This ECO stock proposed by Roger intrigues me. As K40 may well be doomed eventually because of environmental pressures, the need of a suitable and equally efficient (in terms of quality) stock is paramount. Though I do have a few queires about this particular stock.
Firstly, as someone had pointed out on another post, would the need for duplicating this film for projection purposes put some people off?
It is an excellent idea for the ambitious film makers among us and those who strive for the utmost quality in their super 8 projects. However, there are also many super 8 users out there who still shoot mainly home movies using this small guage format, just as they did back in the 60s and 70s. To them, I guess K40 is really the ideal and most convenient thing - an instantly projectable film. We must not forget that people like that form part of the super 8 market (though I cannot say what percentage they make up.)
Additionally, I think that also newcomers who are starting out in super 8 now have grown up in the video era and are used to instant playback technology. Some of these people may not be used to the idea of waiting for days or weeks to their footage sent off and developed instead of instant playback like video. Then, after this there would be the additional need to get the film duplicated in order to finally view it. Would this be attractive to a newcomer to super 8? I know that with some people, the 'hassle' of just simply sending the film off for developing and waiting and waiting has put them off and made them stay with video. Not me of course or anyone else on this message forum.
Another thing. This duplicating process is probably going to cost money, isnt it? Even if it is a small amount, in the long run it is going to add up, increasing the cost of shooting on super 8 film. Additionally, as most duplicating processes usually result in a slight loss of quality (as when duplicating slides) would this be feasible with a tiny film format like super 8? Any loss in quality might be quite noticeable when that tiny frame is projected on to a standard size screen magnified hundreds of times. You are not projecting the film original as is the case with K40 so the end quaity may be less than K40. I know the larger formats like 35mm can handle duplicating and multiple copies fairly well simply because of their large size.
My final query about ECO is about the thickness (or should I say) thinness of the film. As it is an Ektachrome film, would this be a similar thickness to the super thin Ektachrome 7240? I have had some poor results with that particular film stock when shooting in super 8. I have only once used the 16mm version of it and it turned out fine. The problems I had with 7240 when shooting on super 8 was not grain but sharpness. Alot of images on the projection screen looked a little soft. Someone once explained on this forum that this was likely due to the fact that 7240 is a very thin film, obviuosly not very compatible for a format like super 8 that does not have a rigid metat pressure plate.
And lastly, I would like to congratulate you, Roger for marching right out into the Kodak boardroom and addressing the needs of the super 8 community of the whole world. You are our spokesperson. Please, none of the above is meant to be negative. All I am doing is pointing out any possible problems so that they can be avoided. Its better to know all the negatives and things that could possibly go wrong just like when making up a business plan so that we can prepare fully and anticipate. If it turns out that there are no such problems then I welcome this ECO stock with open arms.
As a last thought, it would be great if Kodak could make up some samples of the ECO film stock, load them into super 8 cartridges and sent them to members of this message forum. We would then test them out, discuss the results and then send Kodak our comments about the new film stock. I know that this would never happen as the cost to make up a small batch for sample testing would be prohibitively high.
Questions about the proposed ECO stock
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
-
Patrick
I have just had a brilliant idea. Firstly, as we all know, Kodak currently make two colour reveral stocks in super 8 - K40 and Ektachrome 7240. I may be wrong about this but it may be Kodak's idea that each of these films has its own intended purposes.
Kodachrome cine film, whether in S8, R8 or 16mm format is meant largely for amatuer use. Throughout the decades many home movies have been shot on the nostalgic (and much loved by families) Kodachrome. This is despite the fact some of us on this message board shoot K40 for semi-professional use due to its fine grain - though its poor exposure latitude is obviously undesirable.
Etkatchrome, on the other hand, as everyone knows, began life as a professional film stock (available in 16mm) for news filming. It was probably Kodak's intention to aim this stock at the more ambitious of the super 8 shooters - those who use super 8 for semi-professional or fully professional purposes. This is despit the fact that at times, it gives slightly poor results.
So...to summarise - Kodak's intentions for the colour reversal super 8 films:
Kodachrome 40 - for home movies
Ektachrome 7240 - for semi-professional use
Now finally, I'll tell you about my idea. Why not replace Ektachrome 7240 with Roger's proposed ECO stock. That way, this caters for the ambitious or semi-professional super 8 users who may want their finished product on video or perhaps on film in film festivals and the like. With their creativity and ambitions, they dont mind at all getting the ECO film duplicated for a projection print which may put off the home movie and less ambitious types.
Kodachrome 40 will be replaced by another another film stock altogether. A film stock that is E6 compatible like ECO but unlike ECO, it can be projected straight away with full colour and contrast - just like Kodachrome. However, unlike Kodachrome, it will be environmentally friendly. Unfortunately, I do not have a particular film stock in mind. Can anyone think of slow speed colour reversal film stock that is available in either 16mm or 35 mm that could be suitable? Preferably one with good exposure latitude.
With my idea, there are the same number of colour reversal film stocks available in super 8 - two. So you will still have the same amount of choice rather than if 7240 was dropped altogether, leaving use with only one colour reversal film, K40 or ECO. I think that this could be a reality too - 7240 being dropped. I dont know the statistics but I would gather that the number of buyers of 7240 would not be especially high, leaving us with only one colour reversal stock.
Having replacement stocks for both K40 and 7240 would be a great alternative.
Kodachrome cine film, whether in S8, R8 or 16mm format is meant largely for amatuer use. Throughout the decades many home movies have been shot on the nostalgic (and much loved by families) Kodachrome. This is despite the fact some of us on this message board shoot K40 for semi-professional use due to its fine grain - though its poor exposure latitude is obviously undesirable.
Etkatchrome, on the other hand, as everyone knows, began life as a professional film stock (available in 16mm) for news filming. It was probably Kodak's intention to aim this stock at the more ambitious of the super 8 shooters - those who use super 8 for semi-professional or fully professional purposes. This is despit the fact that at times, it gives slightly poor results.
So...to summarise - Kodak's intentions for the colour reversal super 8 films:
Kodachrome 40 - for home movies
Ektachrome 7240 - for semi-professional use
Now finally, I'll tell you about my idea. Why not replace Ektachrome 7240 with Roger's proposed ECO stock. That way, this caters for the ambitious or semi-professional super 8 users who may want their finished product on video or perhaps on film in film festivals and the like. With their creativity and ambitions, they dont mind at all getting the ECO film duplicated for a projection print which may put off the home movie and less ambitious types.
Kodachrome 40 will be replaced by another another film stock altogether. A film stock that is E6 compatible like ECO but unlike ECO, it can be projected straight away with full colour and contrast - just like Kodachrome. However, unlike Kodachrome, it will be environmentally friendly. Unfortunately, I do not have a particular film stock in mind. Can anyone think of slow speed colour reversal film stock that is available in either 16mm or 35 mm that could be suitable? Preferably one with good exposure latitude.
With my idea, there are the same number of colour reversal film stocks available in super 8 - two. So you will still have the same amount of choice rather than if 7240 was dropped altogether, leaving use with only one colour reversal film, K40 or ECO. I think that this could be a reality too - 7240 being dropped. I dont know the statistics but I would gather that the number of buyers of 7240 would not be especially high, leaving us with only one colour reversal stock.
Having replacement stocks for both K40 and 7240 would be a great alternative.
-
MovieStuff
- Posts: 6135
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
- Real name: Roger Evans
- Location: Kerrville, Texas
- Contact:
Hi!
Okay, let me see if I can fill in the blanks. It is not likely that Kodak will actually produce the same ECO stock from the 70's. It was a funky process and the whole point here is to make processing easier. However, the characteristics of ECO are the key, I think, to maintaining super 8 into the future. ECO is a reversal film, like any other Ektachrome. However, the colors are simply muted and it has lower contrast than your typical reversal. But, because it's a reversal, it can be projected. That means someone can physically edit their project and look at it normally before having it printed or transferred to video.
-HOWEVER-
If you want something with normal projection density because you do not intend to transfer to video or pull a print, then ECO is not the thing for you as it will be too flat and uninteresting and a long way from the look of our beloved K40. Therefore, I also encouraged Kodak to look into other E-6 based stocks for projection use. I should have made that clear in my previous posting but didn't. Basically, the jest of the conversation was what sort of E-6 film stocks could Eastman come up with that would help the Super 8 community *in the long run*.
And to me, that's the real issue: The big problem to me isn't "what if K40 isn't around anymore". The REAL, most immediate danger is that there are only two labs in the universe that can handle K40. What if Kodak decides to fold their lab in Switzerland and leave Dewaynes to handle the entire Kodachrome workload? Or, worse, what if DEWAYNES decides to drop the K40 headache and leave Kodak to handle all the processing? Pretty sobering, eh?
It is my firm belief that there will still be plenty of rolls of K40 on the shelves long after the only two known labs stop processing for reasons that have nothing to do with market values. That is why I am so intent on pushing Kodak to come up with an E-6 alternative or, ideally, as adjunct to K40. In that respect, there would need to be an ECO type stock and a projection stock, as well.
That said, IF I were told,"We, the mighty Kodak, give you, Roger, the ultimate and final choice between a low con stock or a projection stock and that the future of super 8 is riding on your decision,"..... I would say go with the low con stock first. The reason? It is my belief that more people are attempting DIY telecine than are only projecting, since editing on video is easier, pure and simple. A new E-6 stock that accommodates that need would boost super 8 sales and, hopefully, make Kodak take notice. Seeing the potential of the market, perhaps Kodak could THEN be persuaded to also produce a projection E-6 stock, as well.
On the other hand, if Kodak produced a projection type E-6 stock first, it more than likely would be from some existing E-6 transparency stock, none of which have the type of grain characteristics that would satisfy die-hard K40 users. In short, early production of an E-6 replacement for K40 would be disappointing, I think, while a fine grain low con stock for video would stimulate sales in the larger market of users.
Further, perhaps the same technology required to produce the fine grain, low con stock could then be applied to an all NEW Super 8 E-6 projection stock instead of making do with an existing, grainy Ektachrome. Remember, it would be a fair investment on Kodak's part to produce a new fine grain, E-6 stock, so the pay off would need to be substantial. A low con telecine/print stock would stimulate *additional" sales to the existing K40 market while a premature E-6 replacement would do nothing as long as K40 still existed. I mean, would YOU use a different stock as long as you could still buy and process K40? So we have to think beyond K40. For super 8 to survive it has to be seen as a viable moneymaker for Kodak.
Ideally, I hope that Kodak can come up with both a low con stock and a suitable E-6 alternative to K40 but, if I had to choose one NOW to ensure the future of the other LATER, I think I would go with the low con stock first. Again, there will still be a lot of K40 around while the low con stock takes its place in the market. Then, based on the success of the low con stock, perhaps Kodak will be confident enough to follow through with a viable E-6 projection stock that really compares to K40 and not just a "make do".
Anyway, that's how I see it who knows what Kodak will do?
Roger
Okay, let me see if I can fill in the blanks. It is not likely that Kodak will actually produce the same ECO stock from the 70's. It was a funky process and the whole point here is to make processing easier. However, the characteristics of ECO are the key, I think, to maintaining super 8 into the future. ECO is a reversal film, like any other Ektachrome. However, the colors are simply muted and it has lower contrast than your typical reversal. But, because it's a reversal, it can be projected. That means someone can physically edit their project and look at it normally before having it printed or transferred to video.
-HOWEVER-
If you want something with normal projection density because you do not intend to transfer to video or pull a print, then ECO is not the thing for you as it will be too flat and uninteresting and a long way from the look of our beloved K40. Therefore, I also encouraged Kodak to look into other E-6 based stocks for projection use. I should have made that clear in my previous posting but didn't. Basically, the jest of the conversation was what sort of E-6 film stocks could Eastman come up with that would help the Super 8 community *in the long run*.
And to me, that's the real issue: The big problem to me isn't "what if K40 isn't around anymore". The REAL, most immediate danger is that there are only two labs in the universe that can handle K40. What if Kodak decides to fold their lab in Switzerland and leave Dewaynes to handle the entire Kodachrome workload? Or, worse, what if DEWAYNES decides to drop the K40 headache and leave Kodak to handle all the processing? Pretty sobering, eh?
It is my firm belief that there will still be plenty of rolls of K40 on the shelves long after the only two known labs stop processing for reasons that have nothing to do with market values. That is why I am so intent on pushing Kodak to come up with an E-6 alternative or, ideally, as adjunct to K40. In that respect, there would need to be an ECO type stock and a projection stock, as well.
That said, IF I were told,"We, the mighty Kodak, give you, Roger, the ultimate and final choice between a low con stock or a projection stock and that the future of super 8 is riding on your decision,"..... I would say go with the low con stock first. The reason? It is my belief that more people are attempting DIY telecine than are only projecting, since editing on video is easier, pure and simple. A new E-6 stock that accommodates that need would boost super 8 sales and, hopefully, make Kodak take notice. Seeing the potential of the market, perhaps Kodak could THEN be persuaded to also produce a projection E-6 stock, as well.
On the other hand, if Kodak produced a projection type E-6 stock first, it more than likely would be from some existing E-6 transparency stock, none of which have the type of grain characteristics that would satisfy die-hard K40 users. In short, early production of an E-6 replacement for K40 would be disappointing, I think, while a fine grain low con stock for video would stimulate sales in the larger market of users.
Further, perhaps the same technology required to produce the fine grain, low con stock could then be applied to an all NEW Super 8 E-6 projection stock instead of making do with an existing, grainy Ektachrome. Remember, it would be a fair investment on Kodak's part to produce a new fine grain, E-6 stock, so the pay off would need to be substantial. A low con telecine/print stock would stimulate *additional" sales to the existing K40 market while a premature E-6 replacement would do nothing as long as K40 still existed. I mean, would YOU use a different stock as long as you could still buy and process K40? So we have to think beyond K40. For super 8 to survive it has to be seen as a viable moneymaker for Kodak.
Ideally, I hope that Kodak can come up with both a low con stock and a suitable E-6 alternative to K40 but, if I had to choose one NOW to ensure the future of the other LATER, I think I would go with the low con stock first. Again, there will still be a lot of K40 around while the low con stock takes its place in the market. Then, based on the success of the low con stock, perhaps Kodak will be confident enough to follow through with a viable E-6 projection stock that really compares to K40 and not just a "make do".
Anyway, that's how I see it who knows what Kodak will do?
Roger
-
Patrick
Good points, Roger. I was looking ahead of K40 too. I totally agree that we need some replacement stock (either for direct projection or telecine) which will be E6 compatible, putting an end to specialised processing as is required by K40 and at the same time being environmentally friendly. Actually, I am surprised that K40 is still being made at all considering the environmental pressures. Then again, it's probably a similar case with smoking - tobacco companies are still flourishing because they make so much money.
Anyway, I still think that there is a possibility of a mutual coexistence in the future between a new projection E6 developable film stock and a telecine E6 developable film stock. Simply because at the moment there exists two colour reversal films for super 8 and both have been around for a fair while despite the tiny super 8 market. Even before 7240 was introduced into the super 8 format, there was E160 film playing second fiddle to K40.
Anyway, I still think that there is a possibility of a mutual coexistence in the future between a new projection E6 developable film stock and a telecine E6 developable film stock. Simply because at the moment there exists two colour reversal films for super 8 and both have been around for a fair while despite the tiny super 8 market. Even before 7240 was introduced into the super 8 format, there was E160 film playing second fiddle to K40.
-
Patrick
As one of many alternatives, how would Kodak Ektachrome 100D 5285 work in super 8 format? Obviously not as slow as K40, thus less fine grain. The Kodak web page states that it can be developed in E6 but requires specialised E6 processing machines, not the regular ones that the majority of labs have. I know it's not a perfect alternative but at least it would be more suitable than most of the other film stocks available in the 16mm guage.
-
Guest
Back in the 1980ies, I mostly shot on Agfa Moviechrome, as it costed only DM 12 per cardrige, while K40 costed DM 19 per cardrige (incl. processing).
And this Agfa stock wasn´t that bad, not as good as K40, only a little bit grainier, even a better reproduction of green colors (the weak point of K40, for my opinion). And it was E6 process, if I am not wrong.
So, it IS possible to have a E6 projection stock for S8 that fits the quality requirements!
I don´t think that the maiority of S8 customers are professional or even semi-professional. The maiority, at least here in Germany where S8 always had been a big market for S8, are partly old people who are coninuing making "home movies" and would stop immediately if there would not be anymore direct projectable stock. The other part are younger people, making experimental films, many are making travel and docu style films, the maiority for projecting at home, with friends, on festivals and workshops. For most of them, the K40 just is the maximum budget that is affordable, paying two times more only to have a print for projecting afterwards, would drop off the complete S8 comunity of this kind of people!
Pedro
And this Agfa stock wasn´t that bad, not as good as K40, only a little bit grainier, even a better reproduction of green colors (the weak point of K40, for my opinion). And it was E6 process, if I am not wrong.
So, it IS possible to have a E6 projection stock for S8 that fits the quality requirements!
I don´t think that the maiority of S8 customers are professional or even semi-professional. The maiority, at least here in Germany where S8 always had been a big market for S8, are partly old people who are coninuing making "home movies" and would stop immediately if there would not be anymore direct projectable stock. The other part are younger people, making experimental films, many are making travel and docu style films, the maiority for projecting at home, with friends, on festivals and workshops. For most of them, the K40 just is the maximum budget that is affordable, paying two times more only to have a print for projecting afterwards, would drop off the complete S8 comunity of this kind of people!
Pedro
-
Angus
The Agfa stock was E6, you also had to remove the anti-halation layer...but otherwise it was E6. I still mourn the day when Agfa pulled the plug because it's Moviechrome was cheaper than K40 and, as you say, almost as good. Still time rolls on and I can now get K40 almost as cheap as A40 was 10 years ago.
As for the amateur/pro situation, I think that in the USA there are a lot of pros and semi-pros using S8 whereas in Europe the situation is reversed. We in Europe wouldn't be inconvenienced if Dwayn's ceased processing K40 but we'd be practically killed if Kodak Swizerland stopped...since that Swiss lab must handle most of the worlds' K14 slides and movie film I very much doubt it is closing any time soon. Most amateur slide photographers I know swear by K'chrome. THat Swiss lab will remain open as long as Kodak produces *any* K14 material, im my humble opinion. Remember that in most of the world it's sold process-paid with mailers that will eventually see it going to Swizerland via some national drop-off point....only in the USA do you choose to send it to Kodak or Dwayne's because it's illegal to have process-paid films there (some stupid competition law).
At least Kodak appears to be listening. I think the day when Kodak transferred S8 to the professional division was a great day because Kodak's consumer division makes some pretty awful products and marketing decisions...whereas the pro products are usually very good and aimed at what serious users actually want.
An E6 film or two would be very useful for S8 because Kodak won't be lumbered with the processing, but there are quite a few labs capable of handling E6 *and* it can also be hand processed. Ideally Kodak could produce two or three new films (pipe dream I know). I'd envisage a low speed, fine grain E6 film and a higher speed film both for projection and also a low/medium speed film with lower contrast for telecine.
As for the amateur/pro situation, I think that in the USA there are a lot of pros and semi-pros using S8 whereas in Europe the situation is reversed. We in Europe wouldn't be inconvenienced if Dwayn's ceased processing K40 but we'd be practically killed if Kodak Swizerland stopped...since that Swiss lab must handle most of the worlds' K14 slides and movie film I very much doubt it is closing any time soon. Most amateur slide photographers I know swear by K'chrome. THat Swiss lab will remain open as long as Kodak produces *any* K14 material, im my humble opinion. Remember that in most of the world it's sold process-paid with mailers that will eventually see it going to Swizerland via some national drop-off point....only in the USA do you choose to send it to Kodak or Dwayne's because it's illegal to have process-paid films there (some stupid competition law).
At least Kodak appears to be listening. I think the day when Kodak transferred S8 to the professional division was a great day because Kodak's consumer division makes some pretty awful products and marketing decisions...whereas the pro products are usually very good and aimed at what serious users actually want.
An E6 film or two would be very useful for S8 because Kodak won't be lumbered with the processing, but there are quite a few labs capable of handling E6 *and* it can also be hand processed. Ideally Kodak could produce two or three new films (pipe dream I know). I'd envisage a low speed, fine grain E6 film and a higher speed film both for projection and also a low/medium speed film with lower contrast for telecine.
-
Patrick
Out of curiosity, when abouts did Agfachrome super 8 film cease to exist? I only came onto the super 8 scene myself in early 1998. Did I miss it by much? Im really annoyed that I did not get into super 8 earlier since I would have had a little bit more choice of film companies to shoot colour reversal stock with. Two companies are better than one.
exactly 15 years ago we made an 1 hour feature film entirely on Moviechrome 40. There also had been Moviechrome 160 (super grainy) in sound, silent and pre-striped silent cardrige. Soon after, Moviechrome had been discontinued.
The Revue S8 cardriges also had been made by Agfa, besides there had been Perutz stock, a very horrible quality! Kodachrome always had been the best, also concerning it´s archieve quality.
Pedro
The Revue S8 cardriges also had been made by Agfa, besides there had been Perutz stock, a very horrible quality! Kodachrome always had been the best, also concerning it´s archieve quality.
Pedro
It is your opinion that this is true but I feel projection only still dominates Super 8 sales. No way to prove this but 'Home Movies' is still the dominate reason people use 8mm film. These Super 8 forums attract mainly younger "high tech" types who probably prefer finishing on video. The old guy I saw the other day firing away with a Canon won't ever be heard here.I would say go with the low con stock first. The reason? It is my belief that more people are attempting DIY telecine than are only projecting, since editing on video is easier, pure and simple.