Meeting with Kodak's head re Kodachrome

Post by **Actor** » Tue May 24, 2005 2:25 am

LastQuark wrote:The only issue I can see everyone will not agree on is if the stock is tungsten balanced or daylight. But I do not see tungsten people aggressively campaigning against a daylight stock if it were available. Right guys?

I would definitely be against a daylight stock if it meant the loss of all tungsten reversal stocks. It would be next to impossible to shoot 100D indoors because the 80A filter required sucks up 2 stops, effectively reducing its speed to ASA 25.

Post by **monobath** » Tue May 24, 2005 3:14 am

gurra83 wrote:
Evan Kubota wrote:
"When the last expiration date is passed, in March 2006"

I thought the last expiration was 11/2005? Is there a new batch that they haven't started selling yet?
On the 2 carts i have left it says 11/2005. I think this is the European batch that is left (process paid). In america there are carts that do not expire until 3/2006. At least this is what i think.

I just bought 50 carts of K40, and every one of them say 11/2005. Not that the minor difference matters much.

gurra83 wrote: First im gone make this a kodachrome summer!!!
8)

Same here!

Alex · Post by **Alex** » Tue May 24, 2005 4:03 am

The most logical step would be to NOT tear down the Swiss lab but instead build around it.

Instead of starting over with a new lab, build a production studio, a couple of film transfer to video units, perhaps even camera repair AT THE SWISS LOCATION. Built in video transfer service would inevitably bring a return since Kodachrome is also processed there. A studio with a lighting grid means kodachrome 40 could be shot right at the location, film developed within a few hours, transferred to video, on it's way. Even if the studio shot on other formats, it still would provide a very tempting scenario in which to shoot kodachrome professionally.

Kodachrome really does have a spectacular look to it. Coors used to use it for it's product shots in the 80's and the stock rocks.

Post by **LastQuark** » Tue May 24, 2005 5:54 am

Actor wrote:
LastQuark wrote:The only issue I can see everyone will not agree on is if the stock is tungsten balanced or daylight. But I do not see tungsten people aggressively campaigning against a daylight stock if it were available. Right guys?
I would definitely be against a daylight stock if it meant the loss of all tungsten reversal stocks. It would be next to impossible to shoot 100D indoors because the 80A filter required sucks up 2 stops, effectively reducing its speed to ASA 25.

Fair enough if you do a lot of indoor shots. Then Kodak could have still use the E200 also in my signature with RMS grain of 12 (same as 64T) and can be pushed to 800 ASA! We just need to get our feet at the door and that is the E100GX.

Post by **Justin Lovell** » Tue May 24, 2005 7:07 am

if these stocks that you propose in your signature are so amazing, why is it do you think that kodak has not realeased them in a 16 or 35mm version in motion picture film?

(Or have they, if so, could you provide me with a link?)

jusetan

Post by **LastQuark** » Tue May 24, 2005 7:42 am

jusetan wrote:if these stocks that you propose in your signature are so amazing, why is it do you think that kodak has not realeased them in a 16 or 35mm version in motion picture film?

(Or have they, if so, could you provide me with a link?)

jusetan

According to Kodak, they are not "certified for motion-picture" yet. I do not know what it means. I did all the google I can and the 64T doesn't appear to be certified either. If you look at the Q&A of Kodak...

Q: What formats do you offer in EKTACHROME 64T?
A: At this time, we offer only S8. Kodak is investigating the possibility of releasing 16mm and 35mm in the future.

...there you go. 64T is not certified either.

My only qualms is that Kodak has not shown that 64T is the best choice right now for super 8. Maybe it is but they should at least demonstrated why it is the better replacement. If they did, 64T is in my signature right now or perhaps the K40 petition should not have started at all. It was very poor communication on their part.

Post by **T-Scan** » Tue May 24, 2005 9:47 am

Bob said that
was also a possibility, that the K-14 recipes are public information,
that Kodak would communicate the patent, that the chemicals needed
are widely available, and that they would do everything they could to
help.

On the other hand, dozens of labs will do E-6 Super 8 at no expense to Kodak.

Post by **mattias** » Tue May 24, 2005 11:09 am

jusetan wrote:if these stocks that you propose in your signature are so amazing, why is it do you think that kodak has not realeased them in a 16 or 35mm version in motion picture film?

the 100d motion picture film is the same emulsion as e100vs but "re-engineered" for motion picture use. exactly what that involves i don't know.

/matt

Post by **matt5791** » Tue May 24, 2005 2:29 pm

Evan Kubota wrote:"Once the Lausanne lab closes, Kodak
can no longer support their product, and so can no longer sell it."

How much sense does this crap make? None of their other films are process paid, so people use local/3rd party labs. Dwayne's has publicly stated several times that they will continue K40 processing in all gauges.

It makes complete sense - with the other stocks Kodak knows that they have any number of Quality Controlled labs authorised and endorsed by Kodak to process their products.

What he is saying is very clear. If someone opened a lab which could come up to their standards then the stock could be supported, and therefore they could make it. What they dont want is people to be offering crappy processing with the risk that customers will blame Kodak.

It is rather like a motor manufacturer would be unable to sell their products without authorised service agents to maintian the cars from new.

Matt

Post by **MovieStuff** » Tue May 24, 2005 3:00 pm

matt5791 wrote: What he is saying is very clear. If someone opened a lab which could come up to their standards then the stock could be supported, and therefore they could make it. What they dont want is people to be offering crappy processing with the risk that customers will blame Kodak.

But that happens all the time on their professional products as well as their consumer products and it has been that way forever. There are (or where before digital) thousands of labs across the country that offered E-6 processing of Kodak slide film as well as processing and printing of mostly Kodak negative (in this country). The results ranged from fine to horrible. There was no requirement that these labs toe the line on quality control or Kodak would pull the stock from its line-up. Likewise, there are labs that do a fine job of processing professional motion picture color neg and some that do a worse job. Again, Kodak has never stepped in and laid down the law about quality control and, to be frank about it, the processing of K40 in Switzerland has never been any more consistent than the processing by Dwaynes in Parsons, based on what I've seen.

More to the point, for him to suggest that Dwaynes (the only remaining K40 lab after Kodak closes shop) would not be good enough but still have Kodak secretly pump thousands of rolls of film to them under the table for processing is more than a bit disengenuous. His suggestion that Kodak would continue to offer K40 if someone built a "quality lab" is just corporate spin. Kodak knows no one is going to do it due to the cost and a lab that Kodak currently deems worthy of outsourcing K40 to already exists in Parsons, Kansas.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

Post by **Angus** » Tue May 24, 2005 4:01 pm

It seems that Kodak has made a decision, for whatever internal reasons it may have...and that they are just trying to justify it in terms of their being no lab available to process K40 in super 8 as far as they're concerned so they won't be manufacturing it.

This is wat we used to call "retconning"...making a retrospective connection between one issue and another.

The decision has been made, we'll never know why and likely if you spoke to 10 different bods from Kodak you'd get at least 10 different explanations.

My big worry is that when total sales of super 8 material drop because K40 has gone, the format might disappear within 5 years.

Not the comment about a new lab not being viable for at least 5 years...sounds like Kodak isn't at all convinced that super 8 will even exist that long

Post by **kentbulza** » Tue May 24, 2005 6:24 pm

mattias wrote:
jusetan wrote:if these stocks that you propose in your signature are so amazing, why is it do you think that kodak has not realeased them in a 16 or 35mm version in motion picture film?
the 100d motion picture film is the same emulsion as e100vs but "re-engineered" for motion picture use. exactly what that involves i don't know.

/matt

One would think that would be the addition of a rem-jet. But I believe that film doesn't have one.

Post by **ccortez** » Tue May 24, 2005 6:36 pm

matt5791 wrote:
It makes complete sense - with the other stocks Kodak knows that they have any number of Quality Controlled labs authorised and endorsed by Kodak to process their products.

What he is saying is very clear. If someone opened a lab which could come up to their standards then the stock could be supported, and therefore they could make it. What they dont want is people to be offering crappy processing with the risk that customers will blame Kodak.

It is rather like a motor manufacturer would be unable to sell their products without authorised service agents to maintian the cars from new.

I made a pretty good argument along these lines that everybody seems to be ignoring. :roll:

Kodak would be crazy to commit resources to continued production, marketing and sales of K40 if Duane's is a) standards non-compliant and b) in no way guaranteed to be in business tomorrow. If Kodak has decided that they can't make money processing film anymore, they'd be crazy to keep making a film that only one small, private niche lab can process.

But y'all don't have to listen to me...

Alex · Post by **Alex** » Tue May 24, 2005 7:42 pm

I thought that Kodak had some kind of a certification program where if a particular lab was up to Kodak specs the lab could "brag" about it in writing and in advertising.

There was the Kodak "color watch" program instituted years ago. I think labs who followed certain Kodak criteria could display some kind of color watch logo that tied into the Kodak ads.

Post by **MovieStuff** » Tue May 24, 2005 8:14 pm

ccortez wrote: Kodak would be crazy to commit resources to continued production, marketing and sales of K40 if Duane's is a) standards non-compliant and b) in no way guaranteed to be in business tomorrow. If Kodak has decided that they can't make money processing film anymore, they'd be crazy to keep making a film that only one small, private niche lab can process.

Yes but if Kodak doesn't consider Dwaynes a "qualified lab" then why does Kodak send half their film there for processing?

Roger