My bad. I don't know why I occured that (surely the price of 50 sheets box!)
-
Welcome to Photrio!Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.Click here to sign up
Kodak films direct from Eastman Kodak (was: Kodacolor 100. New)
-
A
- Thread starter arturo_rs
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Fuji GW670 III
- Started by campy51
-
For Sale Hasselblad X Pan w/ 45mm/f4 Lens
- Started by eftones
-
For Sale 6 antique French pneumatic shutters _ Guerry
- Started by Manual Camera
-
For Sale Voigtländer Nokton Classic 35mm/1.4 with Leica M-mount
- Started by Klaus Mähring
-
For Sale Voigtländer Bessa R2 Special Edition Olive Green
- Started by Klaus Mähring
Forum statistics
My bad. I don't know why I occured that (surely the price of 50 sheets box!)
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2016
- Messages
- 597
- Format
- Multi Format
That's my worry. Hopefully, we'll still be able to get it from Alaris. But, I have not seen it available from them for a long time, either.
I read all 29 pages and saw only a few quick mentions of motion picture film. I understand why they didn’t officially allow respooling before but why not now? Surely there would be a market for Vision and double x. Hell, bring 2237 to the market! Why not do what the re-spoolers were doing? It isn’t clear to me why there now has to be a hard division between motion picture and still divisions.
Price
Cinestill
Kodak goes big with new large-format film and 100ft bulk rolls
Kodak adds large-format sheets and bulk films to its growing in-house line-up
I read all 29 pages and saw only a few quick mentions of motion picture film. I understand why they didn’t officially allow respooling before but why not now? Surely there would be a market for Vision and double x. Hell, bring
I’m not sure what you mean. Do you think those films would be too expensive for Kodak to make them prepackaged? They could sell 100ft rolls instead. It’s hard for me to imagine it would cost much to take an existing stock, probably already in stock, and repackaging it would be very costly.
I’m not sure what you mean. Do you think those films would be too expensive for Kodak to make them prepackaged? They could sell 100ft rolls instead. It’s hard for me to imagine it would cost much to take an existing stock, probably already in stock, and repackaging it would be very costly.
Do you think there is an exclusivity contract with them? That would certainly be a reason to prevent Kodak from doing it themselves. I had assumed that Cine still was doing it in their own but I have never looked into it.
No, it is more profitable for Kodak to sell prepackaged film rather than letting unauthorised third parties respool motion picture stock.
It also means that they can guarantee quality control over the whole process.
It would only take one dodgy reseller to trash the brand by poor respoolling practices.
I think you misunderstand. I am wondering why Kodak doesn’t release existing motion picture film packaged for the still market. Sellers have been respooling it for years. I want Kodak to sell it directly. Prepackaged 35mm film of existing motion picture stock seems like an easy thing for them to offer. It would be even easier for them to sell bulk 100’ rolls to consumers like they already do with some of their still films.
They already have a stills film category with what they probably consider to be plenty of options.
Why would they dilute those lines and introduce additional complexity into their distribution operations?
I don't think it would make business sense for them.
Because there is a demonstrated demand for it.
Cinestill has been buying Kodak cine film directly from Kodak for years. It will be interesting to see if there will be any changes. It's conceivable that EK will continue to supply Cinestill with the same stuff as now.
Where was it demonstrated that original Kodak finished V3 250D would sell for more than Portra 400?
Nope, not in any significant quantity in the general (tiny) market for still film.
The comment meant that it is not an additional demand. People would buy either a Vision 3 roll or a still film roll, not both. So it makes no sense for Kodak to predate still film sales introducing movie film stocks for photography.
MattKing
Moderator
No, there is a demonstrated demand for something cheaper.
However, if they sold bulk rolls of any film for cheaper than what they charge for single rolls, it would decrease the sales of their single rolls.
The cine people get a deal because they place big orders.
If t wasn't for the fact that the Eastman Kodak 100 foot roll machinery and related production facilities were so antiquated and labour intensive - far more antiquated and labour intensive than what Harman/Ilford have - they probably could sell those 100 foot rolls a bit cheaper.
I think that's accurate, really. Most people who shoot Vision3 in bulk seem to be driven by cost considerations.
MattKing
Moderator
Well, then they should release them in 400' lengths, but at the appropriate price - not just 'slightly' cheaper.
And will their costs - including their distribution and marketing costs - make it possible to sell them cheaply enough to make a difference?
400 feet is 4.5 minutes of screen time when shot as 35mm (half frame) at 24 fps.
So movie productions buy lots of them for each movie - one sale, to a single customer.
Up until 2-3 years ago, when they still hadn't tightened things up enough, I used to order single 400ft boxes directly from Kodak. I went through the quotation procedure - since I ordered only single units, the quotes always came at the catalog price. For example, a 400ft roll of 35mm E100 cost me €564, and a 100ft roll of 16mm E100 was €84.85. That was the total price, including delivery to my door in Bulgaria. And there were no tricks involved - everything was completely straightforward.
Even now, many items in the catalogs are not quantity-restricted. In fact, for some products they have even removed the minimum order quantities.
It's true that production companies order in large volumes. But they also receive substantial discounts below the catalog prices, which have already been removed from the newer catalogs…
Even now, many items in the catalogs are not quantity-restricted. In fact, for some products they have even removed the minimum order quantities.
It's true that production companies order in large volumes. But they also receive substantial discounts below the catalog prices, which have already been removed from the newer catalogs…
That's also the perception I have. I'm not much in the loop as a Medium format shooter, which makes respools more specialized (source 65-70mm, paper backing etc) and the use of Cine film for stills is much reduced. If anything, I've only shot a couple cinestill rolls for the Halation and tungsten effect but it hasn't gone past a novelty use for me; and then, CS film is even more expensive!
Before Cinestill appeared last decade, I don't recall MP film being so much of a thing. Oh those times of prices at 4-6€/roll!
As of Matt's mention of 100ft buk rolls, I guess EK could provide 400ft rolls of the still films. And then, Ektachrome could almost outright be merged if the product is almost identical. Just those KS vs BH perforations I guess?
The minute or not so minute finishing differences reminds me of the different sheet film measurements, imperial vs metric, which are enough to make each other incompatible. Ah! There were some voices of doom that EK would abandon sheet film users, but glad they are into it. As someone wrote earlier around here, Kodak appear to release the products as they are manufactured.
I'm in Europe and would like to buy some of the EK lineup, particularly 120 Ektacolor Pro and Gold. Still haven't seen any of it. The Kodacolors are available around.
It’s possible that Vision would eat into Portra sales so that makes sense. Of course if the new Vision could replace Portra than maybe it would make sense for Kodak to consolidate onto a single line of color negatives film for both motion picture and stills. I think this may also make sense since both motion picture and stills are almost exclusively printed or converted digitally. All of the current c-41 films were designed for optical printing onto RA4 paper. Aren’t the Vision films optimized for scanning or am I mixing that up with something else?
I am mostly a B&W shooter and would love the see Double x available from Kodak. It is a noticeably different film than any of the other products they sell. The same goes for 2237. Again, they already have these ready they just need to package them.
I am mostly a B&W shooter and would love the see Double x available from Kodak. It is a noticeably different film than any of the other products they sell. The same goes for 2237. Again, they already have these ready they just need to package them.
For most of casual shooters, they won't get the best color out of Vision 3 cine film. They are better served by C41 color negative film.
MattKing
Moderator
Except that the production lines for the 400 foot rolls perforate differently and don't provide frame numbers.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |