No More E64T?

[cubdukat]

I saw on Photo.net's forum that Kodak is allegedly killing off Ektachrome 64T in 35mm, so I would think that Super-8 will be out as well.

Anyone hear anything about this?

If it's true, let's hope this is the push Kodak needs to give us E100D in Super-8, or even the full Vision 2/3 line.

[steve hyde]

....that doesn't surprise me. 64T has become a homeless film stock ever since digital replaced 64T for product photography, copy work and interior architectural. We may see it being available in super 8 for some time though since it is more or less a 40T color reversal film. Clearly the 7285 (100D) is what many Super8ers are hoping for. 64T is sort of an old recipe designed for "true" color reproduction whereas 7285 looks more like the contemporary line of vivid saturation Kodak reversal stocks that have that Technicolor look.

Steve

[mattias]

Clearly the 7285 (100D) is what many Super8ers are hoping for.

sorry to sound like a broken record, but you get what you ask for. i've been advocating this stock since long before the death of k40 was announced, see archives, and god knows i've been ridiculed for it. meanwhile kodak asked super 8 users what they wanted if they needed to replace k40, and nothing but a slow speed tungsten stock would do.

/matt

[onsuper8]

here's the full SP and the film types affected;

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professi ... 4.25&lc=en

[Angus]

Actually Mattias I think most people on this forum wanted 100D, when we heard 64T was being considered we asked "why the hello not 100D?"

It was Kodak who said it had to be tungsten....AFAIK. They reckoned to have evaluated 64T and 100D....and inexplicably chose 64T.

I have heard elsewhere that 64T is to be cancelled from 35mm, they won't manufacture it just for super 8 but I assume a few years supply remain.

[RichardB]

What the hell would we be supposed to use under tungsten then? I'd rather have a stock that's easy to shoot indoors and outdoors than one that looks a bit better out doors and is a major headache to use inside. Killing off 64T won't automatically make Kodak give us a better tungsten balanced colour reversal stock, and if I have to pay £30 to do this for a cartridge including processing from Cinevia, Spectra or Wittner, the appeal of Super 8 will fall pretty damn quick.

Having said that, I don't see any indication from that press release that Kodak's stock retirement in 35mm has anything to do with their Super 8 film. People have been begging Kodak ever since the introduction of Super 8 for a daylight balanced colour reversal stock, and they have never relented - all the talk about 100D on this forum was just the same in the 70's with K25. All the magazines like 'Super 8 Today' and 'Movie Maker' used to have columns every single issue almost about why we should have a daylight stock. While I'd love to have the choice of 100D over 64T, I won't be holding my breath. If Kodak are smart, they'll release both and see how sales figures compare before deciding to kill anything off.

Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

[mattias]

Actually Mattias I think most people on this forum wanted 100D, when we heard 64T was being considered we asked "why the hello not 100D?"

when we heard. not before. it was only because 64t wasn't considered a great stock, not because it was a slow tungsten. before 64t was mentioned the resistance towards 100d was massive.

[quot]It was Kodak who said it had to be tungsten....AFAIK. They reckoned to have evaluated 64T and 100D....and inexplicably chose 64T.[/quote]
according to our late friend john they ran a survey and it was clear that the super 8 community "demanded" the new stock to be tungsten, and as close to 40 asa as possible.

/matt

[Angus]

Ideally, for those of us who were using K40, a similar product should have replaced it...but since no similar product exists 100D would have been better.

As one who has used both...100D wins hands down. The Kahl 1UT18 (Agfa 50D I think) is pretty good too.

[mattias]

As one who has used both...100D wins hands down

no disagreement, but hardly the issue either. :-)

/matt

[mattias]

What the hell would we be supposed to use under tungsten then?

exactly.

/matt

[Andreas Wideroe]

What the hell would we be supposed to use under tungsten then?

A lens filter?

/Andreas

[RichardB]

Well yeah but then you're working with a stock thats 25 asa under tungsten, and by all accounts doesn't look that great doing so. I find it a pain enough to light the current Ektachrome under tungsten, and that's 64asa. Not to mention losing the use of a low light stock, as right now I'm trying 64T pushed to 160 asa to record cities at night and indoors without lighting - there's no way I could do that with 100D, you couldn't even do it with Kodachrome.

[MovieStuff]

Clearly the 7285 (100D) is what many Super8ers are hoping for.

sorry to sound like a broken record, but you get what you ask for. i've been advocating this stock since long before the death of k40 was announced, see archives, and god knows i've been ridiculed for it. meanwhile kodak asked super 8 users what they wanted if they needed to replace k40, and nothing but a slow speed tungsten stock would do.

This is a bit over-simplified, Mattias. You make it sound like you had been suggeting E100D all along and that no one, including Kodak, listened to you.

Here's what happened:

At the request of Kodak, years ago I had a rather long phone conference with the heads of both the black and white and color divisions of Kodak. (this is in the archives, as well) At that time, I flatly stated to them that we all knew the end of Kodachrome was an eventuality. They acted all coy and everything, like they had no idea what I was talking about but casually asked if, hypothetically of course, Kodachrome was discontinued, what type of film would be a good subsitute? At that time, all the reversal stocks I was aware of reflected the classic case of higher ASA = bigger grain. Thus I simply told Kodak that, in my opinion, any replacement for K40 should have similar characteristics which would be tungsten and a low ASA (to keep the grain down). They were receptive to my ideas but what Kodak simply did not "get" was the super 8 community really did not care if the film was tungsten or daylight but that fine grain was the most important issue. But, perhaps because I had mentioned tungsten, and because K40 was tungsten, and because E64T was the finest grain tungsten film they had outside of K40, then E64T became the default selection, though I never suggested a specific replacement stock for K40.

Now, at the time of my discussions with Kodak I was not aware of 100D and I recall no conversations on this forum by anyone, including you Mattias, about 100D being a prospective replacement for K40. While I do remember your view that a daylight balanced stock would be preferred (by you), even if it were high speed, those arguing against it were doing so mainly from the standpoint of grain and not because it was daylight. Daylight was a secondary consideration for several reasons and never the total sum of the argument for or against. One was that most low budget super 8 users had tungsten lights and not HMIs, the second was that a daylight stock would require heavy filtration for use indoorsunder tungsten lights, which would mean that your effective ASA on a high speed daylight stock would be no better than a lower ASA tungsten. So why go through all that IF you were going to end up with more grain?

Later, after seeing E100D in super 8 form, it was obvious that it had finer grain than the E64T which made the 100D, in my book, the best choice as a K40 replacement but not because it was daylight balanced but, rather, because it had finer grain.

So while I agree with you that E100D is a better replacement, I recall no discussions specifically about 100D being better because it had finer grain at the time of my conversations with Kodak or before Kodak pulled the plug on K40. Most everyone else was concerned about grain while your argument for a high speed daylight stock was simply that it would allow easier use inside rooms with open windows (which I agree with, BTW). Grain considerations were secondary to you but primary to those that argued against a high speed stock of any kind, daylight or tungsten. Most importantly, none of us knew what E100D would look like in Super 8 until was released in Super 8, so to suggest that you had been lobbying for E100D from the beginning is a bit misleading. You had no concerns about grain. You just wanted a daylight stock, even if it meant more grain. From that standpoint, any daylight balanced stock would have sufficed. E100D just happened to end up with finer grain than the E64T, but there was no way to predict that years ago when I had my discussions with Kodak.

Roger

[cubdukat]

Actually Mattias I think most people on this forum wanted 100D, when we heard 64T was being considered we asked "why the hello not 100D?"

It was Kodak who said it had to be tungsten....AFAIK. They reckoned to have evaluated 64T and 100D....and inexplicably chose 64T.

I have heard elsewhere that 64T is to be cancelled from 35mm, they won't manufacture it just for super 8 but I assume a few years supply remain.

I have never been a fan of E64T. If they hadn't referred to it as the successor to K40, they would have been better off. In that respect, it's completely unworthy. Not to mention that entire thing about making it incompatible with 40/160 cameras which seem to be what's mostly available on eBay, and on top of that giving it a non-standard color balance.

Quite frankly, I have to wonder if they even asked Super-8 users at all. It would be just like them to say they did when they didn't just to cover the groaning error they made.

Admittedly, it seems to have improved, but it's too little, too late. E100D would have been a much smarter choice because they could have stuffed it in a ISO 160 cartridge like the ones for the old E160 and just block out the filter notch, and it would work automatically with all existing cameras without issue. If you've ever seen E100D, it's arguable that that stock is much more suitable as the spiritual successor to K40 than E64T was.

That being said, I'd be willing to give it a second chance. Part of my own negative (da-doom-boom) experiences came about because I was using a 40/160 camera with very little capability to compensate for the underexposure. Now that T'm testing out my 814, that's not the case. In fact, I'm gonna grab a roll or two today after work.

[Ludwig Draser]

Hello .
It would be good, if someone could read the informations exactly.
Kodak stops the production of Ektachrome 64 daylight film , not
Ektachrome 64 T Tungsten film, which is used for Super 8 .
There is no message or any idea to stop this product .
Kindly regards
Ludwig Draser
Andec Filmtechnik