Kodak to Reintroduce Ektachrome Film Stock?

[Ian Partridge]

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/Press_center/Kodak_Brings_Back_a_Classic_with_EKTACHROME_Film/default.htm

I have lately been reading Richard W. Haines' History of Dye Transfer
Printing.

About how Technicolor new management gave up the IB tech process misreading
the market demand for prints which were only profitable above a run of 75
copies, when in fact print orders increased to upwards of 1,500 copies.

Ian

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Ian Partridge
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/Press_center/Kodak_Brings_Back_a_Classic_with_EKTACHROME_Film/default.htm
I have lately been reading Richard W. Haines' History of Dye Transfer
Printing.
About how Technicolor new management gave up the IB tech process misreading
the market demand for prints which were only profitable above a run of 75
copies, when in fact print orders increased to upwards of 1,500 copies.

Well, we got a bunch of factors going into this one.

First of all, Kodak is not able to make small production runs. They don't
have any small alleys left anymore, they were all bulldozed in the 1980s
when Kodak management was convinced that production would keep going up and
up. So all Kodak can do is produce one jumbo at a time, and a jumbo turns
into a whole lot of 35mm still rolls. They then have to be able to sell all
of that film before it goes out of date.

One strategy for this is to cut the film into as many formats as possible
and sell the same emulsion into as many markets as possible. Once you have
made a jumbo, there's no reason not to make 16mm, 35mm, 120, and 4x5 all
from the same film (assuming the customer can live with the sheet film being
annoyingly thin-based).

But... the thing is that nobody really knows what the market is. It's likely
not as big as the market for Kodachrome would be. And by making a slide film
Kodak is going into competition with Fuji and (hopefully soon) Ferrania. So
they have to make a better product, or they have to make the product in formats
that the competition doesn't have, or they have to make a new and different
product that the competition doesn't have.

If I were Kodak I would considering building a small pilot-plant-sized alley
back like Building 7 where the RAR films used to be made in small batches, or
like Ferrania is trying to start up today. Because there is a lot of demand
for film out there, but it's all fragmented: people want a little bit of each
of a lot of kinds of material.
--scott

Post by Ian Partridge
Ian

[Ian Partridge]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Ian Partridge
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/Press_center/Kodak_Brings_Back_a_Classic_with_EKTACHROME_Film/default.htm
I have lately been reading Richard W. Haines' History of Dye Transfer
Printing.
About how Technicolor new management gave up the IB tech process misreading
the market demand for prints which were only profitable above a run of 75
copies, when in fact print orders increased to upwards of 1,500 copies.

Well, we got a bunch of factors going into this one.
First of all, Kodak is not able to make small production runs. They don't
have any small alleys left anymore, they were all bulldozed in the 1980s
when Kodak management was convinced that production would keep going up and
up. So all Kodak can do is produce one jumbo at a time, and a jumbo turns
into a whole lot of 35mm still rolls. They then have to be able to sell all
of that film before it goes out of date.
One strategy for this is to cut the film into as many formats as possible
and sell the same emulsion into as many markets as possible. Once you have
made a jumbo, there's no reason not to make 16mm, 35mm, 120, and 4x5 all
from the same film (assuming the customer can live with the sheet film being
annoyingly thin-based).
But... the thing is that nobody really knows what the market is. It's likely
not as big as the market for Kodachrome would be. And by making a slide film
Kodak is going into competition with Fuji and (hopefully soon) Ferrania.
So
they have to make a better product, or they have to make the product in formats
that the competition doesn't have, or they have to make a new and different
product that the competition doesn't have.
If I were Kodak I would considering building a small pilot-plant-sized alley
back like Building 7 where the RAR films used to be made in small batches, or
like Ferrania is trying to start up today. Because there is a lot of demand
for film out there, but it's all fragmented: people want a little bit of each
of a lot of kinds of material.
--scott

Scott, Yes. I can see the sense of splitting into multiple formats if they
have to manufacture and shift miles of film.

I had no idea Kodak had stopped making Ektachrome until I saw the link. It
was good to take a roll of medium format Ektachrome transparencies to the
local 'Q Lab' for processing and flatbed scan the images to digital files.
Then a quality digital camera became affordable so, like everyone, I used
this instead of film.

Ian

Post by Scott Dorsey
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Ian Partridge
I had no idea Kodak had stopped making Ektachrome until I saw the link. It
was good to take a roll of medium format Ektachrome transparencies to the
local 'Q Lab' for processing and flatbed scan the images to digital files.
Then a quality digital camera became affordable so, like everyone, I used
this instead of film.

Right, and the folks shooting film are mostly doing digital post. So from
their perspective, the workflow is the same whether they shoot negative or
reversal... and because the only advantage of reversal is the particular look
of the stuff and the disadvantages are many (beginning with limited tonal
range and consequent lack of exposure latitude). So although there is a
limited market for film there is a far more limited market for reversal.
--scott

[cinemad]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Ian Partridge
I had no idea Kodak had stopped making Ektachrome until I saw the link. It
was good to take a roll of medium format Ektachrome transparencies to the
local 'Q Lab' for processing and flatbed scan the images to digital files.
Then a quality digital camera became affordable so, like everyone, I used
this instead of film.

Right, and the folks shooting film are mostly doing digital post. So from
their perspective, the workflow is the same whether they shoot negative or
reversal... and because the only advantage of reversal is the particular look
of the stuff and the disadvantages are many (beginning with limited tonal
range and consequent lack of exposure latitude). So although there is a
limited market for film there is a far more limited market for reversal.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Is Ektachrome still in production?

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by cinemad

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Ian Partridge
I had no idea Kodak had stopped making Ektachrome until I saw the link. It
was good to take a roll of medium format Ektachrome transparencies to the
local 'Q Lab' for processing and flatbed scan the images to digital files.
Then a quality digital camera became affordable so, like everyone, I used
this instead of film.

Right, and the folks shooting film are mostly doing digital post. So from
their perspective, the workflow is the same whether they shoot negative or
reversal... and because the only advantage of reversal is the particular look
of the stuff and the disadvantages are many (beginning with limited tonal
range and consequent lack of exposure latitude). So although there is a
limited market for film there is a far more limited market for reversal.

Is Ektachrome still in production?

It was discontinued in 2012, but they should be shipping Ekta 100 again soon.

Fuji never did stop making reversal stocks, and Film Ferrania is trying to
get the old Ferrania-Scotch plant in Luguria back into production making a
reversal film.
--scott

[cinemad]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by cinemad

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Ian Partridge
I had no idea Kodak had stopped making Ektachrome until I saw the link. It
was good to take a roll of medium format Ektachrome transparencies to the
local 'Q Lab' for processing and flatbed scan the images to digital files.
Then a quality digital camera became affordable so, like everyone, I used
this instead of film.

Right, and the folks shooting film are mostly doing digital post. So from
their perspective, the workflow is the same whether they shoot negative or
reversal... and because the only advantage of reversal is the particular look
of the stuff and the disadvantages are many (beginning with limited tonal
range and consequent lack of exposure latitude). So although there is a
limited market for film there is a far more limited market for reversal.

Is Ektachrome still in production?

It was discontinued in 2012, but they should be shipping Ekta 100 again soon.
Fuji never did stop making reversal stocks, and Film Ferrania is trying to
get the old Ferrania-Scotch plant in Luguria back into production making a
reversal film.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I'm amazed that Ferrania is still in business. When I was 12 I occasionally used Ferrania in standard 8 with my Kodak Brownie movie camera. It's faded badly whereas the Kodachrome is still perfect.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by cinemad
I'm amazed that Ferrania is still in business. When I was 12 I occasionally used Ferrania in standard 8 with my Kodak Brownie movie camera. It's faded badly whereas the Kodachrome is still perfect.

The old Ferrania Chrome process was actually Agfa/Ansco ball and chain
chemistry, and as such it has the stability issues of the Agfa film. If
the wash water pH is below a certain point, it's very stable, but if it
is above a certain point, it is very prone to fading. So blame your lab.

Currently Ferrania is making only one 35mm B&W film, the old 80 ASA
stock that films like Nights of Cabiria were filmed in. They're doing
BH camera perfs with cine tolerances so you could put it in your Arri,
but right now they are only selling it in still cartridges. They are
promising 35mm and 16mm cine loads soon once they get things running
a bit more smoothly.

Some time in the seventies, during the Scotch era, they moved from Agfa
to Kodak process and started making E-6 reversal and C-41 negative. (They
had stopped making cine stocks by then). It's that last E-6 formulation
that they are trying to bring back. They are about a year behind schedule
on this, though, and because of that schedule slip they decided to make the
B&W stock until they could get all the color chemistry right.
--scott

[Scott Norwood]

Post by Scott Dorsey
Currently Ferrania is making only one 35mm B&W film, the old 80 ASA
stock that films like Nights of Cabiria were filmed in. They're doing
BH camera perfs with cine tolerances so you could put it in your Arri,
but right now they are only selling it in still cartridges. They are
promising 35mm and 16mm cine loads soon once they get things running
a bit more smoothly.

Somewhat OT: why do 35mm film rolls for still cameras normally
use KS perfs? I have a pin-registered Nikon where that might matter,
but, aside from that and pin-registered slide mounts, does the perf
shape even matter for stills? I already know about the advantages
of BH perfs for film used in cine cameras, so this question is only
for stills.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Scott Norwood

Post by Scott Dorsey
Currently Ferrania is making only one 35mm B&W film, the old 80 ASA
stock that films like Nights of Cabiria were filmed in. They're doing
BH camera perfs with cine tolerances so you could put it in your Arri,
but right now they are only selling it in still cartridges. They are
promising 35mm and 16mm cine loads soon once they get things running
a bit more smoothly.

Somewhat OT: why do 35mm film rolls for still cameras normally
use KS perfs? I have a pin-registered Nikon where that might matter,
but, aside from that and pin-registered slide mounts, does the perf
shape even matter for stills? I already know about the advantages
of BH perfs for film used in cine cameras, so this question is only
for stills.

Damned if I know. I have run BH perf movie film through still cameras for
years without any problem. I know the KS perfs are stronger and don't tear
as easily but if you're worried about film tearing in a still camera you have
big trouble somewhere anyway.

Is there a cost difference between them? The dies for perforation last longer
maybe?
--scott

[cinemad]

Post by Scott Norwood

Post by Scott Dorsey
Currently Ferrania is making only one 35mm B&W film, the old 80 ASA
stock that films like Nights of Cabiria were filmed in. They're doing
BH camera perfs with cine tolerances so you could put it in your Arri,
but right now they are only selling it in still cartridges. They are
promising 35mm and 16mm cine loads soon once they get things running
a bit more smoothly.

According to IMDB The Gospel According to St. Mathew(1964) was filmed on Ferrania P.30 B/W film' The Italian equivalent of Eastman Plus X.

Post by Scott Norwood
Somewhat OT: why do 35mm film rolls for still cameras normally
use KS perfs? I have a pin-registered Nikon where that might matter,
but, aside from that and pin-registered slide mounts, does the perf
shape even matter for stills? I already know about the advantages
of BH perfs for film used in cine cameras, so this question is only
for stills.
--
Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by cinemad

Post by Scott Dorsey
Currently Ferrania is making only one 35mm B&W film, the old 80 ASA
stock that films like Nights of Cabiria were filmed in. They're doing
BH camera perfs with cine tolerances so you could put it in your Arri,
but right now they are only selling it in still cartridges. They are
promising 35mm and 16mm cine loads soon once they get things running
a bit more smoothly.

According to IMDB The Gospel According to St. Mathew(1964) was filmed on Ferrania P.30 B/W film' The Italian equivalent of Eastman Plus X.

Lots of European films from that era were. It's lovely-looking stuff, very
much like Plus-X was before 1976, or the lower-speed Orwo stock. Good blacks,
shorter toe than most modern B&W films and lovely midrange separation. You
can pick just about any Italian or French film from that era and chances are
good that it was shot on P.30.
--scott

[cinemad]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by cinemad

Post by Scott Dorsey
Currently Ferrania is making only one 35mm B&W film, the old 80 ASA
stock that films like Nights of Cabiria were filmed in. They're doing
BH camera perfs with cine tolerances so you could put it in your Arri,
but right now they are only selling it in still cartridges. They are
promising 35mm and 16mm cine loads soon once they get things running
a bit more smoothly.

According to IMDB The Gospel According to St. Mathew(1964) was filmed on Ferrania P.30 B/W film' The Italian equivalent of Eastman Plus X.

Lots of European films from that era were. It's lovely-looking stuff, very
much like Plus-X was before 1976, or the lower-speed Orwo stock. Good blacks,
shorter toe than most modern B&W films and lovely midrange separation. You
can pick just about any Italian or French film from that era and chances are
good that it was shot on P.30.
--scott

Ferrania have just released a 35mm still film version of the P30 film.
It is called ALPHA P30 and was released in February 2017.
By the way what did KODAK do to change Plus X in 1976?

Post by Scott Dorsey
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by cinemad

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by cinemad

Post by Scott Dorsey
Currently Ferrania is making only one 35mm B&W film, the old 80 ASA
stock that films like Nights of Cabiria were filmed in. They're doing
BH camera perfs with cine tolerances so you could put it in your Arri,
but right now they are only selling it in still cartridges. They are
promising 35mm and 16mm cine loads soon once they get things running
a bit more smoothly.

According to IMDB The Gospel According to St. Mathew(1964) was filmed on Ferrania P.30 B/W film' The Italian equivalent of Eastman Plus X.

Lots of European films from that era were. It's lovely-looking stuff, very
much like Plus-X was before 1976, or the lower-speed Orwo stock. Good blacks,
shorter toe than most modern B&W films and lovely midrange separation. You
can pick just about any Italian or French film from that era and chances are
good that it was shot on P.30.

Ferrania have just released a 35mm still film version of the P30 film.
It is called ALPHA P30 and was released in February 2017.

Yes, that's what I said at the top of this message. Although they are only
selling it in still cartridges, it has BH perfs with cine tolerances so a
long roll should be available soon.

Post by cinemad
By the way what did KODAK do to change Plus X in 1976?

Oh, God. Don't remind me. When silver prices increased nearly tenfold due
to the Hunt brothers nearly cornering the silver market, Kodak dropped most
of their lower-cost high-silver materials (like Kodabromide paper), and
reformulated a lot of others (like Tri-X and Plus-X) to have much lower silver
content. It was the worst thing that ever happened to photography.
--scott

[cinemad]

Post by Ian Partridge
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/Press_center/Kodak_Brings_Back_a_Classic_with_EKTACHROME_Film/default.htm
I have lately been reading Richard W. Haines' History of Dye Transfer
Printing.
About how Technicolor new management gave up the IB tech process misreading
the market demand for prints which were only profitable above a run of 75
copies, when in fact print orders increased to upwards of 1,500 copies.
Ian

I notice that the main titles actually state that the film is filmed on Ferrania P.30 film.
Have there been any American that has Eastman Plus X in the main titles?