K40 discontinued, but when?

[mattias]

K40 is by far the most used stock.

duh, because it's the only color reversal and also the cheapest stock. i'm not saying cut it in favour of the negatives, it would have to be replaced by another reversal.

/matt

[David M. Leugers]

Why not have both Kodachrome and a new Ektachrome reversal available for us? I love the look of Kodachrome when it is done right. But it is just a tool. In the hands of the film maker, it is only good at what it does best and fits a purpose. The fact that it looks different and produces different kinds of images than other stocks is the point. I prefer choices. The big argument in my book is that Kodachrome is THE archival film medium. Like a favorite comfortable old coat, it is not the newest or even the best , but is sure nice to use once in awhile. 8)

By the way, don't fret too much that 400ft rolls of Kodachrome 40 has been discontinued. The major users of this stock was animation houses, and we all know that classic cell animation has just about completely disappeared.


David M. Leugers

[drsanchez]

In other news, Kodak is also laying off about 15,000 workers and closing processing plants all over the world. It seems they're moving toward digital.

And I like the way Kodachrome looks. I do some still photography as well as Super 8 and find it hard to shoot anything but K64 slides in 35mm. Gorgeous!

[Nigel]

I have yet to hear about the 85 in Super8...That means nothing though since my rep also told me that Kodak was only coming out with the V2 200t and not the 500. But, I will be calling her today or tomorrow for a couple big orders.

I do know that Kodak is gun shy because of the backlash from K25. Still, they need to provide people who want to shoot Super8 for more than home-movies a better selection. It is for that reason why I haven't shot more than 12 rolls of Super8 the whole year.

As for lay-offs. That is another story--Kodak has all sorts of fingers in all sorts of pies. Just because consumer sales of 35mm film is dropping means nothing.

Good Luck

[matt5791]

As for lay-offs. That is another story--Kodak has all sorts of fingers in all sorts of pies. Just because consumer sales of 35mm film is dropping means nothing.

Good Luck

Absolutely.

[Kurt8]

Why anyone who is a member of a Super 8 forum would wish for the death of K40 is simply beyond me. If you don't like it then don't shoot it but why wish for it to be taken away from those who use it? And what about its archival qualities? I don't think you'll get that with the other stocks...

Kurt

[super8man]

I second Kurt's comment whole heartedly. I mean, it's sort of like hanging out at dpreview.com and constantly trying to get people to use film.

"Aint gonna happen, ya no dog?"

Unless I happen to be at videoshooting.com by mistake, the last time I checked the whole point of websites like this is to SUPPORT film shooting. I guess that's just too logical. And besides, if you really listen to many many many points, they have all been made before, namely the pressure plate, the cart itself, the only-50-feet-in-a-cart deal, the lack of a new camera since 1982, and so on and so on. And in spite of it all, super 8 and regular 8 live.

Now excue me while I sit back and laugh at the Nostradamous (sp?) predictions of the end of the 8mm world...bring it on!

Oh yeah, go Red Sox!

[reflex]

Why anyone who is a member of a Super 8 forum would wish for the death of K40 is simply beyond me.

Why? Because processing Kodachrome is an environmental nightmare.

I suspect that Nigel will get his wish -- K40 will be discontinued, to be replaced by a new reversal film that doesn't run afoul of increasingly tight regulations.

As a case in point, one of the reasons that the Ektachrome E-6 process films were discontinued is that stabilizer solution contained formaldehyde. To comply with updated H&S regs, the concentrated formaldehyde was replaced with complex chemical buffers that slowly released minute amounts into solution. Unfortunately, that didn't completely mitigate the pollution problem.

Remember that the Kodachrome process was introduced sixty-nine years ago -- part of its magic is that Kodachrome is basically three layers of B&W emulsion where the colour dye is added in processing. This differs from most modern filmstock, where cyan, magenta, and yellow dyes are formed when a dye "coupler" reacts with color developer that has been oxidized when it develops exposed silver halide to silver. The silver and silver halide are removed from the film by bleaching and fixing, and almost all the silver is recovered for recycling.

Trouble is, the silver recovery process is more challenging with the Kodachrome process. Couple that with a 14-step developing process(yes, FOURTEEN), and Kodak has a major aqueous pollution problem.

Remember, Kodachrome (1935) and Ektachrome (1946) were introduced long before the focus on ecological stewardship and environmental pollution.

Anyone interested in Kodak's environmental initiatives should check out the Kodak Environmental Services website. http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/environ ... List.jhtml

[mattias]

Why not have both Kodachrome and a new Ektachrome reversal available for us?

i don't think there's enough room for two if they both have to find a large enough user base. if k40 was dropped people would start using the new stock and the infrastructure for it would grow, which means prices would drop and availabilty increase.

/matt

[tim]

A new reversal emulsion that had the colour, resolution and archival properites and was compatible with current camera/cartridge settings would be welcome.

An emulsion without these properties, especially one with an archive life of twenty years or so - forget it. I would certainly be loathe to use it, and so would a large proportion of the remaining amateur cine users.

The increasing pessimistic attitude of many members of this group, and the concentration on transfer rather than the joy of filming and projection must put off many potential new recruits to the format. In other words, you guys are accelerating the death of film. Who do you work for? Sony?

[reflex]

In other words, you guys are accelerating the death of film. Who do you work for? Sony?

Rubbish. I'm a "new recruit" and these guys have offered a wealth of information and advice. I suspect any pessimism stems from uncertainty about filmstock and equipment availability.

[mattias]

In other words, you guys are accelerating the death of film. Who do you work for? Sony?

sorry, allow me to laugh you right in the face: *lol*. ok, now, have you ever considered the fact that video transfer probably is the only reason film exists at all today. and as for the question whether "we" love projection or not, you need to pay your intelligence crew better.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

The increasing pessimistic attitude of many members of this group, and the concentration on transfer rather than the joy of filming and projection must put off many potential new recruits to the format.

Certainly shooting and projecting the original footage is a wonderful thing. I love it too. But there are reasons to project and reasons to transfer to video. If telling a story, cutting on video often makes for a more polished end product. Also, watching a film on television somehow "validates" a project more than watching the very same film on a home movie projector. It sounds stupid but consider a couple of true stories:

I wrote my first novel a few years ago and passed the manuscript around for people to read. Everyone had an opinion; some good and some bad. After trying to find a publisher, I decided to print paperback versions myself. The very same people that read the manuscript then read the paperback version and said I had made terrific improvements in the story, characters, plot, etc. Surprise! I had changed nothing. The fact that it was no longer in manuscript form and, instead, was in book form somehow add validation to the piece that did not exist as a manuscript.

Here's another true story: One of the members of this forum, Chas out of LA, has a wife that was using Super 8 for her thesis or something in college. She shot and edited her piece and, by all accounts, did a good job of it. However, when she set up her super 8 projector in the classroom and ran the film, it was not well received at all. In fact, the students and the teachers did not like it one bit. Now, after pondering the problem with Chas and his wife, I suggested (and they agreed) that the problem wasn't the use of Super 8 but, rather, how the film was displayed. Certainly nothing beats the quality of original projection. But the rattle of the projector and the click of the splices as they traveled through the mechanism created a very " amateur home movie" atmosphere that conflicted with her on screen efforts. It was just too much for the audience to get past. We are certain had she presented the very same film on video, it would have been accepted differently because, like the paperback version of my book, the expectations of the audience are different.

Anyway, just my two cents......

Roger

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

If telling a story, cutting on video often makes for a more polished end product. Also, watching a film on television somehow "validates" a project more than watching the very same film on a home movie projector.

I agree totally with you Roger. Who likes a rattling projektor, other than people who actually like the sound (for some strange reasons)?

And the girl in your second story would have made a much more "professional" impact if she would have presented the film on a DVD with cool menus and all, instead of an old projector.

And for all those talking about the archival benefits of K40, it cannot compete with a DVD disc that can be copied to new formats as the come. One can have the exact same quality 300 years from now on a "DVD" (or whatever they are called then), but your precious K40 will not have the same quality in 300 years...

[sunrise]

I was very relectant at joining this discussion. Surely nothing can beat k-40 in terms of a home movie projection stock or price. But this is mainly due to lack of choice. I would prefer a faster stock for my home movies, as I live in the northern hemisphere and don't get much sunlight. Let alone enough to shoot k-40.

That being said, I enjoy projecting film for my friends. It's a pleasure, but an "amature" activity. (I'm not knocking amatures, but everyone is searching for the ultimate film stock to give the best impression of their movie.)

Roger is very right about the projection part that Chas was part of. A few days ago I had a meeting at home with a band that I will shoot a music video for. During the conversation we where talking about clouds racing across the sky and I decided to show them an example. I pulled out my Eumig R2000 and started the film, but they couldn't concentrate because they where to busy telling jokes about the projector being a microwave oven etc....

Presentation is a very big part of filmmaking. And the digital revolution has certainly helped on that part. The negative stocks are perfect for that.

michael