Kodak have a 160T reversal film?!

[Muckymuck]

I just read that Kodak have a 160T ASA reversal slide film in 35mm and 120 formats which is E6.

http://wwwuk.kodak.com/global/en/profes ... 5.20&lc=en

Why on earth have they not released this in Super 8 to replace older stocks?

If Kodak released Ektachrome 100D for daylight and Ektachrome 160T for tungsten, this would be fantastic. Why do they insist on releasing not-very-well compatible films when they have existing films which would be perfect?

[mattias]

ektachrome 160t is very grainy. and users explicitly wanted a slower speed film in all of kodak's surveys. i participated and i did not agree, so don't look at me. :-)

/matt

[cubdukat]

They should probably look at releasing Ektachrome 200 instead because I daresay that most people just want to be able to pop the cartridge in their camera and go without having to worry about filtration, something they don't have the luxury of with E64T.

I think what's really needed in reversal is another higher-speed reversal stock.

[mattias]

well, i always used the built in filter with 64t without any problem, but i agree it's an issue. not nearly as big as the issue that even fewer cameras can read 200d than 64t though. auto exposure is probably a lot more imortant to people than 200 kelvin, which is less than the difference between cloudy and overcast. all cameras can read both 100d and 160t properly, so those are the speeds i'd suggest (i like grain, as you probably know, so that's not an issue).

/matt

[T-Scan]

Reversal R&D is at a halt with Kodak now. I'm surprised they spent as much effort as they did getting 64T into S8 exclusively. Expecially since 100D is so much better, and better suited for cameras. Unless they were still doing R&D on newer reversals, 100D is the only thing I'd really like to see get carted. And rather see them fill the line up with 7201 50D neg, before a super grainy 160T reversal.

[richard p. t.]

I raised this possibility with Pro8mm recently but did not hear back. Reversal of course is not their thing... Personally I would like to try it and be able to offer this stock as a high speed Tungsten reversal through my lab.
Two issues to my mind (feel free to put me at ease about these!)
1. Durability. Please correct me if I am wrong here but I believe motion picture film stock is more durable than still film stock. Surely transporting at speed is more wearing on a stock. Fomapan I believe to be an instance of this: this stock is more prone to scratches than say Tri-x. Then again, this 160T stock is a slide film stock, intended for repeated projection so this is probably not an issue.

2. Transport. Really a double header. One is thickness: the thicker the emulsion the more difficult it seams to be for the pesky kodapak to transport the film. Thats really one to suck and see. Other issue is stability. The Rem-Jet backing on motion picture colour neg film in addition to anti-hallation aids the transport of the film at speed though the camera . Reversal doesn't have this of course, but is there something else with motion picture reversal film that fulfills this extra function of Rem-Jet that still film does not have? Certainly still colour neg film put through a movie camera wouldn't have this.
So anyone ever tried putting 35mm still film in a 35mm motion picture camera?

Velvia is an instance of this, but I am not convinced that it is reliable for the two reasons given above.

I will be raising this with Pro8 again. I think that a 400' test roll of this stock to see how it goes would not be too expensive. If I can get them to do it, anyone willing to help with the expense and get some rolls?

Ricahrd

[super8er]

that's exacly what i was thinking, but its probaly way too grainy

[Matthew Buick]

I think the E100 should be touted as a Replacement to Kodachrome 40, and should have the same 'post-it-off' bags, they should also market more stocks that work in all Super 8 Cameras, making that time when most Super 8 Cameras were unusable due to the demise in Kodachrome 40 a grim but brief time in the history of this wonderful format.

[Angus]

I seem to remember this was discussed when the old Ektachrome 160 was replaced with 7240 (125ASA) and then again when 7240 was axed.

The common consensus was that the Kodak 160T slide film is too grainy for general use in super 8.

While some users might like the grain, the higher speed tungsten colour reversal films had always been intended for a mass market that doesn't really exist any more...and Kodak ain't making enough profits to consider manufacturing what amounts to a new product for such a small user base.

I doubt we shall ever see any more reversal films in super 8 from Kodak. If they lack the funds to properly launch 100D (either in addition to or replacing 64T) then nothing is going to happen now.

[richard p. t.]

Yes, I don't think you could expect Kodak to cart this, but Pro8 could.
But do you think it would be too grainy as an alternative tungsten stock to 64t? If it had the same grain as the very grainy 64t but with the extra speed, it could be a nice companion to 100d

[Angus]

Yes, I don't think you could expect Kodak to cart this, but Pro8 could.
But do you think it would be too grainy as an alternative tungsten stock to 64t? If it had the same grain as the very grainy 64t but with the extra speed, it could be a nice companion to 100d

I've not used the 160T but I do recall discussions when 7240 was discontinued and those who use it in other formats say it is grainy even in 35mm. I would assume it is an emulsion developed at the same time as 64T...so one could assume it has substantially more grain.

[Janne]

7240 was video news film designed in the 70's. I like the super-8 7240 film developed in Andec Filmtechnik's new E-6 process - very nice, not so grainy, it's soft but looks good. 7239 (160D) which I have shot is very grainy in 16 mm. The worst is 7251 (400D) whose grains are the size of apples.

[T-Scan]

I believe the 160T has the same grain technology as 64T, and an RMS of 13. 100D has an RMS of 11, but with T-grain technology... which appears more like K40's RMS 9. So I don't see a golfball grain structure of a 160T reversal being able to compete with the 17 & 18... both finer grain with a supurior image.

If people are looking to project higher speed films, it makes a lot more sense to push for a US lab to make reversal prints from negatives. Kodak sells S8 perfed print stock, its just that no one is buying it or offering the service (with the exception of Adnec in Europe?)

[clivetobin]

...
If people are looking to project higher speed films, it makes a lot more sense to push for a US lab to make reversal prints from negatives. Kodak sells S8 perfed print stock, its just that no one is buying it or offering the service (with the exception of Adnec in Europe?)

I think you mean positive prints from negatives.

The only super-8 perf print stock offered by Kodak is in the 1-3 format on polyester base, which was used for continuous reduction prints two strands at a time from 16mm internegatives. And you have to buy 666 trillion miles of the stuff to get it at all. The 1-3 stock is only half usable for making contact prints, the other half would be wasted. And labs are very dubious about volume slitting of polyester film.

I was toying with the idea of building another super-8 printer with an additive light source, for making super-8 prints from super-8 negatives. I finally decided the market volume was not there, plus you would need a color negative analyzer to figure out what light settings to print each negative at, plus Alpha figured I was insane and never answered my email about them processing the prints...

[T-Scan]

The 1-3 stock is only half usable for making contact prints, the other half would be wasted. And labs are very dubious about volume slitting of polyester film.

Are you saying it's 16mm film with super 8 perfs on only one edge?