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

[Roger Cole]

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

Yeah, I think they did.

But still, the point has a certain resonance - two chemists in the 1930s were able (yes, with substantial backing) to invent the stuff and develop it in a bathtub. It strains credulity to suggest that Kodak of 2017 couldn't recreate it (ok, the later K14 version) and bring it back, IF it were economically viable. I accept that it isn't viable. I can't believe that it isn't possible.

 

[LAG]

I love all the people who know better than everybody else...

D'you hate the rest? Sign me up on the love side

 

[Roger Cole]

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!

I don't see any contempt here.

But OTOH I do know that sometimes when someone knows an incredible amount about something quite complex they see so many details that the big picture of "ah, yeah, there's a lot of details, but they were worked out once and could be worked out again" can escape them.

 

[darkosaric]

people who know better than everybody else

Once I had discussion with one of my young colleague at work about film production (it was about Polaroid films, not Kodachrome): he works in IT and has no idea about film photography and film production. He was sure that film production is easy, as an argument he said: - "all can be rebuild-ed without a problem, look those awesome electronics/phones/computers that we made."

 

[LAG]

I love all the people

Much better

 

[Cholentpot]

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!

It's not contempt.

We all bow to the knowledge and experience. But how many times throughout modern history have the experts been proven wrong? I do understand that film chemistry is of the most complex ever manufactured but if it was done once it can be done again. Sure an expert will say "No, I've been there and the woman with the ice cube recipe is dead and burned her notes.' and they'll be 100% right! This discounts human ingenuity though.

Some day we will see a Kodachrome clone. It might be in 30 years or 100. But someone, somewhere down the line will say 'Wow, a challenge!' and do it. Maybe not for public consumption and just to prove to themselves they can. If a kid can build a nuke plant in his basement someone can coat and develop some film in a garage.

Numbers wise, is it less than 1 in 10 Billion that someone can make Kodaclone? There are nearing 10 billion people on this planet, I'm sure some weirdo with enough knowledge, resources and drive will come along and prove that he can do the impossible.

For manufacturing I'm not holding my breath but I'll keep an eye on the news for the doofus genius that does this in his basement bathroom using salvaged scrap, 1970's computers and a toothbrush.

 

[480sparky]

...............There are nearing 10 billion people on this planet, I'm sure some weirdo with enough knowledge, resources and drive will come along and prove that he can do the impossible.

For manufacturing I'm not holding my breath but I'll keep an eye on the news for the doofus genius that does this in his basement bathroom using salvaged scrap, 1970's computers and a toothbrush.

We just need to introduce Elon Musk to MacGyver. Give 'em a paper clip, a gum wrapper and a paint splatter. Then we just set back and wait.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Mannes and Godowsky indeed had the entire resources of Eastman Kodak behind them as well as a huge lab here in Rochester. In spite of that it took years to perfect the film. And, before that, Kodak had a 2 color version which they built on to get the 3 color version. The first process was a real kludge but the re-engineered version was much simpler if one can say that for the Kodachrome process.

Ektachrome was one of the most difficult film line to produce (next to Kodachrome) and used very old chemistry. C41 by comparison has been updated several times since. So, all of that old chemistry must be re-created or changed. Same with Kodachrome.

So, assume everyone with knowledge of the PDP8 is gone but you need to recreate it to execute some critical program. You have to start from scratch even though you have the program, the schematics and the technology. It isn't going to be easy. It can be done but may take years.

PE

 

[Renato Tonelli]

Warning! Thread hijack -

HIE - could HIE be brought back?

I am hoping that PE will answer this...

 

[Photo Engineer]

Any of this can be done, but it takes a reason and money. Neither are present for Kodachrome. It is marginal for Ektachrome.

Again, you overestimate APUG.

 

[Prest_400]

Ektachrome was one of the most difficult film line to produce (next to Kodachrome) and used very old chemistry. C41 by comparison has been updated several times since. So, all of that old chemistry must be re-created or changed. Same with Kodachrome.

PE

Interesting, that reversal chromogenic films are hard to produce, as it was discussed in the Ferrania thread -- basically the same issue that the Ferrania LRF is encountering now. Good insight to hear about the old chemistry, any update may have some improvements shown in the final product.
E100G I don't recall if is a 2003 product, and Provia 100F is from the whereabouts, 2004. Don't know what exactly that means, but for example IIRC satellites and mars rovers use some hardware and software that otherwise is deemed as technically old/obsolete

I do recall the in-depth discussions that were had in the Kodachrome discontinuance thread, which read and absorbed properly at least show that it is not an easy task.

I may suppose that Kodak's capacity is not very appropiate for the market size of a film like EIR, Ferrania's Pilot coating sized facilities may be a much better adjusted factory for that.

EDIT: I've been trying to find that thread and failed to do so with a simple search. Has it gone the way of the two letter troll, ie. gone? That's another example of lost knowledge! We might have some antropologist trying to reconstruct all the knowledge of the two letter troll, and failing because the knowledge and recollection of it are gone!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Lets be realistic for a change and practical. Bring back Kodak Tri-X 400 in 4"x5" sheet film rather than playing Lazarus resurrecting from the dead. Kodak Tri-X 400 is still an existing product and all that Kodak needs to do is to cut and package the film in 4"x5" format which is something they do with Kodak Tri-X 320.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Kodak Tri-X 400 is still an existing product and all that Kodak needs to do is to cut and package the film in 4"x5" format which is something they do with Kodak Tri-X 320.

That is incorrect. 400TX is coated on thin acetate for 120 and somewhat thicker acetate for 35mm. Unlike 320TXP, it's not coated on 7-mil Estar. Coating 400TX on a different substrate is also an engineering development project.

 

[Craig]

So, all of that old chemistry must be re-created or changed.

True, but it's also not uncharted waters. The end point is known, and it was in manufacture not very long ago and Fuji still manufacture E6 materials, so it not like creating something entirely from scratch and having no idea what to use or even what the end point is; or if the project is even achievable. Suitable chemistry already exists since Fuji does it, so it's not like it is impossible for mankind to manufacture E6 materials currently.

The Processing side already exists with well defined chemistry and times/temperatures, so that takes a great amount of work out of the equation. M&G had to create both a suitable film and processing that was new.

To me this swings much more to the reverse engineering side of the equation than greenfield inventing. I don't doubt it would take a lot of work on Kodak's side to remanufacture their E6 films, but it's also not starting from a blank sheet of paper and having to invent a completely new technology.

Clearly Kodak thinks it's possible, or they wouldn't have announced it!

 

[removed account4]

Any of this can be done, but it takes a reason and money. Neither are present for Kodachrome. It is marginal for Ektachrome.

Again, you overestimate APUG.

thanks for vocalizing the voice of reason !
have a nice week-end

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...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...why they left in their time.

Yes. It has been mentioned on APUG several times that when Kodachrome was finally discontinued, many boxes sat unsold on store shelves.

Is it a joy to see more film on the market? No one here doubts it ...

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.

Wise words. We need to be realistic here and realize just how few film users there really are and we need to support what exists today and celebrate any new offering.

 

[Nzoomed]

Yeah, I think they did.

But still, the point has a certain resonance - two chemists in the 1930s were able (yes, with substantial backing) to invent the stuff and develop it in a bathtub. It strains credulity to suggest that Kodak of 2017 couldn't recreate it (ok, the later K14 version) and bring it back, IF it were economically viable. I accept that it isn't viable. I can't believe that it isn't possible.

Of course its possible for Kodak to make the stuff again, they still have the same coater in B38 that coated the last run, and Kodak have the recipes and chemical formulas in their archive.

The main thing they need is the people involved who worked in that department, needless to say that their chemists should be qualified enough to do this, even if some of them no longer work for the company, im sure they could get at least a handful to come back and work for them.

Even so, if they had to start from scratch with a new crew, it would be possible. As mentioned here before, the film itself is fairly basic 3 layer B&W film, compared to far more complex C41 films.

The dye couplers for processing would be harder than making the film stock.
At least there is plenty of frozen kodachrome out there for Kodak to experiment with before they actually make new film.

Kelvin Kittles K-Lab also may come to use (if he still has it lol)

The only real barrier is $$$$$, and I dont think anyone could disagree with this. If the pockets are deep enough, anything is possible.

Whether or not Kodachrome returns remains to be seen, but what I can say, is its such a unique and iconic product, I dont think they would have any issues with selling the stuff, especially if they can make the process more streamline and economic to produce with a limited market.

If Kodak do well with their marketing for a new userbase from today's generation, we will see a good resurgence of film shooters.

They have made the right step re-introducing E100, so my views of kodak have greatly changed, especially with their intention to reintroduce other films in the future.

 

[Wallendo]

...

So, assume everyone with knowledge of the PDP8 is gone but you need to recreate it to execute some critical program. You have to start from scratch even though you have the program, the schematics and the technology. It isn't going to be easy. It can be done but may take years.

PE

In reality, this problem would be managed by creating a virtual PDP8. Likewise, if we ever see a film named "Kodachrome", it will probably be an Ektachrome film with the Kodachrome look.

I can see the ad now: "New Kodachrome e6 - By the time the image fades and you realize it isn't the real thing, you will have died of old age anyway".

Kodak may brag about the resurgence of film, but Alaris has recently down-sized their photo paper operation. This suggests that much of the regrowth of film is from non-traditional photographers who are scanning their film or having it scanned by their processors. Releasing a color film that cannot be scanned with modern scratch and dirt removal capability makes little sense.

 

[Nzoomed]

In reality, this problem would be managed by creating a virtual PDP8. Likewise, if we ever see a film named "Kodachrome", it will probably be an Ektachrome film with the Kodachrome look.

I can see the ad now: "New Kodachrome e6 - By the time the image fades and you realize it isn't the real thing, you will have died of old age anyway".

Kodak may brag about the resurgence of film, but Alaris has recently down-sized their photo paper operation. This suggests that much of the regrowth of film is from non-traditional photographers who are scanning their film or having it scanned by their processors. Releasing a color film that cannot be scanned with modern scratch and dirt removal capability makes little sense.

I shoot lots of film now, but i rarely make prints, I scan everything and any enlargements i want framed i get printed on crystal archive.

Scratches and dirt should not be a problem, as freshly developed film should be free of this, and scanned immediately and stored in a clear sheet should be fine.

Besides i recently scanned some long forgotten kodcrhrome slides of my mother at the age of 5!
They scanned beautifully with little dirt showing.
And these slides were badly treated, (bent, dirty and full of scratches)

 

[pdeeh]

Many things are said to be "possible".

There is a nice thought-experiment (probably more than one, i expect) that demonstrates it is possible for something to exceed the speed of light.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Lets be realistic for a change and practical. Bring back Kodak Tri-X 400 in 4"x5" sheet film rather than playing Lazarus resurrecting from the dead. Kodak Tri-X 400 is still an existing product and all that Kodak needs to do is to cut and package the film in 4"x5" format which is something they do with Kodak Tri-X 320.

That is incorrect. 400TX is coated on thin acetate for 120 and somewhat thicker acetate for 35mm. Unlike 320TXP, it's not coated on 7-mil Estar. Coating 400TX on a different substrate is also an engineering development project.

Still it is not a big deal. Kodak has the emulsion in production and the acetate is available so it would be much easier to bring back Kodak Tri-X 400 in 4"x5" sheet film than it would be to bring back the technically obsolete and vastly inferior Kodachrome.

 

[Nzoomed]

Still it is not a big deal. Kodak has the emulsion in production and the acetate is available so it would be much easier to bring back Kodak Tri-X 400 in 4"x5" sheet film than it would be to bring back the technically obsolete and vastly inferior Kodachrome.

Please define "inferior", for example digital shooters think all film is inferior!
How can you compare a colour film to a B&W film and say Kodachrome is "inferior" anyway? lol
To my eyes there is nothing "inferior" about Kodachrome at all!

 

[Sirius Glass]

The mid 1960's Kodachrome would turn a nice blue sky into blue with muddy brown areas. I consider that to be superbly inferior. That is why I switched to Etkachrome and never looked back.

 

[Nzoomed]

The mid 1960's Kodachrome would turn a nice blue sky into blue with muddy brown areas. I consider that to be superbly inferior. That is why I switched to Etkachrome and never looked back.

Ive never noticed that on any images ive seen, but I dont think Kodachrome II was the greatest film, if thats the one you are referring to.
Kodachrome II was fairly short lived.
The original Kodachrome is my favourite.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The mid 1960's Kodachrome would turn a nice blue sky into blue with muddy brown areas. ...

Not that I'm doubting you, but I have not observed that in my images and if you can find an example, I'm interested in seeing it.

As a caveat, my only experience with Kodachrome is Kodachrome II ASA 25 in regular 8mm movie film that I shot in the mid-1960's as a young teenager. That was mostly in southern California - Venice, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, and Santa Ana. That film still looks perfect today.