Hello EKTACHROME 64T, goodbye Kodachrome in Super8

[Alex]

They said E64T will be out in August, hopefully we'll get its price before that. Anyway, up to the end of this year you'll be able to buy K40 which you'll be able to get processed at least up to the end of last year.

Now I'm VERY confused. I suggested this very thing, and was SLAMMED for having the audacity to mention the idea that Kodak at least guarantee Kodachrome sales until the end of this year.

Do you have a source for your belief that Kodachrome 40 will be in supply until the end of this year?

[tlatosmd]

Erf, sorry, gotta correct on another thing, of course processing will go on at least until the end of *next* year, not the end of *last* year.

Well, as Wittner says there are about 40,000 cartridges left in stock for Europe, and in the US Kodak will produce another batch dated mid-2006 (as I think Jürgen said here), so I guess supply will hold up until about the end of this year.

Anyway, there must be a conspiracy here. K40 has 40 ASA, it's been 40 years of S8 now that K40 is discontinued, there are 40,000 cartridges left, and the precedence case against Kodak took place around 1940 in the USA (suitable for a '40 USA!' protest slogan?)...

[synthnut]

Hia,
I recently spoke to an owner of a UK film lab that had been approached by the big yellow K to do some trials of some new stocks. The lab specialises in reversal processing and was therefore an obvious choice! Whilst engaged in casual conversation, the owner described one stock as being "beautiful, just like the old Technicolor". In another conversation, a Super 8 polyester stock was mentioned!!!! They don't really do much in the way of 8mm processing at present, but their system can cope with the gauge without too much hassle if in ong enough lengths. They knew of the demise of Kodachrome (this was just a fewdays after it was posted on this site) and seemed to have done so for some time.
My brain turned to mush (probably the strong vapours coming from the vats of chemicals, so I forgot some of the specifics unfortunatly!
I will be speaking to them again this week, so will try and gleen some more info then...

Maybe time to find dig out that old ultra-sonic splicer and forget about mag-striping!

Keep shooting the "reel" stuff!

B.

[BalsaBill]

It seems like the old Ektachrome ECO 40/25 would have been a better choice. It would work in all the cameras. Maybe wouldn't project as well but it would be great for video transfers.

I guess my Eumig Nautica w/24fps mod will just become a doorstop.

[Alex]

Not if 50 ASA negative comes out. :twisted:

[clivetobin]

It seems like the old Ektachrome ECO 40/25 would have been a better choice. It would work in all the cameras..

Actually the Ektachrome Commercial films 7255 and 7252 were ASA 25/16 but the 7252 could be pushed up to one stop and 40/25 could be adopted for the hypothetical normal new process. But: Kodak is extremely unlikely to make 7252 again as it used the hot and poisonous chemicals similar to the high speed Ektachromes, but with a different first developer and with the added soak and buffer for rem-jet removal. Reversal film is really not used any more in the larger gauges so it would be uneconomic to make it, and have a unique process for it, only for super-8.

I do agree that the film maker with less than a zillion dollar budget is better off with reversal film.

While negative might have somewhat better color and more latitude, transferring even 16mm and 35mm negative to video is a continuing battle with scratches and dirt. With negative, these flaws show as the whitest part of the picture. Negative cannot be run through an ordinary telecine.

I designed and installed the video equipment part of the original Rank and Bosch transfer suite at Alpha Cine. I recall that extreme measures had to subsequently be taken to have any chance of speck-free transfers. All film had to have extra long leaders and be cleaned at least once in an ultrasonic cleaner with full immersion in methyl chloroform. The transfer suite had to have micro-filtered air. The face of the Rank flying spot tube had to have ionized air blowing on it to keep microscopic dust specks off. An adjoining room had to be converted to an indoor waterfall to keep the humidity level high enough (even in Seattle!) to prevent static attraction of microscopic dust.

Customers and negative cutters had to be educated to wear white gloves, never touch the picture area of the film with anything, to handle it only under a clean air hood, and never let the film touch or drag on the editing table. And still it was (and is) a struggle.

Replacement flying spot tubes for the Rank cost $7,000 (the last I heard which has been quite a while) and do not last long. The technician to keep it working is expensive and the machine needs constant tweaking.

This is why reversal film can be copied to video for 11 cents a foot, while negative costs hundreds of dollars per operating hour.

[etimh]

I recall that extreme measures had to subsequently be taken to have any chance of speck-free transfers. All film had to have extra long leaders and be cleaned at least once in an ultrasonic cleaner with full immersion in methyl chloroform. The transfer suite had to have micro-filtered air. The face of the Rank flying spot tube had to have ionized air blowing on it to keep microscopic dust specks off. An adjoining room had to be converted to an indoor waterfall to keep the humidity level high enough (even in Seattle!) to prevent static attraction of microscopic dust.

Customers and negative cutters had to be educated to wear white gloves, never touch the picture area of the film with anything, to handle it only under a clean air hood, and never let the film touch or drag on the editing table. And still it was (and is) a struggle.

This is hilarious. Somewhere Brakhage is laughing his ass off at all of this. :lol:

Tim