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

[Sirius Glass]

PE has commented about the muddy Kodachrome skies. It was a known problem.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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.

It would need to be modified/ re-engineered for coating on ESTAR, no triacetate thick sheet base is currently in production as far as I can tell.

Kodak probably don't want to needlessly damage demand for one product by introducing one that's only slightly different - cf what Simon Galley said about Delta 25 and Pan-F.

 

[Nzoomed]

It would need to be modified/ re-engineered for coating on ESTAR, no triacetate thick sheet base is currently in production as far as I can tell.

Kodak probably don't want to needlessly damage demand for one product by introducing one that's only slightly different - cf what Simon Galley said about Delta 25 and Pan-F.

Kodak only use ESTAR on cine films AFAIK.

Kodak recently stopped production of acetate base, but they import theirs from europe now...

 

[Nzoomed]

PE has commented about the muddy Kodachrome skies. It was a known problem.

As others have mentioned it was only a problem in the early 1960's that was fixed quite early on...

 

[Lachlan Young]

Kodak only use ESTAR on cine films AFAIK.

Kodak recently stopped production of acetate base, but they import theirs from europe now...

I'd suggest you read the datasheets for the current Kodak still films... Note what the the sheet formats are coated on.

Estar is used for cinema print films - camera films use triacetate, unless it's an SO-something or other that specifies ESTAR base. Triacetate won't wreck expensive mechanisms if there's a jam.

The main triacetate manufacturing plant for film base is (I recall) in Wolfen, on what was formerly ORWO's campus.

 

[Nzoomed]

I'd suggest you read the datasheets for the current Kodak still films... Note what the the sheet formats are coated on.

Estar is used for cinema print films - camera films use triacetate, unless it's an SO-something or other that specifies ESTAR base. Triacetate won't wreck expensive mechanisms if there's a jam.

The main triacetate manufacturing plant for film base is (I recall) in Wolfen, on what was formerly ORWO's campus.

Yes, i was referring to print films, however i have read a datasheet for some Ektachrome films that claimed it was on ESTAR base, i think ive seen one for super8 listing as estar also.
http://www.99tarbox.com/rhoadescameras/Camera PDFs/KODAK EKTACHROME 100.pdf

Kodak shut down their acetate plant last year IIRC. There was a press release on this.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Yes, i was referring to print films, however i have read a datasheet for some Ektachrome films that claimed it was on ESTAR base, i think ive seen one for super8 listing as estar also.
http://www.99tarbox.com/rhoadescameras/Camera PDFs/KODAK EKTACHROME 100.pdf

Kodak shut down their acetate plant last year IIRC. There was a press release on this.

That data sheet's for EPN, from before E100G etc - look up the E100G datasheet and you'll see that the transfer to Polyester base for sheet was complete.

More to the point, here are the datasheets for the last 2 E-6 Super8 films Kodak made - 5285/7285 and 7280

http://motion.kodak.com/KodakGCG/uploadedfiles/motion/TI2496.pdf

https://www.super8.nl/file/7280.pdf

No mention of ESTAR there.

And the German plant is where Kodak is (like many other film manufacturers) buying raw triacetate stock from.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

If Kodak should bring Kodachrome back I doubt seriously whether there would be much resemblance to the old film. While the general design of the film might be the same such things as the defective couplers that gave Kodachfrome its distinctive look would probably not be used in the new product. Then there are all the changes in film technology since the original was discontinued. Would they be incorporated into the new film? The final product might be a superior film but quite different.

 

[Sirius Glass]

PE has commented about the muddy Kodachrome skies. It was a known problem.

As others have mentioned it was only a problem in the early 1960's that was fixed quite early on...

I never looked back, I became addicted to Ektachrome and it was my drug of choice for decades.

 

[1L6E6VHF]

Kodak only use ESTAR on cine films AFAIK.

Kodak recently stopped production of acetate base, but they import theirs from europe now...

In the 70s, they had "2475 Recording" on ESTAR-AH base, the only easily obtainable 35mm film faster than Tri-X.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

AKAIK the Estar base is not used for regular cine film because of possible damage to the projectors. Acetate film will snap before any damage can occur.

 

[Photo Engineer]

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 am familiar with virtual machines. I have several running on my computer here to recreate "lost" software. It does not always work though, and that is a problem.

You must consider, with the cost of these chemicals, that it will take a lot of money for both Ektachrome and Kodachrome.

It takes narrow coatings (5"), pilot coatings (21") and then full width (48" or 72"). And Ektachrome is more modern that Kodachrome. Kodachrome had not been modified since the '80s IIRC.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

As others have mentioned it was only a problem in the early 1960's that was fixed quite early on...

Serious problems remained with the cyan dye up until recent times. See the Ron Andrew quote referenced earlier. It cause all sorts of color anomalies, but it sure did make some colors stand out. It could sometimes make a garbage dump look like a flower bed. We said that sometimes at EK.

PE

 

[MattKing]

Kodachrome II coincided with a huge increase in Kodachrome use, so well it may not have been around the longest, in many ways it was far more important to the history of Kodachrome than that which preceded it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Original Kodachrome was a great improvement over all its descendants.

 

[Ai Print]

Original Kodachrome was a great improvement over all its descendants.

And yet great images were made on it right up until 12:40PM, January 17th, 2011....howd that happen then?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Even a broke watch is correct twice a day as long as it is not a 24 hour watch.

 

[TheRook]

Let's get REAL: Pro photographers used Kodachrome 25 and 64 until something called "FUJICHROME VELVIA 50" appeared, with ultra saturated colors, quicker processing, and fairly good image stability; they migrated en masse to it (and then to Provia, Astia, and the new Ektachromes), and Kodachrome died because of lower demand.

Exactly! Kodachrome's demise began well before digital photography took off.

 

[Europan]

Backbone of Kodachrome sales was movie making. Souvenir snapping to be honest

Twelve years after the introduction of the 16-mm. format together with reversal film there was Kodachrome, as 16.
One year later as Double-Eight, too. Cameras and projectors were offered and further developed in a perspective
that took the film maker for an adult person. Higher priced products offered a lot of refinements that are essential
for such things as macro setups, critical focusing, multiple exposure, animation, and more. Reversal film doesn’t allow
printing techniques, at least not as long as there are no duplication stocks and service available, so one needs to do the trick in camera.

Today we have a different situation. Potential movie makers are not perceived as thinking beings. Kodak is about to
sell a hybrid camera that doesn’t even have single frame exposure. No optical finder. No earnest filmmaking. Kodak’s
brouhaha around a new camera and Ektachrome cannot conceal what they’re about. They want us to buy cartridge
after cartridge, by the bars still better. They want consumers to consume like mad, to run the camera without
interruption as if it were a video cam. I don’t think it will work that way.

There’s no comparison between a thirties’ Bell & Howell Filmo 8 and any of the plastic toys from the sixties or seventies. As a technician who repairs and restores photographic equipment I say that the old all-metal designs age better than everything post 1958. So, with the technical base lacking Kodachrome would not catch on again. Kodachrome is transparencies. What about the projectors? Not one word.

 

[Nzoomed]

Backbone of Kodachrome sales was movie making. Souvenir snapping to be honest

Twelve years after the introduction of the 16-mm. format together with reversal film there was Kodachrome, as 16.
One year later as Double-Eight, too. Cameras and projectors were offered and further developed in a perspective
that took the film maker for an adult person. Higher priced products offered a lot of refinements that are essential
for such things as macro setups, critical focusing, multiple exposure, animation, and more. Reversal film doesn’t allow
printing techniques, at least not as long as there are no duplication stocks and service available, so one needs to do the trick in camera.

Today we have a different situation. Potential movie makers are not perceived as thinking beings. Kodak is about to
sell a hybrid camera that doesn’t even have single frame exposure. No optical finder. No earnest filmmaking. Kodak’s
brouhaha around a new camera and Ektachrome cannot conceal what they’re about. They want us to buy cartridge
after cartridge, by the bars still better. They want consumers to consume like mad, to run the camera without
interruption as if it were a video cam. I don’t think it will work that way.

There’s no comparison between a thirties’ Bell & Howell Filmo 8 and any of the plastic toys from the sixties or seventies. As a technician who repairs and restores photographic equipment I say that the old all-metal designs age better than everything post 1958. So, with the technical base lacking Kodachrome would not catch on again. Kodachrome is transparencies. What about the projectors? Not one word.

I dont shoot E6 for projection, except super8, although I may consider making slides if I went on a world trip.
Using slides exposes them to dust and dirt, and extra wear and tear.
Easier to scan and project on a digital projector and keep the film safe.

 

[Nzoomed]

Exactly! Kodachrome's demise began well before digital photography took off.

So you are saying that disneychrome killed off Kodachrome and not Kodaks own Ektachrome!?

 

[Nzoomed]

If Kodak should bring Kodachrome back I doubt seriously whether there would be much resemblance to the old film.

If thats so, its pointless Kodak should even bother...

 

[Lachlan Young]

Today we have a different situation. Potential movie makers are not perceived as thinking beings. Kodak is about to
sell a hybrid camera that doesn’t even have single frame exposure. No optical finder. No earnest filmmaking.

Unless you do stop motion work, why would you want single frame exposure? More to the point, there are a lot of other ways to shoot stop motion today which will be a lot more precise frame-to-frame than an S8 camera.

The video tap reduces eliminates the massive tooling costs necessary to make a spinning mirror optical finder & makes the camera a whole lot less bulky while still enabling precise framing and focusing.

 

[Europan]

Whoop, you know what type of mirror shutter is in there? If not a spinning one, it must be an oscillating shutter. Or is there a pellicle?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Bolex models with a reflex finder used a prism which diverted about 20% of the light from the optical path into the viewfinder. Beaulieu, in my opinion, had a better system where the mirror on the rotating shutter provided an image to the reflex finder between frames as the film advanced. Yes, there was some flicker.

It would've been nice if the new Kodak camera had either - I'd think a prism solution would be much less expensive and far more reliable than an electronic viewfinder.