Petition against Production Stop of Kodachrome 40

[Alessandro Machi]

My question is why hasn't Yale Labs and Pro-8mm, the two major vendors for Super-8 professional processing in Los Angeles, ever set up Kodachrome processing?  Were they restricted from doing so? Is it a space issue (having the room for another type of processor besides VNF, now E6, plus ENC2 and b&w reversal)? Or did it just not seem like a good business decision for them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'm not sure this was ever answered. Yale was interested and probably still would be but the investment probably is too great at this point. It just seems that in this day and age that a Kodachrome machine could be made, made a lot smaller, and easier to run.

 

Pro-8mm didn't have the space for it when they created their processing division. The other thing was A & I in Hollywood apparently gave it a try for a couple of years. But it was really a hassle for the super-8 labs. The other super-8 labs in town had to put all of their Kodachrome on a single reel, (in a changing bag obviously), and bring it in to A & I for processing. Apparently, the results were not consistent and it was a hassle for everyone involved, that's what I heard anyway.

[David Mullen ASC]

Actually you just proved my point that young people are more likely to be introduced to filmmaking through video, and this will only increase with time. And even if they want a "film look" it doesn't necessarily follow that they would switch to Super-8 and deal with sound recording, processing & telecine issues as opposed to switching to a 24P video camera or using film-look processing. They may just want to keep shooting in video and somehow make it look more film-like rather than switch to film itself.

 

I'm not saying that's a good thing, only that Super-8 may solve the film look problem but does not address DV's advantages in sync-sound recording, better low-light sensitivity, and ability to be immediately viewed and edited without processing or telecine, and the attendant costs therein.

 

But I agree that Super-8 is a good alternative to DV when shooting a music video but only for a particular look; Kodak can't exactly put a lot of money into advertizing Super-8 in particular since it has certain quality limitations that could come back to bite Kodak on the ass if they recommended Super-8 to producers as being a "professional" format, because it really has to be shot well to come out halfway decently -- but they certainly put a lot of marketing behind reminding people to use film for professional productions including commercials and music videos.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Alessandro:

 

When I cited Kodak's development of the K-LAB processing system, it was as an example of Kodak funding recent significant R&D to support laboratories who wanted to process KODACHROME films. You had erroneously claimed that Kodak has not supported outside labs in processing KODACHROME films. I don't recall claiming that the K-LAB machine was intended for Super-8.

 

I specifically mentioned Mr. Ken Richter as an example of a professional filmmaker who DID use KODACHROME film for its unique "look" and properties. However, he usually projected his spliced camera originals when he presented his travelogs, where KODACHROME film was an appropriate choice. As others here have mentioned, a projection contrast reversal film like KODACHROME film is NOT the best choice when you need to carry it through a duplicating system to make prints, or transfer it to video or Digital Intermediate.

 

It can be argued that introducing films like E64T for Super-8 actually will help INCREASE the use of Super-8 for the following reasons:

 

1. Labs are more likely to offer Super-8 E-6 processing with existing machines than to finally install a K-14 process for Super-8. Nothing prevents labs from offering a mailer service, or for retailers like Wal-Mart or photo shops to work with E-6 labs to offer convenient drop-off processing services.

 

2. E-6 films can be processed at home, since the process is relatively simple and readily available for the home market.

 

3. The E-6 films can be custom processed to achieve unique "looks", with techniques like push, pull, and cross-processing available. Because of the rem-jet and lack of integral dye-forming couplers, KODACHROME could only be processed in the K-14 process.

 

4. Kodak continues to support the Super-8 format with the availability of VISION2 Color Negative films and two new reversal B&W films.

[Alessandro Machi]

Alessandro:

 

When I cited Kodak's development of the K-LAB processing system, it was as an example of Kodak funding recent significant R&D to support laboratories who wanted to process KODACHROME films.  You had erroneously claimed that Kodak has not supported outside labs in processing KODACHROME films.  I don't recall claiming that the K-LAB machine was intended for Super-8.

 

 

I'm referring to the following exchange that occured a while ago...

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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

 

It appears that Kodak didn't make an effort to "streamline" Kodachrome 40 Super-8 processing machines, the machines made in the 90's were primarily for slide film.

 

Apparently Refrema has made a Super-8 processing machine that could do Super-8 Kodachrome???

[Alessandro Machi]

It can be argued that introducing films like E64T for Super-8 actually will help INCREASE the use of Super-8 for the following reasons:

 

1. Labs are more likely to offer Super-8 E-6 processing with existing machines than to finally install a K-14 process for Super-8.  Nothing prevents labs from offering a mailer service, or for retailers like Wal-Mart or photo shops to work with E-6 labs to offer convenient drop-off processing services.

 

2. E-6 films can be processed at home, since the process is relatively simple and readily available for the home market.

 

3. The E-6 films can be custom processed to achieve unique "looks", with techniques like push, pull, and cross-processing available.  Because of the rem-jet and lack of integral dye-forming couplers, KODACHROME could only be processed in the K-14 process.

 

4. Kodak continues to support the Super-8 format with the availability of VISION2 Color Negative films and two new reversal B&W films.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have come up with a list of positives that may come from Ektachrome, including a resurgence in the amount of labs offering E-6 Super-8 processing worldwide, same day processing, and the possibility that the film "may be" an acceptable substitute for Kodachrome 40.

 

It's not knowing what we're getting with the Ektachrome 64 that is the problem. Would it hurt to have several beta testers testing the Ektachrome 64 Super-8 film stock for what it can and cannot do?

[David Mullen ASC]

Isn't it the same E6 stock available in 35mm? You could at least set up some sort of comparison between the Kodachrome 64 still film and E64T with a 35mm still camera, scan the film, and enlarge the image in Photoshop to a Super-8 area (or beyond) -- at least as a starting point. You'd just figure that K40 is slightly finer-grained than K64.

 

Although if K40 is being obsoleted, it's not like you're going to have a choice between K40 and E64T.

 

On the other hand, as long as Kodachrome 64 is sold for the 35mm still market, there is the possibility of getting it cut for Super-8 cartridges, as long as you can find the K14 Super-8 processing. It won't be cost-effective though.

 

You have to understand that Kodak isn't getting rid of K40 Super-8 because they think it isn't a good film, so proving to them that it IS a good film isn't going to mean much -- because they already know it. The reasons for its obsolescence has little to do with whether it is better or worse technically than Ektachrome.

 

Technicolor dye transfer was a superior printing process but the business model hasn't worked out for it either, which sucks, but there it is. I've been holding out hope though that some restoration company like Cinetech would like to buy the dye transfer machine from Technicolor but no doubt it simply takes up too much space for a small company to own and operate it. The same factors exist for why there seems to be little interest in some lab buying a Super-8 K14 processor and operating it. Has someone called Yale or Pro-8mm and asked them if they'd consider it?

 

They'd probably say: (1) we don't have the space; (2) we don't have the capital; (3) the amount of film we'd be processing wouldn't justify spending the money; (4) K14 is too user-intensive and we don't have the staff; (5) what if we buy the processor only to have Kodak obsolete the stock?

[Alessandro Machi]

Interesting information.

 

 

You have to understand that Kodak isn't getting rid of K40 Super-8 because they think it isn't a good film, so proving to them that it IS a good film isn't going to mean much -- because they already know it. The reasons for its obsolescence has little to do with whether it is better or worse technically than Ektachrome.

 

My goal/curiousity is to see how close I can get Ektachrome to look like Kodachrome from a grain point of view. Ektachrome 64 will be a very good film stock if it can be processed same day and kind of sort of look like Kodachrome as well.

[John Pytlak RIP]

I'm referring to the following exchange that occured a while ago...

 

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

 

 

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.

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

 

It appears that Kodak didn't make an effort to "streamline" Kodachrome 40 Super-8 processing machines, the machines made in the 90's were primarily for slide film.

 

Apparently Refrema has made a Super-8 processing machine that could do Super-8 Kodachrome???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The quotation from me that you cite confirms that I did not say the K-LAB processor was for Super-8. My point was that Kodak invested significant R&D in the K-LAB program to support labs wanting to process KODACHROME film in general.

 

Refrema and other processing machine manufacturers can make machines capable of processing K-14. Kodak was not the only vendor of processing machines.

[Sam Wells]

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.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How come Apple hasn't asked me if I want to switch to an Intel processor next year ? :D

 

-Sam (hey show me a 3 GHz Powerbook & maybe you can win my heart)

[Alessandro Machi]

How come Apple hasn't asked me if I want to switch to an Intel processor next year ? :D

 

-Sam (hey show me a 3 GHz Powerbook & maybe you can win my heart)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Good one.

 

Not exactly the same thing but funny none the less.

[Filip Plesha]

It is the same Ektachrome used in 35mm.

The trouble is that is has the grain of a modern 200ISO slide film (RMS 12)

because it has been developed on pre-T-grain technology. It's an older generation film and while it is a great choice for tungsten work in medium format or large format (the grain doesn't matter) it can be problematic in 35mm depending on your taste of grain.

Anyway, it does not compare with Kodachrome 64 (which I assume is similar to this super8 version of kodachrome) in grain.

 

Ektachrome 64T was the popular choice for furniture photography. Had something to do with the way it renders wood, not sure what.

Edited June 17, 2005 by Filip Plesha

[Alessandro Machi]

It is the same Ektachrome used in 35mm.

The trouble is that is has the grain of a modern 200ISO slide film (RMS 12)

because it has been developed on pre-T-grain technology. It's an older generation film and while it is a great choice for tungsten work in medium format or large format (the grain doesn't matter) it can be problematic in 35mm depending on your taste of grain.

Anyway, it does not compare with Kodachrome 64 (which I assume is similar to this super8 version of kodachrome) in grain.

 

Ektachrome 64T was the popular choice for furniture photography. Had something to do with the way it renders wood, not sure what.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

New transfer technology has gotten really good, I wonder if there might be a compromise between the amount of grain vs the amount of sharpness. Perhaps compromising a slight amount of sharpness might make the grain level acceptable???

 

Does this mean that a Vision 50 ASA stock would show less grain than the Ektachrome 64, what about sharpness comparisions between the Vision ASA 50 stock and Ektachrome 64?

[David Mullen ASC]

New transfer technology has gotten really good, I wonder if there might be a compromise between the amount of grain vs the amount of sharpness.  Perhaps compromising a slight amount of sharpness might make the grain level acceptable???

 

Does this mean that a Vision 50 ASA stock would show less grain than the Ektachrome 64, what about sharpness comparisions between the Vision ASA 50 stock and Ektachrome 64?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sharpness is connected to contrast. The biggest problem with reversal is its contrast, but that's also why it looks sharper. So you solve one problem only to gain another. And even grain is connected to contrast -- again, the contrast of reversal hides grain better. But then you have all that contrast. There's no free lunch. Even color saturation is connected to contrast!

 

You could probably make E64T look sharper, more saturated, and less grainy by making it more contrasty, but it's already more contrasty than color negative. The question is whether you are designing the film for direct projection or for scanning & telecine. A Super-8 stock optimized for scanning & telecine would be lower in contrast and not look good projected. However, the high contrast of reversal does make up for the small size of the film in terms of the impression of sharpness. Basically there's no way to design a film stock in Super-8 that meets all requirements because it's simply too small a piece of film. You need contrast to make it look sharp, but the contrast makes it a poor choice for transferring to video. I'm sure newer "smart T-grain" technology could improve E64T, but not by much. It's already slow, so the grains can't get much smaller.

 

But the best solution is just to release it ALL on Super-8: Kodachrome 40T, Ektachome 64T, Ektachrome 100D HC, EXR 50D negative, Vision-2 100T neg, etc. Then you could decide which image characteristics were best for your project. I agree that Kodak should release its two slowest speed color neg stocks in Super-8. However, I'm not saying that this makes business sense...

[Filip Plesha]

New transfer technology has gotten really good, I wonder if there might be a compromise between the amount of grain vs the amount of sharpness.  Perhaps compromising a slight amount of sharpness might make the grain level acceptable???

 

Does this mean that a Vision 50 ASA stock would show less grain than the Ektachrome 64, what about sharpness comparisions between the Vision ASA 50 stock and Ektachrome 64?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Alessandro

 

of course a 50ISO negative film would have finer grain, by far.

 

100D would have finer grain too if it is similar to E100VS. THe grain of 64T is comparable to the grain of amateur 200ISO elite chrome, so you get the picture

 

While it all may not matter in still photography so much (specially in MF) it certainly is an issue for super8

[Alessandro Machi]

Sharpness is connected to contrast. The biggest problem with reversal is its contrast, but that's also why it looks sharper.  So you solve one problem only to gain another. And even grain is connected to contrast -- again, the contrast of reversal hides grain better. But then you have all that contrast.  There's no free lunch.  Even color saturation is connected to contrast!

 

You could probably make E64T look sharper, more saturated, and less grainy by making it more contrasty, but it's already more contrasty than color negative. The question is whether you are designing the film for direct projection or for scanning & telecine.  A Super-8 stock optimized for scanning & telecine would be lower in contrast and not look good projected. However, the high contrast of reversal does make up for the small size of the film in terms of the impression of sharpness.  Basically there's no way to design a film stock in Super-8 that meets all requirements because it's simply too small a piece of film. You need contrast to make it look sharp, but the contrast makes it a poor choice for transferring to video.  I'm sure newer "smart T-grain" technology could improve E64T, but not by much.  It's already slow, so the grains can't get much smaller.

 

But the best solution is just to release it ALL on Super-8: Kodachrome 40T, Ektachome 64T, Ektachrome 100D HC, EXR 50D negative, Vision-2 100T neg, etc.  Then you could decide which image characteristics were best for your project.  I agree that Kodak should release its two slowest speed color neg stocks in Super-8. However, I'm not saying that this makes business sense...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My view is a little bit different than yours. I believe sharpness relates to how much Luminence and Chroma one has to work with based on how the film was exposed, rather than what filmstock was used. How Chroma and Luminence interrelate, aka "tango" creates the range of palette from which one can optimize the film image as it appears on video.

 

Chroma and luminence integrate as one views the footage, especially when film has been transferred to video. Perhaps this is what you are talking about, but underexposing the film original won't necessarily make the picture look less grainy if the luminence values within the film frame has been compromised in the process.

 

In many instances I find the key to the best quality video signal of a film original is ensuring that luminence levels are optimizmed for the entire image, then I go through the task of optimizing the chroma levels.

 

The contrast values you are talking about stem more from how precisely one sets the lower end of the IRE scale, the values between Zero I.R.E. up through 10-15 I.R.E.. If set incorrectly, the video copy of the film can look either foggy and gray, and not sharp, or too contrasty with color dripping off of the screen, resulting in a sloppy look overall.

 

What I am saying is it's not just the film stock, but the selected lighting contrasts that matter the most. So although Ektachrome film is more contrasty than negative stock, it also shouldn't be lit like negative stock and lighting Ektachrome more flat, it will naturally take on a pleasing, acceptably mild contrasty look.

[Alessandro Machi]

Alessandro

 

of course a 50ISO negative film would have finer grain, by far.

 

100D would have finer grain too if it is similar to E100VS. THe grain of 64T is comparable to the grain of amateur 200ISO elite chrome, so you get the picture

 

While it all may not matter in still photography so much (specially in MF) it certainly is an issue for super8

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Amazingly enough, your logical position is not necessarily the correct one!

[Filip Plesha]

I am not saying that just out of logic.

 

While I am not a filmmaker, I did see high resolution scans of 5245 (in 4K and 2K), so I get the idea of how grainy that film is considering the amount of enlargement for 4K scans.

 

So again, It is less grainy than 64T

 

After all 5245 IS marketed as being the finest grain MP film that kodak makes, and it has such reputation too among filmmakers as I can see

And 64T has a reputation of being a really grainy film for today's standards, it doesn't even use T-grains.

[David Mullen ASC]

Of course contrast and sharpness are related -- it's a basic rule that a black line next to a white line looks sharper than a dark gray line next to a light gray line. This is the principle behind edge enhancement in video. A high contrast image looks sharper than a low contrast image. A black silhouette against a white background looks sharper than someone in overal soft overcast and foggy light.

 

Low contrast images in a low resolution format always look softer than when using more contrast in lighting or in the film stock chosen. Using the same stock, a scene shot in Super-8 that has hard dramatic lighting with black shadows will look sharper than a scene shot in soft, low-contrast lighting.

 

A high contrast printing process like skip-bleach appears to "sharpen" an image.

 

Contrast and sharpness are interconnected. Color isn't really as big a factor in the impression of sharpness as contrast is. Exposure is only a factor in terms of how it affects contrast.

 

This is one of the principles delineated by Ken Richter in his article on shooting "clear pictures."

[John Pytlak RIP]

After all 5245 IS marketed as being the finest grain MP film that kodak makes, and it has such reputation too among filmmakers as I can see

And 64T has a reputation of being a really grainy film for today's standards, it doesn't even use T-grains.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

FWIW, 5245 is relatively "old' (EXR) technology too, having been introduced in 1989. Usually, the grain advantage of Kodak T-Grain technology is most noticeable in high speed films.

 

 

[Filip Plesha]

John, you said it yourself many times that 5245 Is still the finest grain film (finer than even vision2) for motion pictures.

[John Pytlak RIP]

John, you said it yourself many times that 5245 Is still the finest grain film (finer than even vision2) for motion pictures.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Correct. Pretty good for a film that was introduced over 15 years ago! 5245 did use T-Grains, but as David Mullen notes in another thread, even significantly improved technology like T-Grains have less visible effect on low speed films that are fine grain to begin with.

[Guest filmfreund]

Up to now, the signers represent the amount of 12707 Kodachrome 40 cartridges per year!

 

www.schmalfilm.de

www.smallformat.de

[Filip Plesha]

Keep on posting the count, I'm really currious how much the number is going to grow before it stagnates

[Guest filmfreund]

Up to now, the signers represent the amount of 13472 Kodachrome 40 cartridges per year! We already tested the new Ektachrome 64T and compared it to Kodachrome 40 scences. Details in the first issue of small format.

 

www.smallformat.de

[Frank Cannon]

Well I've redicovered my dad's Super 8 camera 7 years ago and since then I went through many stages of film availability. The first one I bought was a bit less than 10? and I had to go through a sign your name in black book - wait for phone call from shop, now this sometimes took up to 40 days. 5 years ago they started preordering it themselves . Of course the price went up to about 13-15 ? it still varied from time to time. The suply was not perfect, but much better than order-wait-phone call-start filming process . In the last 4 years the price started rising and went from 13? up to 25?. I asked the people who worked there why it became so expensive and they said that the demand went up ( in k40 sales that ment through the roof) and since they were the only store that sold them we just had to live with it.

Well for now things are great the price fell to a bit under 20? and it is regulary available.

 

 

There are hundrets of things, gadgets, gizmos, tools ...... that are more out of date expensive & complicated to manufacture and even have less potential users and uses than super 8 but yet you still find them in more shops!

If the comunity works for it anything can be done! :ph34r:

 

And a note to Kodak what about expanding the market to Asia? 3 billion people live there! i think a million of them would be interested in super 8 filming ;) don't u?

Edited July 1, 2005 by Frank Cannon