Kodachrome

[warden]

Yes, possibly, but knowing the way these threads go I fear the response :-D

Be bold!

 

[Duceman]

Speaking of Kodachrome, I discovered this in a bag of expired film someone recently gave me. Expired 1/98. I'm not sure what to do with it. Can it be x-pro'd?

 

[MattKing]

Does anybody know.....just round numbers.....the difference in cost to produce Kodachrome Vs Ektachrome and also the same question about cost to process them.?
Thank You

No one who knew would be allowed to tell - and certainly my Dad didn't. He wasn't even allowed to know the volume of films being processed at the lab where he worked, and he was the Customer Service manager for that lab

 

[CMoore]

No one who knew would be allowed to tell - and certainly my Dad didn't. He wasn't even allowed to know the volume of films being processed at the lab where he worked, and he was the Customer Service manager for that lab

Even today.?
I did not realize film production was such a guarded topic

 

[MattKing]

However, it is probably important to understand that in most places in the world Kodachrome was sold with Kodak processing included. Until the very end, almost all the Kodak processing was done on those huge - size of a small city bus - motion picture film processors, which were very expensive to run, but which probably had a per film cost that was relatively low.
My Dad was responsible for the pick-up and delivery service for Western Canada. Every Kodak dealer could sign up, people would drop off their film at their local camera store one day, Kodak's courier would pick them up and deliver them to the lab. They would be processed (often during the graveyard shift) and then returned to the store, for eventual pickup by the customer.
Depending on the distance, that service was either next business day or two day service, and was included in the price of the film.
In addition to the pickup and delivery films, there was a large volume of film arriving by mail, which would be processed just as promptly, and put back into the mail that quickly too.
During busy times, the lab ran 24 hours per day.
And by the way, a really large part of that volume was amateur movie film. When that business went to video, it really was the beginning of the death nell for Kodachrome. The smaller, K-14 machines at the end were technological wonders, but they really weren't able to provide the necessary volume to ensure the necessary profitability.
My Dad's lab also processed Ektachrome slides and movie films, but the bulk of the business was Kodachrome.
The lab was shut down due to decreasing volumes in 1984.

 

[MattKing]

I know, or rather i have always heard, it was a popular 16mm movie film.
Was Kodachrome used for 35mm movies also.?
Thank You

I don't know whether 35mm Kodachrome movie film was made, but doubt it.
The vast majority of the movie film though was 8mm movie film - either single 8, double 8 or super 8.

 

[CMoore]

I don't know whether 35mm Kodachrome movie film was made, but doubt it.
The vast majority of the movie film though was 8mm movie film - either single 8, double 8 or super 8.

OK i might have misunderstood your earlier post.
Maybe you simply meant it was MANUFACTURED Like a cinema film, not that it was used as one.
Or maybe you said nothing of the kind and my memory has butchered the whole thing.

 

[MattKing]

OK i might have misunderstood your earlier post.
Maybe you simply meant it was MANUFACTURED Like a cinema film, not that it was used as one.
Or maybe you said nothing of the kind and my memory has butchered the whole thing.

No, not a cinema film. A movie film shot in great numbers by amateurs making home and vacation and travel movies.
The most famous example probably being the one used in Dallas Texas on November 22, 1963 by Abraham Zapruder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film

 

[mshchem]

Kodak used Kodachrome on it's educational 16mm films. Might have been marketing but there was use in this market. Not exactly cinema though.

 

[abruzzi]

HIE has a better chance of reappearing, than Kodachrome...and I doubt HIE will reappear.

I would LOVE to have HIE back. I have a few 35mm rolls in the freezer, but would have loved to try it out with sheet film. I’d prefer HIE to Kodachrome if Kodak were to bring something back, but neither seem likely.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I would LOVE to have HIE back. I have a few 35mm rolls in the freezer, but would have loved to try it out with sheet film. I’d prefer HIE to Kodachrome if Kodak were to bring something back, but neither seem likely.

I have about 20 sheets left. It's precious. Very precious.

 

[BrianShaw]

I’m running out of Plus-X… and would much rather have that film than

 

[Dan Fromm]

It was a movie film that lots of people made great still images on.
They needed movie film volumes to make it work.

WHAT? Kodachrome was developed for still photography, was later packaged for amateur cinema gauges. It is a reversal film. Professional cinema -- "Hollywood" -- used color negative film. And that's where the volumes were.

 

[adycousins]

Speaking of Kodachrome, I discovered this in a bag of expired film someone recently gave me. Expired 1/98. I'm not sure what to do with it. Can it be x-pro'd?

Only as B&W really. I'm working on K14 colour processing, but its a long winded and expensive process by hand.

 

[CMoore]

No, not a cinema film. A movie film shot in great numbers by amateurs making home and vacation and travel movies.
The most famous example probably being the one used in Dallas Texas on November 22, 1963 by Abraham Zapruder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film

But what about 35mm.
Was that used by a lot of people as a movie film.?

 

[AgX]

WHAT? Kodachrome was developed for still photography, was later packaged for amateur cinema gauges. It is a reversal film.

The other way round....

Kodachrome was first offered as cine film (16mm) and about one year later as reg 8mm cine film. And then it took a further half year to be offered as still film (type 828 and 135). Thus 1 1/2 years of delay!


By the way, Agfacolor New was introduced in Germany in November 1936, both as cine and still film. Thus only 3 months after the introduction of Kodachrome still film in the USA. Thus as still films both competitors came up at about the same time, something typically overlooked.

And from then it took nearly another year for Kodachrome still film to reach Germany. As in the US, after its cine versions.

 

[mshchem]

The other way round....

Kodachrome was first offered as cine film (16mm) and about one year later as reg 8mm cine film. And then it took a further half year to be offered as still film (type 828 and 135). Thus 1 1/2 years of delay!


By the way, Agfacolor New was introduced in Germany in November 1936, both as cine and still film. Thus only 3 months after the introduction of Kodachrome still film in the USA. Thus as still films both competitors came up at about the same time, something typically overlooked.

And from then it took nearly another year for Kodachrome still film to reach Germany. As in the US, after its cine versions.

Wasn't the 135 cassette introduced by Kodak with the introduction of the Kodak AG Retina cameras. Obviously the 135 cassette was designed to work with existing 35mm cameras. The Retina and Rettina cameras simplified the use of 35mm film. IIRC Kodachrome was introduced in 18 exposure rolls. Probably to allow Kodak to process in existing equipment.

 

[AgX]

You mix up things, as I do not refer to the introduction of the type 135 cassette, but the introduction of the type 135 Kodachrome film-conversion .

Yes, it was type 135-18, as we today would call it.


By the way, Agfacolor New was released as 135-36.

 

[Dan Fromm]

The other way round....

Kodachrome was first offered as cine film (16mm) and about one year later as reg 8mm cine film. And then it took a further half year to be offered as still film (type 828 and 135). Thus 1 1/2 years of delay!


By the way, Agfacolor New was introduced in Germany in November 1936, both as cine and still film. Thus only 3 months after the introduction of Kodachrome still film in the USA. Thus as still films both competitors came up at about the same time, something typically overlooked.

And from then it took nearly another year for Kodachrome still film to reach Germany. As in the US, after its cine versions.

Are you sure? I've always understood that God and Man's experimental and prototype films were all sheet film.

 

[AgX]

I am speaking of the conversions as they were introduced into the markets. And here I do not see a technical issue, but a marketing one.

Mannes and Godowsky, as far as they could be the reference here at all, started their colour endeavour with cine film.

 

[MattKing]

Kodachrome was offered in all sorts of formats.
But the machines used to process it, and the processes themselves, were much more like motion picture film processes than still film processes.
And a substantial proportion of the miles of film that went through those machines was, until the end, Kodachrome movie film.
It was movie film that gave Kodak the economies of scale that made it possible.

 

[MattKing]

Are you sure? I've always understood that God and Man's experimental and prototype films were all sheet film.

And they were.
But the implementation of the technology was as movie film initially, and throughout its heyday.
In particular, the approach to processing.
When you sent your Kodachrome still films into Kodak to be processed, the first thing they did was splice them together with a whole bunch of other customer films - a mile of film all together, to which another mile of leader and another mile of trailer was added, and the entire three mile long roll was then fed into the motion picture roller transport processor to be developed all together at one time.

 

[AgX]

The way the film was processed does not prove anything. Basically any format with surplus can be spliced.

 

[MattKing]

The way the film was processed does not prove anything. Basically each format with surplus can be spliced.

While that is true, the economics of a business where the machines require a mile of film at a time are very, very, very different than the economics of a business that can use small capacity machines.
Kodachrome's technology and economics depended on the volumes that motion picture film made a huge contribution toward.

 

[AgX]

That volume of film must have been bought and paid for by the consumer first. Be it cine or still film.

The marketing people at Kodak decided that at least for the start the amateur moviemakers would be their aim. They were the people who got projection means.
This was not or at much lesser share the case for still photographers.

At Agfa they decided differently. At basically same situation.