Kodachrome interview

nworth · Nov 20, 2008

... Now said:
The usual Kodachrome machine processed film from a 1000 foot reel. Individual rolls were spliced together to make up the long reel. That would be about 200 rolls of film every hour and a half or so. Eight hours a day on a single machine might handle Dwayne's entire load. And to think that a hundred or so of these machines used to be very busy.

Nicholas Lindan · Nov 20, 2008

The process time for a roll of film doesn't determine how many rolls of film/hr come off a machine, and the rate at which rolls come of the machine does not have any bearing on how long a roll spends in any one solution.

In the same way it takes the same amount of time to process one tank of film, independent of the number of reels in the tank, a machine's throughput is determined by how many rolls of film are in process at any one time.

Steady State Throughput = web length in rolls / process time

There is additionally a fixed time per run of film, equal to the process time, that it takes for the first roll to make it through the machine.

The time a roll spends in any one tank depends on the speed of the film and the length of film immersed in the tank - or how far any given roll must travel to get through the tank. The film is zig-zagged over rollers to get the required film length/process time.

1000 rolls/day seems perfectly plausible for one machine, no matter how you cut it.

If steady-state sales are also around 1,000 rolls/day, and Kodak gets $4 for a roll of Kodachrome, then Kodak is getting $1,000,000 / year for Kodachrome - a very awkward number - and declining.

Conventional business wisdom says you either milk the profits from such a product, investing $0 and then killing it, or you sell it off. Kodak can't sell off the production business but it has sold off the processing business.

Advertising dollars have a much higher ROI when they promote a growth product rather than a declining product.

rwyoung · Nov 20, 2008

Photo Engineer;710187 Knowing that said:
<Begin OT>
Ron -
Since Boeing, Cessna and Bombardier are laying off, your tongue may be closer to the truth in your cheek than you realize...

While I was typing my little jab at Ron I was watching the video. I grew up watching the evening news in southwest Kansas and we could pick up the Wichita TV stations so I suffered through thousands of Hatteberg's People segments. Honestly, I thought he was dead by now.

KAKE is just as hokey as ever.
<End OT>

Nicholas Lindan · Nov 20, 2008

Brandon D. said:
Does it really matter how many rolls of Kodachrome they process each day?

Absolutely not. That's what makes it a topic of conversation...

Photo Engineer · Nov 20, 2008

Actually guys, I said most of the above in a long previous post. The key word that we used is dwell time. In the example of the auto factory, it takes 12 hours to make a car but one comes out every minute. Think on this.... It therefore takes 12 hours for the first auto to come off that line. In the mean time, nothing is "finished". After that time, if they stopped the startup of new cars, it would take them 12 hours to shut that line down and they would have produced 1 car in 24 hours. Total production time of one car is then 24 hours and 1 minute.

In the example of Kodachrome, you would get about 4 hours of processing / day out of one machine due to this dwell time (or startup/shutdown) in one 8 hour shift.

And yes, you read here 3 pages of comments derived from a "hokey" interview that is contradicted by every other interview with different information. So my tongue is in my cheek searching for that lost tidbit of humor and truth in what has become a very humorless and tedious subject.

PE

Nicholas Lindan · Nov 20, 2008

If it takes 12 hours/car, and the rate is a car a minute then 24 hours - cold start to shutdown - produces 720 cars, with 12 hours needed for the first car to come out and another 12 hours for the last car to appear. A total production of 1 car only takes 12 hours as the line starts shutting down 1 minute after it starts.

Photo Engineer · Nov 20, 2008

Yes Nicholas, but in the case of film, you have to keep the machine threaded and so there is no immediate shutdown. But I do get your analogy. I was wrong, by carrying the analogy too far. The car line does not require that leader be rethreaded.

BTW, a coating machine also needs to be kept threaded with leader, unlike the car factory.

So, thanks for the correction, but remember to apply my example to film making and processing. You don't have to rethread a car assembly line.

PE

Nicholas Lindan · Nov 20, 2008

The machine, if it works like other machines of its type, is always threaded - a leader for the the next batch is attached to the end of the last batch.

The threading time for a bare machine has no relationship to the throughput of the machine - it is simply how fast can someone run a leader and is limited by the speed of hands.

tim_walls · Nov 20, 2008

Photo Engineer said:
And yes, you read here 3 pages of comments derived from a "hokey" interview that is contradicted by every other interview with different information. So my tongue is in my cheek searching for that lost tidbit of humor and truth in what has become a very humorless and tedious subject.

To be fair, PE, this particular interview does at least contain an actual attributed quote.

The last article to be done to death on here contained not a single verifiable quote or fact, but was (and evidently still is) held up as the evidential gold standard purely because it agreed with preconceived prejudice.

Photo Engineer · Nov 20, 2008

Again Nicholas, you are right, but I'm not explaining things regarding my POV very well either. It has been years since I had to operate one of these danged machines.

Basically, I've gotten the analogies all mixed up now and no-one will probably believe any explanation, but just like the car assembly example, it takes time for the first finished product to come off the line. In the case of a car it is 12 hours and in the case of the film it is 1 - 2 hours. If you make 120 cars or process 120 rolls of film it will then take 12 hours and 1-2 hours respectively + 2 hours for both. So, for the film at 1' per roll throughput it will take 3 - 4 hours to produce the first 120 rolls of film and after that it will take 1 hour to produce 60 rolls. In a normal shift operation, one shift, by that estimate will produce about 360 rolls of film (one shift, one strand, one machine and 5 hours of output with 3 hours of startup and shutdown). In a week, that is 1800 rolls. Some machines run more than one strand, and there may be more than one machine in case of mechanical breakdown.

Maximum efficiency is achieved in both and assemly line and a processor when they are running constantly, but with film the processor takes some time to warm up before it can be used after a shutdown overnight. IDK about the car assembly line, but it probably can be started "cold" and can be turned on and off. Only the drive for the processor can be started and stopped.

So, your statement: Steady State Throughput = web length in rolls / process time should be modified to include the startup time during which everyone but the splicing technician is idle so to speak. They are doing other related tasks but not finishing slides until the process time has elapsed and the first complete roll emerges. AFAIK, they cannot start work until they have a full roll in-hand.

So, your formula should also be modified to include the fact that the web length in rolls is usually not handled until that roll is finished. It is cut at the leader, and the leader winds until more film appears at the tail of the machine.

So, unlike a car which can be driven away at the end of its production, the film cannot be removed one roll at a time until an entire spliced roll is finished. Now, this is the way it worked when I did it. We had to wait for a full roll. In fact, we usually did not make up the entire 1000 ft roll. We used about 200 ft rolls to cut the cycle time down. That way the chopping and packing operation got started more quickly than if we did 1000 ft rolls.

In fact, we processors did the chopping and packing as well and rotated through our lunch hour leaving one person to attend the machine while these rolls came out of the machine. Then as we returned from lunch we either replaced the watch operator or began chopping and packing individual orders.

I'm sorry for my poor explanations, but I hope I got the intent right in this one. Having done this, but not for years, I know that it is a long process and a long sequence of events.

Apologies. And, thanks Nicholas.

PE

Photo Engineer · Nov 20, 2008

tim_walls said:
To be fair, PE, this particular interview does at least contain an actual attributed quote.

The last article to be done to death on here contained not a single verifiable quote or fact, but was (and evidently still is) held up as the evidential gold standard purely because it agreed with preconceived prejudice.

Tim;

I used the word "hokey" from the previous post and that is all. IDK anything about the veracity of either interview.

As for the AP article, the URL to that article was given and the reporter is responsible for the "quote" there.

Either case is as reputable as both the reporter and the interviewee is willing to make it and in this we just don't know as it is not really made public.

So, basically, I agree with you and that is why I agreed with the tongue in cheek analogy to a degree. This is overdone and under - known. We have few truths.

PE

Photo Engineer · Nov 20, 2008

FYI, I looked up the K-14 process time in my files and it is about 40+ minutes + drying time at 27 degrees C. This is the original R&D process, so it may have been modified before final release.

PE

Ken Nadvornick · Nov 20, 2008

tim_walls said:
To be fair, PE, this particular interview does at least contain an actual attributed quote.

That is exactly what originally caught my eye, Tim.

Providing all parties are telling the truth, one could reasonably expect that the actual owner of the business should be the most credible source of information about his business.

And given that his is the only Kodachrome-processing business left in the world, any inferences regarding the health of Kodachrome, made using his numbers, should likely be closer to the bull's eye as well.

I would have thought this to be pretty obvious, but perhaps not...

Ken

Henning Serger · Nov 20, 2008

Dear Ron,

Photo Engineer said:
..... I also have stated that Kodachrome is NOT a big runner, but rather is very tiny and all sales of reversal films are falling faster than those of negative films.
...
PE

it depends on the market. I don't know exact numbers for the US, but I have the official numbers (on two months basis) for Germany.
At least in Germany sales numbers of color negative film are falling faster than those of reversal film.
And total sales of reversal film are still much higher than sales of BW film.
But BW film sales are currently in a beginning stabilisation process (much earlier than expected).

I know a lot of photographers who returned back to slides after using digital. They have made the experience that slide film is unique concerning a lot of characteristics. It is impossible to replace slides by digital photography, two different mediums.

There was a reason for Fuji to invest in R&D of slide film to introduce new emulsions. In 2005 Velvia 100, 2006/2007 Provia 400X and 64 T II, and the comeback of Velvia 50 in 2007. They hadn't done that if the demand is not sufficient enough to get a return on investment.
And with the excellent Provia 400X they have kicked Kodak out of the game....

Best regards,
Henning

Photo Engineer · Nov 20, 2008

Henning;

My reversal figures referred to Kodak. I have said before that Fuji reversal outsells Kodak reversal just as Kodak negative outsells Fuji negative, but that is a generalization that crosses many countries and markets and is just a generalization.

Overall, photo sales of B&W have stabilzed or grown slightly until the current downturn in the world economy.

Kodak negative film sales remain strong and they continue to do R&D in these products.

Now, back to Kodachrome......

Here is a reference to the Kodak literature on the process and processor. It has changed a bit since my notes, so you will see the entire process here in these thanks to a post by another APUG member:

http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z50_01.pdf

There are 10 PDF files. You just change z50_01 to z50_02 and etc to see all 10.

PE

rwyoung · Nov 20, 2008

Attn Tim and others who might have though Ron injected the word "hokey"...

I used the term "hokey" to describe KAKE (ABC affiliate in Wichita, KS) and their seeming never ending attempts at being folksy. But at least they were never as bad as KTKA (I think that is the call sign) out of Topeka. I swear their news set had a background that looked like it was tiled with 4" powder blue bathroom tile! Complete with cheesy plastic ferns.

And just to push the topic a bit back on subject, I would be inclined to believe that Grant's statement about 1,000 rolls of Kodachrome per day is more likely to due to having a camera shoved in his face. Perhaps the bright lights addled his mind for a moment and he meant 1,000 rolls of film (all combined) per day.

But any way you slice it, I'm happy that Dwayne's is getting some press and that they are still chugging along at 1, 100 or 1,000 rolls of Kodachrome per day!

Brandon D. · Nov 20, 2008

Nicholas Lindan said:
Absolutely not. That's what makes it a topic of conversation...

hahaha...

michaelbsc · Nov 20, 2008

SamWeiss said:
Silver halide photography has become an alternative process, along with platinum printing, carbon printing, etc...

This, I believe is the single most important point in this thread, and the single largest gestalt shift we all must come to terms with in the long run.

MB

Davesw · Nov 20, 2008

Photo Engineer said:
Yes Nicholas, but in the case of film, you have to keep the machine threaded and so there is no immediate shutdown. But I do get your analogy. I was wrong, by carrying the analogy too far. The car line does not require that leader be re threaded.

BTW, a coating machine also needs to be kept threaded with leader, unlike the car factory.

So, thanks for the correction, but remember to apply my example to film making and processing. You don't have to re thread a car assembly line.

PE

Question Ron ,
I'm just curious: If the input to the machine has a slowdown on film input during the day for some reason IE there is no film to put in for several minutes or hours do they need to splice on blank leader until film can again be threaded in to the machine?

Photo Engineer · Nov 20, 2008

Well, it depends on whether they have a K-Line machine or the older processor. The K-Line actually uses a self threading mechanism IIRC that uses rollers for the entire transport mechanism, so in reality no leader is needed. One of the early models of the older processor use a continuous belt and the front end of the roll was attached to it by a clip.

Considering that all of the later models are run in the light with a spliced casette, they all must use the no-leader model for transport.

You may want to go here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/klabs/index.shtml for more information. The following quote might help explain the problem in pinning this down:

"Depending on the size of the K-14 processor, film in process travels between 30 and 100 feet per minute. This rapid rate is necessary because in the K-14 processor, KODACHROME Film is agitated by impingement using a series of spray bars that project processing chemicals onto the film as it moves along. The K-LAB Processor takes a revolutionary approach to agitation using a tube-within-a-tube configuration that runs the film through an elliptical agitation tube made with an exacting pattern of holds, which is inside a recirculation tube that holds the processing chemicals. By bringing the chemical energy closer to the film, this innovation has enabled Kodak's engineers to lower the speed of the film to 6.5 feet per minute, and the chemical pump-size requirements for the K-LAB Processor to one-tenth that of the traditional K-14 processor.

The K-LAB Processor can process 75 to 100 rolls (24 to 36 exposures respectively) of film per hour, dry to dry, translating to a maximum of 600 rolls in an eight-hour shift. The tubes used in the K-LAB Processor also are easily removable for cleaning or replacement."

If you look at the figures, they are not entirely internally consistant. Just consider that the "speed has been lowered to 6.5 feet / minute" and also "the processor runs at 100 feet per minute" in the quote above. This and the fact that a 36 exposure roll is nominally 5 feet long further obfuscates things wrt throughput.

Kodak uses 6 productive hours / 8 hour shift allowing 1 hour startup and 1 hour shutdown in the above quote. But with figures in somewhat disagreement, it is hard to come up with something.

Using the max throughput for the machine, it would do about 130,000 rolls per year which would be about 4 - 5 master rolls of Kodachrome.

No wonder we have trouble figuring out what is going on.

PE

wogster · Nov 20, 2008

Brandon D. said:
Does it really matter how many rolls of Kodachrome they process each day? :confused:

Well maybe, if they are processing the 1000 rolls a day mentioned, then obviously it's a process that they are making money on and will probably continue for the next 5 years at least. If they were processing say 100 rolls a day then your probably safe with it for at least a year, if 10 rolls a day, then they could decide next week, to discontinue it.

michaelbsc · Nov 21, 2008

Photo Engineer said:
No wonder we have trouble figuring out what is going on.

PE

Obviously lack of information hurts our ability to know what's happening, but unlike some others, not you PE, I don't think we can blame Kodak for maliciously withholding information. After all, they're not in business to make film; they're in business to make money. Film is merely the historical product/method they use to generate the sales revenue that makes the profit. You can probably throw a lot of darts at them for mistakes and missed opportunities, but their choice to promulgate or withhold information is decided by their best judgment about protecting their revenue stream.

Witness, they freely post, on a public website no less, boatloads of details about other products, i.e. the link PE just provided about the K-Lab and thousands of other pages. And if you write and ask them specific technical questions, they write back with detailed answers. They are most likely closed mouth about Kodachrome because they don't know what to do with it. If it was a giant profit maker, then they would be putting up banner ads on Google. If it was a giant liability, then they would be trying to get the US Congress to buy it from them in a bailout. As it stands, it is "probably" up on the chopping block every budget cycle, but always manages to get pardoned like a ceremonial Thanksgiving turkey.

But the bottom line will eventually come down to the bottom line. Like I said, Kodak is in business to make money, not film.

MB

michaelbsc · Nov 21, 2008

wogster said:
... if 10 rolls a day, then they could decide next week, to discontinue it.

I think at 10 rolls per day they would have decided last year to cut it off. If you look what it the costs the company where I work just to rent a dinky little building in an industrial park, and asked me what I would charge to process 10 rolls per day of B&W, average 20 working days per month = 200 rolls per month, it wouldn't cover just the rent and utilities at twice per roll what Dwaynes charges for Kodachrome. Forget about salaries and profit.

railwayman3 · Nov 21, 2008

^^^^^^
I think that the last few posts have summarised nicely why we keep clutching at straws of information, and going over this Kodachrome issue.

I'd love to know how long it's going to be around....five years would be heaven, one year would enable me to plan holidays and outings to make the best final use of it!

I'd guess Kodak don't know themselves....perhaps any other product with such low use would have been discontinued long before now, but maybe even hard-nosed managers shy away from being the ones to axe such an iconic product.

wogster · Nov 21, 2008

michaelbsc said:
I think at 10 rolls per day they would have decided last year to cut it off. If you look at the costs just to keep the building open for the dinky little place the company I work at rents in an industrial park, and asked me what I would charge to process 10 rolls per day of B&W, average 20 working days per month = 200 rolls per month, it wouldn't cover just the rent and utilities at twice per roll what Dwaynes charges for Kodachrome. Forget about salaries and profit.

Well I would assume that Dwayne's.... hang on a sec... okay just checked their website, they do more then just Kodachrome, which is what I expected. So even if you did 10 rolls a day, and paid the rent and salaries using other processes and services, doesn't mean that you would want to continue to do so. I guess another thing is their deal with Kodak, probably limits their options in discontinuing it.

Kodachrome interview

nworth

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

rwyoung

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

Photo Engineer

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

Photo Engineer

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

tim_walls

Photo Engineer

Photo Engineer

Photo Engineer

Ken Nadvornick

Henning Serger

Photo Engineer

rwyoung

Brandon D.

michaelbsc

Davesw

Photo Engineer

wogster

michaelbsc

michaelbsc

railwayman3

wogster

Kodachrome interview

Advertiser

Advertiser

Advertiser

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency