Kodachrome Cinema Film

Alex Benjamin · Apr 1, 2022

Should also note that what we think of as the "Kodachrome look" is the look and feel of the version that was used in the 60s and 70s. The earlier version, that of the same time period of the films mentioned here, had a different look.

Some cinematographers of the early 70s really knew how to reproduce the Kodachrome look. I'm thinking, for example, of Michael Chapman in Taxi Driver. For the longest time I thought that film was shot on Kodachrome.

MattKing · Apr 1, 2022

markjwyatt said:
And that sarcasm is all in the first sentence, right?

Try again

cmacd123 · Apr 1, 2022

Chan Tran said:
I thought Holywood always shot with negative film stock so that they can make prints for distribution.

yes, although the Kodachrome based Technicolor monopack film was used to make Black and white separation negatives, which then could make colour prints. so called IB technicolour always had a 3 strip separation step.

George Mann · Apr 2, 2022

Alex Benjamin said:
Should also note that what we think of as the "Kodachrome look" is the look and feel of the version that was used in the 60s and 70s. The earlier version, that of the same time period of the films mentioned here, had a different look.

There were 3 official versions sold commercially, all of which provided distinctly different renderings.

To further complicate things, the third version was tweaked several times during its production, yielding differences as well.

Alan Edward Klein · Apr 2, 2022

MattKing said:
Cinestill takes the current version of Vision, which long ago replaced Eastmancolor, either removes the remjet or has Eastman Kodak do it for them, and sells it to people who usually intend to process it in a process not designed for it (C-41) rather than the process it is designed for (ECN-2).
Those people end up with results that have excess halation, strange contrast behaviors and unusual colour performance.
Then they blog about how wonderful it is.
There is only some sarcasm in this post.

So they remove the remjet so they can process it as other C41 film rather than using a special process?

Alan Edward Klein · Apr 2, 2022

cmacd123 said:
EASTMAN color negative was the first generation, it was replaced by EASTMAN Color negative 2, and then by EXR and several version of Vison. During much of this time Kodak and Fuji were neck and Neck in a competition to make better movie camera negative film. Fuji withdrew from the movie business and improvements have slowed down.

for movie negative there have been two processes, ECN, and now ECN2 for movie prints they are on ECP2() with variations as the last remaining colour print film has done away with REMJET to save water as many prints were made in California where their is a water shortage. Camera Negative still uses REMJET as their is no better way.

CineStill uses a version of vison3 negative without REMJET, and without any other technology to replace it. then it is marketed for cross processing in C41 rather than ECN2
movie prins are now quite rare, as almost all theaters are exclusively digital, unless the movie was done by Chris Nolan.

A few cinematographers still use film. It;s converted to be played as digital in the theaters that only play digital. There are 7 other directors who use film
https://www.phactual.com/8-directors-who-still-use-film-stock-instead-of-digital-photography/

Alan Edward Klein · Apr 2, 2022

I understand that Hollywood guarantees to buy a certain amount of Vision film from Kodak every year. It was the only way in the future that it would remain available. Of course, Kodak felt secure that they could continue to produce knowing they had a guaranteed buyer. I don't know who in Hollywood made the deal and how the guarantees work.

Europan · Apr 2, 2022

Wasn’t it that tennis player?

MattKing · Apr 2, 2022

Alan Edward Klein said:
So they remove the remjet so they can process it as other C41 film rather than using a special process?

No - it still performs better if you use the proper ECN-2 process. That process is designed to create lower contrast negatives, optimized for printing on to projection film stock, rather than printing on to colour paper.
Remjet is basically carbon, it is a very effective anti-halation component, and it is particularly advantageous in movie cameras because of its anti-static and high speed characteristics.
The reason that the remjet needs to be removed is that if you leave it on and send the film to a lab to develop in C-41, that lab will hate you for all time if they use their machine to develop it, because the remjet will come off in the machine and mess it up terribly. The machine will have to be shut down, disassembled and fully and laboriously cleaned.
Kodachrome used remjet, because so much of Kodachrome was shot as movie film.
Still film doesn't need the anti-static and lubrication capabilities of remjet, so other methods are used instead for anti-halation.

laser · Apr 2, 2022

1. Kodachrome's use in commercial motion pictures was limited by the Toland Patent that was owned by Technicolor. EK's agreement with Technicolor was that the process would not be used by Kodak to provide film to non-Technicolor commercial motion pictures. Technicolor was allowed to use Kodachrome as it pleased.

2. Kodachrome for general sale was not available for 35mm motion picture use.

3. Kodachrome was only available on cellulose triacetate support, never on cellulose nitrate. Mr. Eastman had a great fear of fire. In 1905 he built his "fireproof" house. Out of respect for him his policies were followed long after his death. Since Kodachrome was intended for home use, Safety Film was used for Kodachrome.

4. Prior to WWII Agfa had the best color coupler negative technology. Shortly afterward Kodak devised ballasted color couplers that allow films to have a longer shelf life because the components didn't migrate through the film layers.
.
www.makingKODAKfilm.com

CMoore · Apr 2, 2022

MattKing said:
No - it still performs better if you use the proper ECN-2 process. That process is designed to create lower contrast negatives, optimized for printing on to projection film stock, rather than printing on to colour paper.
Remjet is basically carbon, it is a very effective anti-halation component, and it is particularly advantageous in movie cameras because of its anti-static and high speed characteristics.
The reason that the remjet needs to be removed is that if you leave it on and send the film to a lab to develop in C-41, that lab will hate you for all time if they use their machine to develop it, because the remjet will come off in the machine and mess it up terribly. The machine will have to be shut down, disassembled and fully and laboriously cleaned.
Kodachrome used remjet, because so much of Kodachrome was shot as movie film.
Still film doesn't need the anti-static and lubrication capabilities of remjet, so other methods are used instead for anti-halation.

Was "Remjet" a trade name by any chance.?
At any rate................. does anybody know when (how far back in cinema history) Remjet became standard procedure.?
Was it well back into silent films that the Problem and Solution was discovered.?
Thank You

MattKing · Apr 2, 2022

CMoore said:
Was "Remjet" a trade name by any chance.?

Interesting question - I for one don't know.
Strangely enough, "remjet" actually refers to one method used to remove the material - removal using water jets.

cmacd123 · Apr 2, 2022

CMoore said:
Was "Remjet" a trade name by any chance.?
At any rate................. does anybody know when (how far back in cinema history) Remjet became standard procedure.?
Was it well back into silent films that the Problem and Solution was discovered.?
Thank You

REMJET may be a kodak trademark. It is/was mainly used on Kodachrome and Eastman colour films. those came out long past the silent era.

Alex Benjamin · Apr 2, 2022

cmacd123 said:
REMJET may be a kodak trademark. It is/was mainly used on Kodachrome and Eastman colour films. those came out long past the silent era.

From what I read: REM is for "removable", JET for "jet black carbon", but it's debatable.

It's discussed in this old thread: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/rem-jet.42875/

laser · Apr 13, 2022

cmacd123 said:
REMJET may be a kodak trademark. It is/was mainly used on Kodachrome and Eastman colour films. those came out long past the silent era.

rem jet is not a Kodak Trademark. It is listed as " Words used in Correspondence and Publications", in Kodak Nomenclature ©1971.

"rem jet (removable black film backing)"

cmacd123 · Apr 13, 2022

laser said:
rem jet is not a Kodak Trademark. It is listed as " Words used in Correspondence and Publications", in Kodak Nomenclature ©1971.

"rem jet (removable black film backing)"

I will consider that the definitive answer....

Kodachrome Cinema Film

Alex Benjamin

MattKing

Moderator

cmacd123

George Mann

Alan Edward Klein

Alan Edward Klein

Alan Edward Klein

Europan

MattKing

Moderator

laser

Advertiser

CMoore

MattKing

Moderator

cmacd123

Alex Benjamin

laser

Advertiser

cmacd123

Kodachrome Cinema Film

Moderator

Moderator

Advertiser

Moderator

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency