Ektachrome soon to be no more...

[matt5791]

It seems that all of the VNF1 process Ektachromes will be discontinued by the end of 2004.

The new Ektachrome 100D wil obviously remain.

This is because of enviromental considerations and because these stocks are relatively small volume sellers research and development to bring them up to date can not be justified.

I think they looked pretty ugly though, but good if you wanted the grainy 1970's look.

Matt

[Angus]

Do you have a sourcee for this story?

I can see the logic in getting rid of the VNF films IF sales are low...however given the number of labs offering processing for 16mm VNF film I suspect sales are actually fairly good.

[downix]

Do you have a sourcee for this story?

I can see the logic in getting rid of the VNF films IF sales are low...however given the number of labs offering processing for 16mm VNF film I suspect sales are actually fairly good.

Check this thread out:
http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004 ... #entry5198

[FILM-THURSO]

Mm! Kodak said the same about sound stock, point gun at shoe- pull trigger!
VNF isn't ugly and doesn't render a grainy 1970s look as K40 has been the same since it came out in the 60s. Grainy film was often anything equivalent to K40 not made by Kodak.
I wonder why Kodak makes steps that serve to limit super 8s ability. We've lost 160 and are we now to loose 125 asa as well to go with 100 instead. I would prefer to have a more sensative stock than 100, it simply isn't enough for some of the demanding lighting conditions that my projects require. This means I will have to go for Fuji RT200N instead which gives a wholey different look and a much grainier image. As much as I like Fuji film it has a range of impracticallities namingly the worst one, 4-6 weeks return on processing. Cheese and Wine, Kodak are such dummies. Let's stop and think- mm, film processing means chemicals, of course there are invironmental concerns. If they would get in there before the EU they might not have to spend so much rather than leave it to when it's a political issue and costs them a fortune.

[T-Scan]

Jese Louise, will they even bother load S-8 carts with 100D? the last thing i need is a slower film.

[leadlike]

so sad...

I just shot a 16mm short film on some 400 speed vnf last month...It was rather grainy, which I wanted, but the colors were much better than expected-which was nothing, since this series of stocks has been so villified on this board. I'll be sad to see it go, but it's just another reason to jump on board with some of the negative stocks out there...

[marc]

The problem is the cost of processing. The cost in 16mm might be moe justified but when you are paying the same for processing as the cost of the film stock then it does not make sense. In theory, VNF should be simpler and therefore cheaper to process than Kodachrome. But since there are such high volumes of Kodachrome being sent in for processing they are able to keep the prices down. Not as many people are shooting VNF and I suspect that there is no machinery set up on such a grand scale to do Ektachrome processing as there is for Kodachrome. The higher the processing cost of the film, the less people are going to use it and you have a snowball effect because the less people that use it the higher the processing cost is going to be.

[T-Scan]

It feels like Kodak wants to move everything toward negetive stocks, that even more people can't afford. i really like VNF 125, it transfered extremely well for me last night. K-40 is at risk too from what i hear, from its dirty process. taking away reversal and replacing them with negetive or slower speeds is unacceptable, and something should be done.

[FILM-THURSO]

VNF certainly has excellent qualities and is the best color match to K40 when used in the poorer light it's meant for.
I wouldn't mind using negative stocks but it would create a bit of a problem for our PIP system where we need to see everything in positive. Film-Thurso is about to run it's projects to optical copy which is great when using reversal stock but how do you know you've got the right exposure and color balance when you're working from a negative. This really would be a serious problem for us. We don't use film for telecine, we are specifically geared to cinema exhibition and we built the optical copier with reversal in mind.
Negative stocks are not made for copying to other films, a print negative stock is required and such does not exist on super 8. The cost would also hamper our projects considerably. We don't mind pouring money into film but the dearer it gets the more you have to look for other options, like quitting film. I have already warned Kodak that their approach to super 8 is what dampens public interest the most. Mind you they are not the first company to ignore our good advice and I'm sure like others, they will find to their cost how they should listen to their customers instead of doing what they think is best for the bank balance. If they keep going like this they won't have a bank balance.

[T-Scan]

i'm happy for negetive film, and believe its the future of film. but if i can't afford to use it, then neither can most film students or aspiring ametures. Kodak is wacked in the head right now, they need to shit or go sailing.. or maybe some other company will take them over just for the film.. and actually focus on film istdead of blowing 100's of millions on a digital war they are only going to loose.

[LastQuark]

K-40 is at risk too from what i hear

Please provide your source. I'm sure there are many here who will be very concerned if it is true.
 

[T-Scan]

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.

[Angus]

Do you have a sourcee for this story?

I can see the logic in getting rid of the VNF films IF sales are low...however given the number of labs offering processing for 16mm VNF film I suspect sales are actually fairly good.

Check this thread out:
http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004 ... #entry5198

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.

OK so it could turn out to be true but I almost feel like we're in "my cousin's boyfriend's sister's dog" territory here.

Sure the poster posts a bunch of links to various Kodak web pages....none of which actually says anything anout discontinuing any filmstocks.

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

[Angus]

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 there are likely individuals within Kodak, some high up, who would like to see the end of K'chrome but there are so many serious photographers out there who love the stuff that it would make bad headlines for Kodak were they to axe K'chrome altogether. It is, after all, the most famous colour film in the world.

As I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, Kodak recently spent a heap of cash on upgrading their K14 processing machinery. It would be folly in the exteme to spend millions upgrading one's facilities only to render them useless by discontinuing the only product in the world that makes use of them.

[T-Scan]

that makes sense and is reassuring. well, if they wack Ektachrome.. what stock could fill its shoes? i don't think 100D would cut it.. must be something at least a little faster with low grain???