Hi Lachian,So much inanity in this thread.
Consider that Kodak felt it worthwhile to make a dozen+ E-6 films until 2009-2012, all in larger than minimum quantities, in the most part on 2 triacetate bases & 1 Estar base. That's a huge amount of film, when a minimum batch is about 35000 135 or 120 rolls. The current batch is being split between 135, S8, 16mm - no one knows the exact percentages outside Kodak I'd imagine, but it's probably a reasonable guess that there's perhaps 20k+ rolls available for 135. Not a lot of retailers need to sell 500-1000 rolls for that batch to be spoken for. But of course it won't stop those whose overarching narrative of persecution needs the sky to be falling.
Lachlan, did you mean inanity, or was it insanity?Hmm, or both I guess.
PE
But the superiority of neg-pos film systems can be shown mathematically, as can the shortcomings of pos-pos systems.
Ah well.
PE
But the superiority of neg-pos film systems can be shown mathematically, as can the shortcomings of pos-pos systems.
Ah well.
PE
Yes, I don't doubt that math and measurements can prove c41 is superior to e6. I use c41 and e6 and my calculator, slide rule and micrometer all agree that e6 is superior at showing me what the world looks like when I hold a slide up to the sky. It's 106.8% more bitchin' than c41. Approximately.
It sounds a great deal more interesting than anything else in this thread by a large margin - a quick search brings up references you've made to this before - is it published anywhere, or was it a confidential internal document?
My current favourite bizarre claim I've seen someone volubly defend is that current colour negative film was supposedly designed/ compromised to produce bigger dye clouds for lower granularity when scanned & then get sharpened in software - which from my experience scanning various Portra's, VPS, Fuji etc (on high end kit that doesn't need sharpening to deal with poor scanner optics) seems fairly nonsensical as the latest films are definitely clearly sharper than the 90's stuff! Same with optical chromogenic prints too. The claims also seem largely ignorant of how minilab scanners work, but that's another topic entirely...
Thread piracy warning
You have never seen a positive made from one of your negatives, using a print film then. Much higher dynamic range. Too bad.
PE
Indeed - I would agree European. A new EKTACHROME based Super8 film is just great. (To fellows who can afford pricing of Super 8 rollsHad Rochester only included a new Super-8 projector in the strategy the whole thing were better comprehensible. I think it wouldn’t need to be a sound projector, just a neat solid thing that makes a good three-to-four foot picture.
I know of the issue of rubber driving belts turning to goo and the issue of mains voltage, but do we really need a new made S-8 projector?
If people buying slides film already without interest to projecting, is then a interest in projecting S-8 films to expect?
It's not too bad. I wouldn't do such a thing. The positive is finished when I develop it and I'm satisfied with it; it has less detail in the shadows, which I don't care about, and I'm careful to not overexpose. Hey I like c-41 too, but have no interest in the labor of turning negatives into positives when I can just shoot positives when I feel like it. It's more fun that way, 102.4%.
For perfectly straightforward technical reasons, a print from a negative to make a slide has a density range from about 0.1 to 4.0, whereas a straight Ektachrome slide has a range from about 0.2 to 3.0. Wooo Hooo, how does that suit you? Projected, this type of "slide" will knock your socks off when compared with a dreary old Ektachrome. BTDT!!!
Since print films are no longer made, this is a moot point, but if more people had understood this fact, these films might still be in production today.
But then, Hollywood knows better. They use print films and this type of film is supporting the last Kodak film production units here in Rochester.
PE
What use does Hollywood have for print films?But then, Hollywood knows better. They use print films and this type of film is supporting the last Kodak film production units here in Rochester.
...
But then, Hollywood knows better. They use print films and this type of film is supporting the last Kodak film production units here in Rochester.
PE
Yes, I’m servicing a Paillard-Bolex H-16 RX-5 right now. The last person who had worked on it smeared graphite grease everywhere, even on the gears of the shutter drive. A view of the governor brake bell that should be clean and dry:I guess to you it is no problem (remember a old thread) - you are an expert to used equipment and in addition an expert in "overhauling" right.
I own a Simens2000 in best condition - but 16mm is much more expensive in concern of Ektachrome.
Around 145 bucks for 3 min. raw szenes?
My point was, which cinemas do still project on film, what films are still released on film, respectively in what number?Well, the print films are what are viewed in the theater. And they are 35 mm.
My point was, which cinemas do still project on film, what films are still released on film, respectively in what number?
In the whole media attention on a film revival in moviemaking, I did not find a single statement on print film, not even by Kodak, not even regarding Imax. It all was about camera films.
If you google Digitalisation Cinema", you even will not even get results from the recent years from Germany. It is no longer a topic to write about, but a accepted fact...
So, the argument not pertaining to Ektachrome's resurrection is that c-41 is better than e6 somehow? What about preference? I vastly prefer my slides over my color negs, also i thought that positive film was thought of as being far superior to print film.
man, photographers are weird...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?