Eastman Kodak temporarily paused all film production - to upgrade manufacturing plant (Nov 2024)

[Harry Callahan]

I recall watching a video that CBC did a while ago (proably 4 or more years ago) , I think they had someone interviewing the two main folks at IMAX. But my google skills are not up to the task of Locating it

A quick search led me to this:

IMAX Next-Gen 65mm Film Cameras: All Details - Y.M.Cinema Magazine

The lecture titled “The Art and Science of IMAX” sheds light on the upcoming new generation of IMAX 65mm film cameras. All details are below

ymcinema.com

Seems like they`re even bringing such cameras back. But:

"We did a lot of research and we were looking at designing a new movement and we couldn’t do any better and this camera is about 25 years old. It’s the original camera this is actually the newest model of the camera and it’s 25 years old [MSM 9802]. The original ones were built I think in the early 70s but the movement remains basically the same. It was a stunning piece of machinery to do that. So we figured if we try to redo it from the ground up, we’d probably screw it up. So basically we’ve designed the parts around the movement to be better and more stable and more reliable."

Seems like the movement has not changed since the 70s.
Maybe vacuum suction was/is used for better film flatness, but film transport seems always to have been done by a claw.

 

[cmacd123]

Yes, you have to remember the context, Ontario sponsored the multimedia film " a Place to Stand" for Expo 67 in Montreal. Produced by Christopher Chapman. that required LOTS of composting work at Film effects of Hollywood. the movie uses many scycronised "windows" to show parts of the provicnce, but couldnot really show a Full screen in spite of using both 35mm and 70mm 5 perf.



later they wanted something Bigger and better. so they sponsored Graeme Ferguson and IMAX with the film to be shown in Ontario Place... the major first film would probably have been "North of Superior" which is credited as "a Multiscreen Limited Production. copyright 1971



it took a while before anyone thought to do entire Hollywood style movies on the format. for years the main target was films for science centers and Museums. that resulted BTW in the biggest movies ever shot in space, one of the 5 was "the Dream is alive.. note that the Name Grahame Fergusion appears here also....

 

[Kino]

Martin "Marty" Mueller hand-built a lot of the IMAX cameras. I think he may yet built and service them with the resurgence in 70mm film making.

Martin Mueller – Hinsdale Central Foundation, Partnership in Lifelong Learning

At one time, Marty worked for Carter Motion Picture Products, which was absorbed by Treise Engineering who made motion picture processors. We ran the Triese 16/35mm sprocket drive machines in our lab and also had 2 Carter total immersion 35mm wet-gate printers with quite primitive paper tape readers to control the light valves.

Long after he left Triese Engineering, I tracked him down to try to see if he could repair a malfunctioning tape reader, but he had no interest in working on it as he said they were "pieces of junk"; I agree!

He was nice otherwise, but wanted nothing to do with those machines!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alaris is the distributor.
If they didn't do it, and EK did, EK would have to replace the distribution infrastructure with their own, hugely increase their costs, and build those increases into the resulting price.
At the time of the bankruptcy, a great majority of the photographic film related employees and infrastructure left EK or its subsidiaries and most of that was taken on by KA.
As a result, the film part of EK became a much, much smaller entity with a much, much smaller exposure to ongoing costs.
And that remains the case to this day.
Perhaps EK could reverse that, take on much higher costs again, and do it more efficiently than they once did. And perhaps they would go up.
But whatever the situation, Tanstaafl applies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch

You've posted that response or similar ones numerous times Matt. But it doesn't answer the question I've asked many times as well. What markups does Eastman apply to sales of film to Alaris and markups of Alaris sales to their clients like B&H? How much have their costs gone up.? Without being able to see their agreements and accounting records, we don't know who's pushing prices up and what those markups are. Accusing one or the other or both of greed, as some here have done, is unfair to them. One, or both, or neither, may be "greedy".

 

[MattKing]

You've posted that response or similar ones numerous times Matt. But it doesn't answer the question I've asked many times as well. What markups does Eastman apply to sales of film to Alaris and markups of Alaris sales to their clients like B&H? How much have their costs gone up.? Without being able to see their agreements and accounting records, we don't know who's pushing prices up and what those markups are. Accusing one or the other or both of greed, as some here have done, is unfair to them. One, or both, or neither, may be "greedy".

Why would you expect that any commercial entity would share that information?
And which of all the international markets that Kodak Alaris serves would you like to see the information for?
And in EK's case, does needing a minimum return on investment in order to justify resources being applied to just one of several product divisions constitute "greed"?
EK's main business isn't a photographic one, but its photographic business infrastructure is one of its most important encumbered assets.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Just ask to be appointed to the corporate Boardroom at Kodak, Alan. That should simplify things.

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

A frame is about the same as 120 6x7 medium format.

It is actually possible to shoot 65mm movie film in a lot of common medium format system cameras.

Basically most any back designed to accept bulk 70mm film can be modified to work with 65mm movie film. It can be loaded into 70mm cartridges thanks to custom made spools that one company has made. Some cameras require the film to be offset from center, which lets part of the image extend into the sprocket holes on one side.

I actually shot a 13' roll of 500T last night in my Hasselblad(that's about 60 frames) and am going to load up another this afternoon. Why 13'? The relatively thick motion picture film(especially compared to a lot of available 70mm film, which is on thin PET) is more "comfortable" in the cartridge compared to the standard 15' loading, and more importantly the 65mm developing reel I have only holds 13'.

I say all that just to say that yes, 65mm film is impressively large. The difference is more or less like someone shooting the new Pentax half frame camera next to a Pentax 67...

 

[bfilm]

If one wants to make a movie with 65 mm film, then I think Super Panavision is eminently more suitable than IMAX. I think IMAX is just unnecessarily large for motion pictures.

Super Panavision is the same as the 24 fps version of Todd-AO, and both date to around 1958-1959. They use 65 mm film in a 5-perf vertical pulldown and 2.20:1 aspect ratio with spherical lenses. The usual release print is an optical anamorphic reduction print to 35 mm film, which ends up the same as the normal 35 mm 2x anamorphic format 2.35:1, usually projected with an aperture of 2.40:1.

The first movie in 24 fps Todd-AO was South Pacific. The Sound of Music was another movie in 24 fps Todd-AO.

A couple movies in Super Panavision are Lawrence of Arabia and My Fair Lady.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Why would you expect that any commercial entity would share that information?
And which of all the international markets that Kodak Alaris serves would you like to see the information for?
And in EK's case, does needing a minimum return on investment in order to justify resources being applied to just one of several product divisions constitute "greed"?
EK's main business isn't a photographic one, but its photographic business infrastructure is one of its most important encumbered assets.

You totally misunderstood my post. Please reread it. I never said that I thought anyone was greedy. I was responding to others who thought that. I said that without looking at their books, there's no way to ascertain anything about their markups or whether they're greedy or not. And I never said I expected them to share that information. Is this how you cross-examine? You'd be tough at trial.

 

[MattKing]

But it doesn't answer the question I've asked many times as well. What markups does Eastman apply to sales of film to Alaris and markups of Alaris sales to their clients like B&H? How much have their costs gone up.?

These are the questions of yours I responded to.

And while I did some trial work/advocacy as part of my practice, over the quarter century or so I spent much more time doing solicitor's work.
Things like helping people prepare their affairs prior to their death .

 

[Harry Callahan]

...

I actually shot a 13' roll of 500T last night in my Hasselblad(that's about 60 frames) and am going to load up another this afternoon. Why 13'? The relatively thick motion picture film(especially compared to a lot of available 70mm film, which is on thin PET) is more "comfortable" in the cartridge compared to the standard 15' loading, and more importantly the 65mm developing reel I have only holds 13'.

I say all that just to say that yes, 65mm film is impressively large. The difference is more or less like someone shooting the new Pentax half frame camera next to a Pentax 67...

Do you happen to know what base 65mm film is on?

In a rough calculation i came to the result that Imax 15Perf is about 10 times the image area as 35mm academy format.

If one wants to make a movie with 65 mm film, then I think Super Panavision is eminently more suitable than IMAX. I think IMAX is just unnecessarily large for motion pictures.

I`ve also come to that conclusion. Assuming that you get about 50ll/mm on the neg of Imax 15Perf, you no longer can see smallest details on the screen - if you`re far away enough from the screen to see the entire picture.
Today it should be possible to get more than 50ll/mm on the neg, making this format even more unpractical. This rather is a format for analysis than entertainment.
But in the early 70s it still might have made sense.

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

Do you happen to know what base 65mm film is on?

In a rough calculation i came to the result that Imax 15Perf is about 10 times the image area as 35mm academy format.

I'd actually be shocked if it's not Estar, although I've never checked or paid particular attention. It's fairly thick-in hand it's about the thickness of conventional 35mm on acetate base, and thicker than 120 on acetate. It's DEFINITELY a lot thicker than films like the old Plus-X Aero that I've been playing with also(in 70mm).

My usual clue about Estar vs. acetate is whether I can tear it by hand, but I haven't had the need to do that. I hadn't realized that a lot of the consumer Kodak films like Ultramax were now on Estar, and was quite surprised when I tried to tear the leader off a roll and couldn't do it(I prefer winding 35mm leader out, but tear off the leader to show that it's been shot).

In any case, I'll try to check later today.

I really wish that I still had easy access to an FT-IR-ATR, as it's a 30 second job on there to pretty much definitively and non-destructively identify a film base.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

These are the questions of yours I responded to.

And while I did some trial work/advocacy as part of my practice, over the quarter century or so I spent much more time doing solicitor's work.
Things like helping people prepare their affairs prior to their death .

I'd rather be cross-examined.

 

[bfilm]

I'd actually be shocked if it's not Estar, although I've never checked or paid particular attention. It's fairly thick-in hand it's about the thickness of conventional 35mm on acetate base, and thicker than 120 on acetate. It's DEFINITELY a lot thicker than films like the old Plus-X Aero that I've been playing with also(in 70mm).

My usual clue about Estar vs. acetate is whether I can tear it by hand, but I haven't had the need to do that. I hadn't realized that a lot of the consumer Kodak films like Ultramax were now on Estar, and was quite surprised when I tried to tear the leader off a roll and couldn't do it(I prefer winding 35mm leader out, but tear off the leader to show that it's been shot).

In any case, I'll try to check later today.

I really wish that I still had easy access to an FT-IR-ATR, as it's a 30 second job on there to pretty much definitively and non-destructively identify a film base.

All of the Kodak motion picture camera films are on acetate base.

Here are the documents for VISION3 500T:

Kodak VISION3 500T brochure (PDF)

Kodak VISION3 500T technical data (PDF)

 

[bfilm]

As far as the Kodak still photography films in 135 and 120 formats, this is the latest that I have seen. It is quoted from an email message that someone shared from the director of the "film capture product line" at Kodak Alaris.

February 2024:

"135 format Gold 200, UltraMax 400, ColorPlus 200, ProImage 100, and Portra 800 coat on ESTAR."

"135 format EKTAR 100, Portra 160, Portra 400 and E100 coat on acetate."

"120 format Gold 200 and E100 coat on ESTAR. The rest of the 120 films coat on acetate."

"All B&W films coat on acetate."

 

[MattKing]

Re-engineering film in order to permit changing from an acetate base to an Estar base is a far from trivial task, that involves significant amounts of work and cost, and at least some changes in constituent materials - not just a change in the base itself. The decision to do so would be a consequential senior management decision.
Or so I have been advised by a source who certainly would know!

 

[Harry Callahan]

I'd actually be shocked if it's not Estar, although I've never checked or paid particular attention. It's fairly thick-in hand it's about the thickness of conventional 35mm on acetate base, and thicker than 120 on acetate. It's DEFINITELY a lot thicker than films like the old Plus-X Aero that I've been playing with also(in 70mm).

...

I also would be as it`s hard for me to imagine the 65mm 15Perf to "survive" the claw in the camera if not made of Estar.

All of the Kodak motion picture camera films are on acetate base.

Here are the documents for VISION3 500T:

Kodak VISION3 500T brochure (PDF)

Kodak VISION3 500T technical data (PDF)

I`ve been looking into these before and they exclude 65mm film. They mention 8mm, 16mm and 35mm but not 65mm - that`s why i asked Ben Hutcherson to make sure.

EDIT:

The second PDF does exclude 65mm. The first does include but it`s headline is "Kodak... 5219/7219"

5219 stands for 35mm film and 7219 stands for 16mm film, it`s also on the can.
In this older document they state that KV3 500T also was on Estar base.

https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/VISION3-500T-Color-Negative-Film-7219-TECHNICAL-DATA.pdf

 

[bfilm]

I`ve been looking into these before and they exclude 65mm film. They mention 8mm, 16mm and 35mm but not 65mm - that`s why i asked Ben Hutcherson to make sure.

EDIT:

The second PDF does exclude 65mm. The first does include but it`s headline is "Kodak... 5219/7219"

5219 stands for 35mm film and 7219 stands for 16mm film, it`s also on the can.
In this older document they state that KV3 500T also was on Estar base.

https://www.kodak.com/content/produ...T-Color-Negative-Film-7219-TECHNICAL-DATA.pdf

The VISION3 500T 65 mm is also considered as 5219.

You can also look at the motion picture film price list, which specifically notes when the films are on ESTAR base.

Kodak Motion Picture Products Price Catalog (PDF)

 

[cmacd123]

The second PDF does exclude 65mm. The first does include but it`s headline is "Kodak... 5219/7219"

5219 stands for 35mm film and 7219 stands for 16mm film, it`s also on the can.

type numbers starting with 7 are acetate under 35mm. starting with 5 are 35mm and above in Acetate. Estar numbers start with 2 and 3.

SOME movie negative has been made on eastar over the years,. those are often designated with an SO-000 number where the digits can be anything from 001 to 999.

But yes, the Normal size and base and minimum order quanity is listed in the Movie Cataloge along with the CAT number for each type of package. Note that many are listed as "Finish to order" so they would be made up and perforated etc, once a movie Customer places a firm order.

(just looking at the list, the only 65mm rolls with a one roll order quantity is 5219 500T. Most of the 65mm rolls seem to require ordering 16 rolls and waiting for the finish to order process.)

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

I also would be as it`s hard for me to imagine the 65mm 15Perf to "survive" the claw in the camera if not made of Estar.



I`ve been looking into these before and they exclude 65mm film. They mention 8mm, 16mm and 35mm but not 65mm - that`s why i asked Ben Hutcherson to make sure.

EDIT:

The second PDF does exclude 65mm. The first does include but it`s headline is "Kodak... 5219/7219"

5219 stands for 35mm film and 7219 stands for 16mm film, it`s also on the can.
In this older document they state that KV3 500T also was on Estar base.

https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/VISION3-500T-Color-Negative-Film-7219-TECHNICAL-DATA.pdf

I just tried the tear test on a piece of developed 65mm 200T.

Initially I couldn't get it to tear, but tried where I'd "clipped" a sprocket hole to help with sleeving and it tore like acetate.

I've NEVER been able to tear polyester film by hand, not even when starting with a pre-existing cut. Sometimes I can get it to stretch and sort of "snap" but mostly it will just distress and not actually tear. Acetate is sometimes hard to start but will tear cleanly when started.

I'll mention too that I don't think I've personally handled a 70mm film that's not on polyester. I've only been shooting 70mm for a couple of months now, and initially I used Rollei 400 Pro(which is the same film sold as 400IR in other formats, and I think Aviphot 200). I still have an unopened roll of it. Lately too I’ve been shooting Plus-X Aero(2402) which is an interesting film and Estar.

 

[bfilm]

I just tried the tear test on a piece of developed 65mm 200T.

Initially I couldn't get it to tear, but tried where I'd "clipped" a sprocket hole to help with sleeving and it tore like acetate.

I've NEVER been able to tear polyester film by hand, not even when starting with a pre-existing cut. Sometimes I can get it to stretch and sort of "snap" but mostly it will just distress and not actually tear. Acetate is sometimes hard to start but will tear cleanly when started.

I'll mention too that I don't think I've personally handled a 70mm film that's not on polyester. I've only been shooting 70mm for a couple of months now, and initially I used Rollei 400 Pro(which is the same film sold as 400IR in other formats, and I think Aviphot 200). I still have an unopened roll of it. Lately too I’ve been shooting Plus-X Aero(2402) which is an interesting film and Estar.

Interesting to hear of your experiment with tearing the 65 mm motion picture camera film, which does seem to confirm an acetate base.

As far as the 70 mm film, in motion picture film the only 70 mm is the print film, which is on ESTAR polyester base nowadays. The additional width over the 65 mm camera film is to fit the sound tracks on the release print. Because unlike the traditional 35 mm Academy and Anamorphic formats that leave room for the sound tracks, the 65 mm formats use the full width of the film during the camera recording and so need larger film for the (full size) release prints.

 

[cmacd123]

Because unlike the traditional 35 mm Academy and Anamorphic formats that leave room for the sound tracks, the 65 mm formats use the full width of the film during the camera recording and so need larger film for the (full size) release prints.

"needed" the 70mm formats generally used multi channel magnetic sound tracks. between the film edge and the sprocket holes. Kodak has not had the capability to do magnetic sound striping for a decade or two, so the extra space is now just Blank. DTS, or Dolby DIgital or just tracking the frame number is likly how the sound is synced these days. I am not privy to that level of technical detail.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Thanks to all responding and for testing the material - i see.
And i am impressed for the acetate material making it through the camera.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Didn’t Kodak just announce a price increase for 2025? I think I read somewhere (will look for it) that prices on most films will increase. Something like 5% on Portra, 30% on Gold, something similar for TMax. But lower prices on TriX for some reason. I’ll get back when I find it.

Edit: I googled it and choose the first of several hits. https://kosmofoto.com/2024/11/kodak...or-january-2025-but-tri-x-is-getting-cheaper/

I was stuck on the Tri-x price reduction in 35mm but otherwise is incomprehensible the +20% of Tmax in 120 format...

 

[Radost]

I would not be surprised if the “ very nice gentlemen” at Cinestill asked Eastman to stop selling cinema film to individual buyers.