• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Kodak ‘Investigating What it Would Take’ to Bring Back Kodachrome

Theo Sulphate said:
......we have lost the ability to re-create the Saturn V rocket which launched the Apollo missions..........
Click to expand...


No we haven't. We've just not needed or wanted to build one for past, oh, 40-odd years.

Even if the effort was made to exactly recreate a '60's/'70's-era rocket would be a total waste of time given there's better materials and manufacturing methods available today. A manned moon mission would be easy to pull off (provided you found someone to write the checks), but it certainly wouldn't look like the old SVs in the old NASA films.
 
To all those who questioned my post - there are no engineers to begin the remanufacture of Kodachrome NOR Ektachrome. Both are difficult, but the Ektachrome is a bit easier in that most all components are on hand. The components for Kodachrome are not, nor do many people (except Ron Andrews) really understand the nuances of its manufacture.

Now, supposing it were easy, then consider that a market return must be present to justify the training and the experiments both.

The people who question this are obviously new members or have not read old posts describing how difficult film manufacture is. And Kodachrome is one of the most difficult in one way - thinness of the layers among many others such as a red sensitizing dye that remains on the grain through the first developer. These are two of the huge problems facing the engineers.

You guys have no concept of how arcane photographic engineering is.

PE
 
Last edited:
Wallendo said:
I tired of the digital look of electronic flashes, and hate the resources wasted with single-use flashbulbs.

I'm hoping Kodak will bring back flash powder.
Click to expand...

Yep, flash powder sure does have a romance attached to it, as clearly evidenced by its prolific, flaming use in this evergreen entertaining shindig, "Sixpence" (first pop at 0:47, and still more follow).
 

I believe that with money and time any film can recreated, well may not there is autochrome, many have attempted, but has Ron says it is all about market return, on top of the film the processing unit was sent to salvage? I liked Kodachrom but dont think I will hold my breath for a new run.
 

Not pretending we'll see the return of Kodachrome. But the nuances of manufacture can't be impossibly arcane or impossibly difficult when Kodachrome and Agfacolor were being manufactured successfully in the 1930's (eighty years ago), in the days of airships, Neville Chamberlain, Adolf Hitler and Frankin Roosevelt, and before anyone now working at Kodak was born ! In the 1980's we had Kodachrome being made in matching quality in the US, UK and France, processed consistently in many countries, and with various quite presentable "copy-cat" products made in the UK (Ilford) and Japan and possibly USSR.
 
Last edited:
480sparky said:
No we haven't. We've just not needed or wanted to build one for past, oh, 40-odd years.
...
Click to expand...

"I read somewhere on the internet" that all the designs, blueprints, specs, and whatnot for the Saturn V were essentially lost since they were not collectively archived by the multitude of subcontractors and hence scattered to the metaphorical winds. I could, as they say, be wrong.

Anyway, I have an idea: would it not be feasible and cost effective to make Kodachrome in... ChIna?
 

I'm sure you're correct. Saturn V served its purpose at the time very successfully, but, if we wanted to go to the Moon again, engineers would not rely on recreating the same equipment. No doubt the approach would now be totally different with new designs and materials and modern computer and control systems, but given the will and the money it would not be impossibly difficult.
 
Wallendo said:
I tired of the digital look of electronic flashes, and hate the resources wasted with single-use flashbulbs.

I'm hoping Kodak will bring back flash powder.
Click to expand...

I can sell you a bag of flash powder...
 

The new SLS builds off the Saturn V technology. It's more powerful and more efficient.

http://www.space.com/33691-space-launch-system-most-powerful-rocket.html
 
While it would be nice to have Kodachrome come back, I'm not going to hold my breath. I'd be pleased if they just brought back Verichrome Pan. Was it the finest grained film they made? Nope. Was it the sharpest? Nope. What it did have was all kinds of exposure latitude and wonderful tonal range. In 120 it was just wonderful stuff. The other thing I'll like is HC-110 in pint bottles again. Oh and EK? If you kill off a developer like Microdol-X due to low sales or whatever, could you please give us a fighting chance and publish the formula ?
 

Paul Shawcross, an agent with the NASA Office of Inspector General, says:

...the Saturn V blueprints are held at the Marshall Space Flight Center on microfilm. The Federal Archives in East Point, Georgia, also has 2,900 cubic feet of Saturn documents. Rocketdyne has in its archives dozens of volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program. This effort was initiated in the late '60s to document every facet of F-1 and J-2 engine production to assist in any future restart.

I'm sure this isn't enough to build another moon rocket. And I'm sure there's a lot of material that was either 1. not recorded or 2. recorded but now lost to the ages, both on NASA's part and the plethora of sub-contractors. But I cannot conceive that it is physically impossible to make a Saturn V today (financial issues aside).

There's also new regulations, laws etc that may come into play. Some of the materials & systems used in the '60s may be outright banned today due to toxicity or environmental issues. Those, obviously, could not be legally reproduced. But that doesn't mean the technology or manpower to do so doesn't.

Bear in mind, you need more than just the rocket. You'll need to refit the VAB (which was converted to stand the shuttles up & mate with it's booster rockets and external fuel tanks), refit the Crawler (again, because of the shuttle), and a launch pad (all the Apollo pads are now gone, or stripped and the concrete is (abandoned in place'). Mission control has also been completely remodeled to accomodate the ISS. So the Saturn 5 is just part of the job.

You'd also have to recreate things like tracking stations, radio com systems, telemetry stations, contact the US Navy for capsule recovery, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.......
 
Last edited:

I stand corrected.

Another internet myth busted.
 
However, the photos have been destroyed! I was in the process of helping UCF (University of Central Florida) to reconstruct some of the archives with other old timers from the Cape. They appear to have abandoned the project.

It was virtually impossible. Just like bringing the dead back to life. Very difficult to say the least.

PE
 
Excuse me

Perhaps a better idea than deciding on the desirability of having back to our lives any kind of past film, would be but to reflect among us, those who with an open mind love this profession / passion at least, why they left in their time.

And perhaps that fact has to do more with that we are not all pushing hard on the same side, as one reader will gather from the thread. Is it a joy to see more film on the market? No one here doubts it (well I want to belive that there is - first reason I came here with you - but I am no longer sure).

Different times of life bring different conditions for everything for and against, we all know. The lesson to be learnt from this would be not to repeat the same sadness of seeing them leave again. Generally speaking we don't value something until it's gone, and we have not changed nor learned that much in all these years.

Best
 
Prest_400 said:
Some really rich guy that instead of buying a few Lamborghinis, will dispose of the money into common happiness by financing production of Kodachrome.



Sadly, seems that all of those have other hobbies and still prefer the Lamborghinis.
Click to expand...


Recreating Kodachrome would be orders of magnitude easier and less expensive than recreating the Saturn V.

I can believe, and pretty much accept, that doing so is neither practical nor economically viable. I can't accept that it would be all that difficult in the overall scheme of things, however, compared to many other major projects to bring consumer products to market. It's just not viable.
 

I tell people that about my profession too, and will keep doing so at least until I'm safely retired.

God forbid I tell the truth and they start to pay attention to the rather ordinary man behind the curtain rather than the great and powerful Oz!



Sorry, I can accept that Kodachrome would be quite a chore, but Ektachrome? As recently as it was made, and with Fuji still making E6 film? I don't doubt that it is indeed "arcane" but it's a product that was made SO recently, with a very similar product still in production by another company, that it just can't be near-unobtainium.

At any rate, Kodak Alaris says Ektachrome is coming back, so I'll believe that until and unless they say otherwise or fail to deliver.
 
Last edited:

Here's another vote for Verichrome Pan…
 
480sparky said:
I would continue to shoot and develop it like I have been.... in my darkroom...... as the black & white film it truly is.
Click to expand...

480sparky said:
... as b&w, which is what Kodachrome really is.
Click to expand...

Almost right ... what Kodachrome really is: a "reversal" film, (so, leaving the colour aside) that's the best way to process it in B&W! (to take full advantage of it)

Best

Edit: (...) (...)
 
Last edited:
Photo Engineer said:
You guys have no concept of how arcane photographic engineering is.
Click to expand...
Serious? How then came two musicians and spare-time chemists to set up tricolour Kodachrome more than 80 years ago without all the following experience?

I shouldn’t be surprised at all, if one day the truth would be unveiled, the cold truth that the process was bought and the two only gave their names for cover-up. It was Leslie Brooker, a Kodak scientist, who had found a solution to the problem of the wandering dyes. The CES 2016 camera-film-scan package is also not a Kodak idea, see Pro8. There is a long tradition of purchasing technology with EKC, George Eastman executed it himself from the beginning: roll-film holder bought from Walker, stable emulsion making from Stuber, the know-how of perforating motion-picture film from Bell & Howell Co., the 16-mm. film format from Bell & Howell, cameras, projectors, and the entire Super-8 project, too.

Bell & Howell, for a more complete picture, bought themselves into various technical ideas as well, the perforator for instance. Initially, they had a Williamson perforator from England. Howell deemed it too tender. The American Perforator Co. made them a robust apparatus.
 
AFAIK Mannes and Godowsky both had chemistry degrees, worked on the system for almost a decade and at Kodak could count on a huge team to work with.

EDIT: typo
 
Last edited:
I love all the people who know better than everybody else. And who speak to those with the history and experience with such contempt.
Well done lads!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register