, i know a lot more people who always used k25 over k40, is the 16mm k40 market a favourable one? K25 in super 8 cartridges would be rather nice, get much better results than k40.

[Nate Downes]

Ok, let's say the $45k for a used K-Lab, and if it could be made to work with Super8...

 

All of you bemoaning K40's loss, are you willing to front the cost of a lab? Dwaynes has the US covered, but it's Europe that is the primary consumer of K40 Super8, and where there is no alternative to Kodak. If one of you were to invest in a K14 lab for SUper8 (heck, throw in E6 and B&W as well), I'm fairly confident that Kodak might consider keeping K40 around for a bit longer. Put it on the table someone, and see what Kodak says.

 

I'm still more excited about 64T tho, especially now that I've solved my metering issue on the camera. I found a 1/2 stop ND filter, gel, that slides right into the filter-spot, dropping the effective ASA of 64T to 45, close enough to work.

[Anthony Schilling]

I still don't think there will be much demand for K-40 after 64T comes out.. except for the die hards, that won't break even.

[Alessandro Machi]

Evidently, there are several used Kodak K-LAB machines on the second-hand market for around $45K (these were designed for 35mm still film, and are not useable for Super-8).

 

New full-sized machines are likely to cost much more, and could be custom made by one of several companies that make machines for other film processes.

 

As a production machine gets old, it is often difficult to move as parts get corroded or brittle or unavailable.  Large production machines are often tied to complex replenishment or recovery systems, and require bulk chemical mix facilities and the chemical expertise to mix and analyze the processing solutions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Does the digital age in anyway make it "easier" to make, retrofit or modify existing Kodachrome processing equipment?

[John Pytlak RIP]

Does the digital age in anyway make it "easier" to make, retrofit or modify existing Kodachrome processing equipment?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No. Most of the issues are related to properly transporting such a narrow strip of film through the machine, and providing sufficient agitation to assure proper development. The K-LAB machine does NOT lend itself well to such modification.

 

The other issues in moving a large production machine are all of the support facilities like mix lab, replenishment systems, recovery systems, and a chemical lab and chemists to analyze the solutions on a daily basis. Compared to other processes, the K-14 process is much more complex to run and control, especially with "bulk mix" being required.

 

Old processing machines are hard to move, as with age, many of the components become brittle or corroded, and may need to be replaced (if they are even still available), which can be an issue with a custom-designed machine.

[Matt Pacini]

I'm curious.

So when this happens (discontinuing Kodachrome Super 8), do you guys just haul the equipment to the dump?

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to at least attempt to sell it all to some lab?

Since you're still making the processing juice (you haven't discontinued Kodachrome 16mm, etc.), why not just sell off the processing gear?

I'm saying this, since the reasoning for discontinuing seems to be based on the processing, not the making of the stuff.

 

MP

Edited June 9, 2005 by Matt Pacini

[John Pytlak RIP]

I'm curious.

So when this happens (discontinuing Kodachrome Super 8), do you guys just haul the equipment to the dump?

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to at least attempt to sell it all to some lab?

Since you're still making the processing juice (you haven't discontinued Kodachrome 16mm, etc.), why not just sell off the processing gear?

I'm saying this, since the reasoning for discontinuing seems to be based on the processing, not the making of the stuff.

 

MP

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As I said, old processing equipment often has corrosion or other issues that make moving it to another location problematic. Custom-built equipment may not have spare parts readily available.

 

In our research building, we have a Refrema processing machine that was converted from K-14 to run other types of processes, rather than attempting to sell it.

 

AFAIK, the "kit chemistry" for the K-LAB processor is no longer in the catalog. The processing solutions for the K-14 process can be made by the lab as "bulk mix" from the basic chemicals.

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/che...hotoChems.jhtml

 

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

[Alessandro Machi]

As I said, old processing equipment often has corrosion or other issues that make moving it to another location problematic.  Custom-built equipment may not have spare parts readily available.

 

In our research building, we have a Refrema processing machine that was converted from K-14 to run other types of processes, rather than attempting to sell it.

 

AFAIK, the "kit chemistry" for the K-LAB processor is no longer in the catalog.  The processing solutions for the K-14 process can be made by the lab as "bulk mix" from the basic chemicals.

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/che...hotoChems.jhtml

 

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I read on another forum that Refrema had two Kodachrome processing machines especially made for one of the Olympics and that the Refrema's could be modifed to run Kodachrome 40 Super-8.

[John Pytlak RIP]

I read on another forum that Refrema had two Kodachrome processing machines especially made for one of the Olympics and that the Refrema's could be modifed to run Kodachrome 40 Super-8.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So contact Refrema.

 

Getting a processing machine is only a small part of running a good processing service for Super-8 KODACHROME film. IMHO, the business case just isn't there.

[Nate Downes]

Honestly, my business-sence says that you *could* make a functioning, profitable K40 lab, but it would be a tough job and require more negotiating skills than I've seen here. And it wouldn't be terribly profitable, break-even only. You'd need something else to get it to profit.

 

Then again, someone once suggested a disposable Super8 camera, and if you packaged that with the lab, you could possibly turn a small profit after R&D costs are covered.

[Alessandro Machi]

Honestly, my business-sence says that you *could* make a functioning, profitable K40 lab, but it would be a tough job and require more negotiating skills than I've seen here.  And it wouldn't be terribly profitable, break-even only.  You'd need something else to get it to profit.

 

Then again, someone once suggested a disposable Super8 camera, and if you packaged that with the lab, you could possibly turn a small profit after R&D costs are covered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The profitablility would require at least three issues to come together.

 

A reliable processing machine with fast turnaround.

A great location with a built in target market, (such as Los Angeles, perhaps New York, Germany, perhaps England or France). I think Australia could make it work because Kodachrome would be a natural on that continent.

 

An onsite film to video transfer service.

[Alessandro Machi]

So contact Refrema.

 

Getting a processing machine is only a small part of running a good processing service for Super-8 KODACHROME film.  IMHO, the business case just isn't there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Compared to what Kodak used to do with the consumer market, of course the business case is not there. But in combination with transfer to video service and a good location, Kodachrome processing could still be profitable. The volume would not have to be that high, I think that is the point that is being missed. As long as the processed film was turned around quickly and video transfers were available, the transfer to video aspect would be the money maker.

 

As for contacting Refrema, is it possible that Kodak already has the only machines that Refrema made that could be converted to Super-8 processing?

[John Pytlak RIP]

Compared to what Kodak used to do with the consumer market, of course the business case is not there.  But in combination with transfer to video service and a good location, Kodachrome processing could still be profitable.  The volume would not have to be that high, I think that is the point that is being missed.  As long as the processed film was turned around quickly and video transfers were available, the transfer to video aspect would be the money maker.

 

As for contacting Refrema, is it possible that Kodak already has the only machines that Refrema made that could be converted to Super-8 processing?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As with any business case, it's a matter of "show me the money", with solid data -- accountants (and good business people) immediately want to know the return on investment, payback time, and cash flow analysis. "Could be..." doesn't cut it today.

 

I don't know the details of any K-14 process Refrema machines Kodak may have owned, other than the one in my building that is now running other motion-picture processes. Nothing would prevent other machines from being built, other than a lack of a good business case to get the money to finance it.

[Alessandro Machi]

The business case I would present is how many people who now shoot mini-dv with lower cost but "professional" cameras are counting the days they will shoot on HD.

 

The business case would revolve around Super-8 as a logical gateway to 16mm and 35mm in the same manner that mini-dv is a gateway for HD.

[David Mullen ASC]

The business case would revolve around Super-8 as a logical gateway to 16mm and 35mm in the same manner that mini-dv is a gateway for HD.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Photographically, yes, Super-8 is a great intro to larger formats like 16mm and 35mm. It's how I learned.

 

But filmmaking-wise, DV has been much more successful because it fits into how no-budget directors like to work, with a camera that records sound as well, where all the material can be imported into a home computer for editing with no telecine and no syncing of dailies involved. Plus you aren't limited to slow films like K40.

 

Most youngsters don't want to grow up to be cinematographers but directors, so the choice to work in film instead of video is less important to them.

 

It wasn't marketing that drove people to use DV for making movies; it was ease of use. The personal home movies market moved from Super-8 to video years ago and the filmmakers followed with the change in technology, because the cameras were there and they were easy to use.

 

Same with how I got into shooting Super-8 as a teenager -- everyone I knew had a camera in their closet being unused, and this was the mid 1970's before home video. Super-8 was ALREADY dying when I got started. I borrowed the cameras and started making movies. Now kids are using their parent's DV camera bought for shooting vacations and starting to learn about filmmaking from that, because the cameras are there. It's a natural progression, whereas NOW a move to shooting in Super-8 would be a more conscious choice by some beginner to do something unusual and less convenient, especially for sound. Now for me, personally, I think telling stories visually without dialogue is a better way to learn, but most people don't want that restriction. They want to shoot lots and lots of footage of their friends acting badly, reading bad dialogue. Maybe they'll learn to write better dialogue instead of learn to tell stories with better images, I don't know...

[Brian Wells]

I'd just like to say...

I have never seen two more helpful people than John Pytlak and David Mullen (in no particular order).

 

As for the rabid fan base of Kodachrome 40: you are the weakest link. G-bye.

[Guest filmfreund]

People starting with K40 might be great users of 16mm and 35mm in the future. That is the real business for you at this time when digital has not taken over the whole market. In Germany, all film schools use this K 40 material. Even Steven Spielberg started with Super-8 on Kodachrome. Spike Lee, Gus van Sant, Rick Linklater, directors like Jem Cohen, Matthew Harrison, Kelly Reichardt, and a host of experimental film artists not yet widely known, did their start with K40.

 

Our petition was now sigend by Hans Weingartner, the German Cannes winner of last year. More and more professors of film universities sign in and also people from the jury of the famous Oberhausen Kurzfilmtage. So it is not only a topic of those 60-90 year old amateurs (even if they use most of the cartridges sold in Germany).

 

In our petition you can see that a lot of young people (17-25 years) that just started with Super-8. They buy a cheap camera, put in the cartridge and shoot. This is their first experience. This first film makes the decision to go on with it or stop it. If the exposure is wrong (because of the 64 ASA topic of Ektachrome 64) they won't use it any more. Nobody who starts will have the idea that a Super 8 cartridge can not be read correctly in an automatic camera.

 

Well, it is not only a question of money (of course I know about the shareholders attitude at KODAK and the bad figures of the second quarter). The people just love the colors, the grain, the look, the durability of the K40 film stock. Have a look at the short comments of the other petition in the net with 2,800 signers so far. (http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?k40) The people really love this film stock. Your company has a product with a lot of emotional value. Other companies would be glad to have such a positive advertising material free of charge. May be you can not earn any money with it - but you won't loose money with it, either. If you take away this beloved film stock, many people won't buy any other Kodak products any longer. That is what a lot of German signers write in the petition - and we did not incite them to write things like that.

[Nate Downes]

Well, if you want to save Kodachrome, present a plan to do so. Kodak would love to be able to sell enough of it to keep the production lines active, I'm sure. Talk about what makes the business work: $$$$

[Alessandro Machi]

Photographically, yes, Super-8 is a great intro to larger formats like 16mm and 35mm. It's how I learned. 

 

But filmmaking-wise, DV has been much more successful because it fits into how no-budget directors like to work, with a camera that records sound as well, where all the material can be imported into a home computer for editing with no telecine and no syncing of dailies involved.  Plus you aren't limited to slow films like K40.

 

Most youngsters don't want to grow up to be cinematographers but directors, so the choice to work in film instead of video is less important to them.

 

It wasn't marketing that drove people to use DV for making movies; it was ease of use. The personal home movies market moved from Super-8 to video years ago and the filmmakers followed with the change in technology, because the cameras were there and they were easy to use.

 

Same with how I got into shooting Super-8 as a teenager -- everyone I knew had a camera in their closet being unused, and this was the mid 1970's before home video. Super-8 was ALREADY dying when I got started. I borrowed the cameras and started making movies.  Now kids are using their parent's DV camera bought for shooting vacations and starting to learn about filmmaking from that, because the cameras are there.  It's a natural progression, whereas NOW a move to shooting in Super-8 would be a more conscious choice by some beginner to do something unusual and less convenient, especially for sound. Now for me, personally, I think telling stories visually without dialogue is a better way to learn, but most people don't want that restriction.  They want to shoot lots and lots of footage of their friends acting badly, reading bad dialogue.  Maybe they'll learn to write better dialogue instead of learn to tell stories with better images, I don't know...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I agree with what you say, but it's not the complete picture. The other way to make a film is to pre-plan it and only shoot what you think you need. That's the procedure that "The Man who Met Himself" used. The film used Super-8 Kodachrome 40 film and was a finalist at this years Cannes Short Film competition, one of 9 films selected over 3,000 others.

 

Might the film have worked as well if shot with Ektachrome or Black and White, perhaps. But shooting it on film made the director work a certain way, a more educated and refined way. That is what filmmaking can teach versus video production. As I have said before, the method you describe above and the film method that is harder to teach to newbies are both equally valid methods.

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't disagree with you on the value of film, even Super-8, as a learning tool. I just don't thinking a Kodak marketing campaign is going to change the reasons why young people find it easier to start out in digital these days, and the reasons will only increase with time, not decrease. Super-8 will always be a small niche format used for special purposes by a select group of people who find value in those types of images.

 

As for K40 16mm, there are lots of reasons why it is impractical for TV production compared to color negative.

[Guest filmfreund]

Up to now, the signers of our petition against the production stop of K40 represent the amount of 11631 Kodachrome 40 cartridges per year!

 

Juergen Lossau

www.schmalfilm.de

www.smallformat.de

[Guest jeremy edge]

" I just don't thinking a Kodak marketing campaign is going to change the reasons why young people find it easier to start out in digital these days, and the reasons will only increase with time, not decrease. "

 

I disagree.

 

I met a young guy last night how came up to me and said "I heard your band is making a dvd.I would like to help and try to make a video for you"

 

We exchanged info....but the interesting thing is he told me how he and his friends just bought a $3000 sony camera and how they had all the latest pinnacle software and plugins you need to it look like film.when I mentioned super 8 he had no idea what that was.He thought I was talking about an 8mm camcorder!

 

Young people have taken to digital but they are all screaming they want the film look.They dont consider the possibility of shooting film becuase they know little about it and think the cost is through the roof. I think if more people knew how easy it was to shoot super8 there would be a huge difference.i think a marketing campaign COULD generate a huge surge in super 8 sales. Especially in that market of thousands of would be film students and future film makers who cant affor a dvx 100 yet would like to make a short film.They could buy a super 8 off of ebay for 50 bucks and lets say 15 cartridges of super a and get it transferred for less than the bottom of the barrel 3ccd mini dv camcorder. That would give them their first decent short film after practicing with mom and dad's Hi8.That may not sound like a huge money maker for kodak but you have to not underestimate the sheer numbers of these kids.

 

Just look at the sales of the cameras like the canon gl2 and xl1 .Studios arent buying them for pro stuff.People arent buying them to record the family vacation so who is buying all these $1000 - $3000 cameras? Man I think kodak could steal a lot of that thunder if they really pushed super 8 and 16mm to that market.

[Alessandro Machi]

No.  Most of the issues are related to properly transporting such a narrow strip of film through the machine, and providing sufficient agitation to assure proper development.  The K-LAB machine does NOT lend itself well to such modification.

 

The other issues in moving a large production machine are all of the support facilities like mix lab, replenishment systems, recovery systems, and a chemical lab and chemists to analyze the solutions on a daily basis.  Compared to other processes, the K-14 process is much more complex to run and control, especially with "bulk mix" being required.

 

Old processing machines are hard to move, as with age, many of the components become brittle or corroded, and may need to be replaced (if they are even still available), which can be an issue with a custom-designed machine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I just want to point out that I consider the above comment not really a fair comment (THE NOT comment in particular) since I was the one who first reported the machines could not easily be converted to Super-8 and you John disagreed with me, yet in your response above it's as if you are implying the opposite.

 

I've had my super-8 website up for two years, if anyone has bothered to click on it it's somewhat obvious I like Kodachrome 40, and Ektachrome as well. Kodak could have felt free to contact me and get any feedback from me at anytime. The ideas I have presented now could have just as easily been presented in private, and in that instance Kodak probably would have appreciated them more rather than hearing them AFTER they have already decided what to do.

 

It brings up the question, why not cruise the few Super-8 websites that do exist, (It's probably less than a hundred) and get their feedback ahead of time?

 

 

I fear that the clique of people that Kodak did contact was just not enough, because the plan was not completely ready when it was announced.

 

Do you know how Apple would have handled the proposed cancellation of Kodachrome? They would have asked those with super-8 websites to test out the Ektachrome 64 and see if it will work as a "possible" replacement to Kodachrome.

 

Those people, excited to be asked by a company like Kodak,, would have jumped at the chance to try Ektachrome AND, LIKE Ektachrome, giving it every opportunity to learn how to optimize Ektachrome so it would be a suitable replacement to Kodachrome.

 

Lets face it, Final Cut Pro has got to be the most annoying AND the coolest editing platform ever contrived. FCP- 4 was an improvement over FCP-3 (but 3.0 was very steady), but 4.5 was considered a much more stable version of FCP-4. The point is there was a gap in quality control when 4.0 was introduced that was smoothed over by the experts of FCP-4 and their websites, forums & user groups.

 

The same user group concept that Apple relies on would also work for Kodak.