Ektachrome soon to be no more...

[matt5791]

Proves nothing, all we have there is somebody on another film-making forum claiming that "a fairly reliable source" told them a decision to axe VNF has almost been made.

So my question still stands.....anybody got a *credible* source for this?

Errr...in the same thread on Cinematography.com................

"Unfortunately, it is likely that Kodak will discontinue the manufacture of the EASTMAN EKTACHROME films for the VNF-1 process by the end of 2004"
Quote:
John P. Pytlak
Senior Technical Specialist
Customer Technical Services
Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, New York 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325
Cell: +1 585 781 4036
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

If you don't believe him give him a call.....

Matt

[Angus]

Apologies, don't know how the crap I missed that!

[matt5791]

VNF certainly has excellent qualities and is the best color match to K40 when used in the poorer light it's meant for.

??7240 has always struck me as having a totally different colour saturation to K40, and is still only marginally faster than K40.

I like VNF, (although I do think it is like old news reel) but if it is not economically viable to rework it or what ever it needs, then unfortunately what more can Kodak do. If they don't run as a profitable operation then ultimately super8 will cease to exist totally.

I recently used 7240 for my Straight 8 entry as this was the chosen stock.

Matt

[kentbulza]

I have no sentimental feelings for the VNF stocks. If they were replaced by 100D and perhaps a cine version of E200, I see nothing but image improvement. Hopefully this will also get Fuji to put their E-6 cine stocks out in 16mm (and 8, too, but I doubt that will ever happen.)

I suspect archivability is better too, but I don't know.

[kentbulza]

Someone at Forde Labs told me that a Kodak Rep was saying they want to phase out K-40 because of the toxic processing involved. there have been other postings here mentioning how Kodak wants to be rid of Kodachrome.

Yeah well we've been hearing that one since the 1980's.

I think this rumoured phase-out was the end of K-14 PROCESSING by Kodak in the U.S., which has already happened. It's the metals in the chemicals after processing which must be of the most concern.

If Kodachrome was not still profitable to Kodak, I think they would have already phased it out.

[Astro]

Hi
Yes Kodak are going to cease Production of VNF by the end of 2004.
Stock sales of Ektachrome have always been slow.
But the good news is that the Super-8 7240 will hopefully be replaced by the Ektachrome 100D E6 process Stock.
Kodak are not wanting to reduce the Super-8 stocks and are looking at the 100D as the next best thing.
As for K40, sooner or later it will go, But Kodak know they have would have to offer a good replacement. I think the 100D could well be the all rounder...it offers fine grain and good colour saturation....But K40 is the best stock by far...I'd be sad to lose it.
Astro

[matt5791]

Thanks for that Astro.

Even if K40 goes in the end the main thing is that it is replaced and the support for the format continues.

The worst thing for the format would be if the stocks were never changed or updated.

Matt.

[filmbuff]

Even if K40 goes in the end the main thing is that it is replaced and the support for the format continues.

Need more than just a replacement. Has to be as tight grained as K40 and has to be as cheap to buy/process. 100D is not going to cut it as a worthy replacement.

[kentbulza]

What's the RMS number on 100D? I thought it would be around 9 like K40. What is the still equivalent?

I suspect E-6 cine processing prices migh decrease due to economies of scale if an E-6 film completely replaced K-14 film.

Of course, we'd loose the most archival stock in the world, which would be sad.

[Angus]

An E6 stock would be nice since I can process that myself. I'll be sad to see 7240 go however, it certainly has it's uses - beautiful when filming such scenes as neon lights and neon-lit streets. I've always found it works a treat under artificial light, though I've probably only shot 8 cartridges of it.

[David M. Leugers]

While it will be sad to see 7240 go, meaning we lose another pallette to chose from, I am sure Kodak will replace it with something. I don't see 100D Ektachrome as a complete replacement but I suspect it may be a companion product for a higher speed tungsten balanced Ektachrome which is what we need to replace 7240. Consolidating on the E6 process will have benefits too. I will always love Kodachrome for its beauty and archival properties. It is irreplaceable as far as I am concerned unless Kodak were to come up with an Ekatchrome that matches Kodachrome for image capabilities and archival properties.

Losing 7240 is not the end of the S-8mm world. I laugh when I think how this stock has been trashed by others on this board in the past. I was glad when other shooters came forward with their positive inputs. May it rest in peace, it was much better in 16mm IMHO anyway.


David M. Leugers

[marc]

Does anybody know if the 100 D will be easier to process than the 7240?

[FILM-THURSO]

The essential requirements I feel in a replacement stock is that it will have to offer the same flexability (or inflexability depending on your opinion) as it's predecessor and more importantly it must be a PROCESS-PAID stock. It was the advantage of knowing that processing had already been paid at time of purchase that put cost worries out of my mind when I got into film. When I use other stocks processing is often held up because funds are not available for batch processing. Non pre-paid stocks often cost a bit more than twice that of K40 and if everything goes that way then many newcomers will be put off film because of cost.
I have often highlighted the advantages of K40 to newcomers in terms of it's film imaging qualities but more importantly it's less damaging effects on their funds. K40 is a work-horse film which any average working person can afford to make feature length films with.
I note that many of you work with super 8 negative stocks which suggests that although there is always descussion of cost issues, you still have better funds than Film-Thurso. We have to plan our work carefully so that as much as possible is shot on K40 and more specialist stock is used only where absolutely nessecary. Stock piling is part of our early planning but if we have to go to non-pre-paid stock we will have put advance funds in place for processing to avoid having exposed stock on hold.
If the replacement of K40 is lower resolution then that would be a backward step for amateur film. Although I make a case that resolution is not the most important concern in film making that doesn't exclude the need for high res film especially for FT as we are reprinting our material to fresh film for final screen versions. In this the master does have to be the best attainable quality to have acceptable quality on the reprint.
Also if the replacement is lower in sensativity than VNF or 160 stocks we are losing capabilty. This amounts to giving with one hand and taking with the other but we start with loss so the balance won't be restored. 100D is more sensative than K40 but lower res whilst it is higher res than VNF but lower sensative.
Last year VNF more than proved it's worth to FT when it was used to film a local event which had always been really difficult to get on K40. In fact it was always too dark on K40 even though we were filming in daylight time which was due to the nature of the location.
It would be nice if 100D could just be an additional stock to the existing range. Reversal stocks have qualities all their own and should not be excluded from use.

[FilmIs4Ever]

Video News Film was designed for telecine too. Certainly it isn't anything to write home about in Super or DR 8, but it has its uses. For instance, the ultra-low budget high school filmmaker such as myself who has no money for 7k lighting kits can really utilize the low-light capabilities that VNF provides as well as the fact that it can be edited and projected directly without bullshiting around with reversing and rebalancing it. As I recall, that test movie on Vision 200T that was on this forum a few months ago (probably still is) had terrible looking color correction, way too much magenta. Computers are no substitute for prints I think that it is easier and cheaper to use VNF if you know what you're doing and in that case it will yield decent results. Again, it's DESIGNED for telecine and direct projection, is easy to edit manually (saving a lot of money in that bad scenes get spliced out and only the final print goes to the telecine house) because it's a damn reversal, and it's tungsten balanced. Do you all know what the 100 speed E-6 shit intended as a replacement has as a rating in tungsten? It is ASA 25 or 40! I guess I'll have to start buying my 200 watt lightbulbs by the dozen. It'll be like how they used to do Star Trek back in the '60s, with 80,000 watts of light and a $1000 power bill (unadjusted of course)! Some technological advancement :roll: . . .

Regards.

[T-Scan]

As i mentioned before, Kodak sent me a reply on the issue saying there has been no decision to replace Ektachrome, they are only considering producing 5285 in 16mm. but keep shooting it anyway, VNF gets a bad rap because its compared to K-40 in K-40 situations. if you ask me, VNF has a much better look in daylight than K-40 has under tungstun. hopefully they will keep the VNF and give us the 100D, but to replace it wouldn't make common sense.