Kodak Ektachrome in Doulbe 8mm

[BAC1967]

I realize I'm discussing movie film but I know there are others on this forum that have an interest in it. I included a poll to see what interest there is for this on Photrio. Right now I'm down to my last roll of the old Double 8mm Ektachrome so in the mean time I've been shooting Super 8, I much prefer Double 8mm. I know Wittner Cinetec has the equipment to perforate 16mm film to Double 8mm so I sent them a message now that Ektachrome is available in 16mm. This is the response I got:

thank you for your message.

In case we can obtain 16mm NP from Kodak (NP = not perforated), we are
willing to perforate Double 8 film from it.

But currently Kodak has not agreed to supply any 16mm NP.
We will try again in several month.
Maybe when they have the standard products on auto pilot, they will be open
to special orders (hopefully).
We will see.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Best regards

Ingolf Joost
Wittner Cinetec GmbH & Co. KG
Beaulieu Deutschland

So there is still hope if Kodak comes through for them and sells them some non-perforated 16mm film. I didn't realize that it had to be non-perforated, that may have something to do with getting good registration. If their machine doesn't align perfectly with the existing perforations it would cause registration problems.

In a response they did say that they will definitely announce it in their newsletter if it becomes available. Below is the link to sign up for the newsletter if you're interested. They only send out 3 or 4 newsletters a year so you won't get spammed by them. I signed up months ago and have yet to see anything from them.

https://www.wittnercinetec.com/epag...ec-Super8-16mm-Film&ViewAction=ViewNewsletter

 

[twelvetone12]

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes! I literally shoot kilometers of e100 in double 8mm, I miss it so much!


..but my hopes are very low (and seeing current prices I will be able to afford some centimeters not kilometers)

 

[AgX]

That Kodak is not willing to supply NP film may mean that they think of D8mm themselves or that for marketing reason they do not want to water the offer at the moment.

As you I am surprised that the stock to be perforated has to be non-perforated to begin with.

 

[cmacd123]

As you I am surprised that the stock to be perforated has to be non-perforated to begin with.

to perforate Regular 8 on already perforated stock, the punch would have to line up exactly with the existing perfs. Any missaliighment would make every second hole bigger. Not a hard task except that the film does change dimensions with temperature and humidity. (and it maters if the 16mm is perffed as negative or positive perfs)

when "international Film" sold regular 8 it was perforated by Kodak and even had the film type shown on the edge print. rumor was that the regular 8 perforator had a problem and that it was not worth the cost to replace or fix it.

 

[ic-racer]

In my 20 years of shooting regular-8 I have only ever done B&W reversal. Currently my camera has Fomapan in it. It might be nice to try color. Would the Ektachrome 8 be Tungsten? I have plenty of the 85B filters in different sizes that I have never used.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Would the Ektachrome 8 be Tungsten?

I would imagine that it would be daylight-balanced, since the current Ektachrome is. I cannot see Kodak making a whole new emulsion for regular 8mm, if they make it at all.

 

[donkee]

I would shoot a bunch and process it myself. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Kodak to do something cool like standard 8mm, it would cut into their overly expensive super 8 market........................

 

[BAC1967]

There’s no hope of Kodak making Regular 8mm, our best bet is for Wittner to perforate 16mm. Several years ago they invested in having a perforating machine made for this purpose. When John Schwind of International Film Brokers used to sell it he would order large batches from Kodak back when they would perforate it for him. There are others out there that can perforate 8mm film, ORWO still makes a black and white stock and I think Foma makes some to. Ferrania said they have the equipment but it needs work to get it going again.

 

[Europan]

Rochester is trapped with Double-Eight film due to their Super-8 renaissance project. Even 16 mm perforated both edges such as the Eastman-Kodak company had introduced 96 years ago now seems to pose them problems. I hate to repeat myself again and again but Kodak’s blockade is mental. To me it’s ridiculous, how should Double-Eight influence the sale of Super-8 film? The respective buyers have quite a different approach to small-gauge filming, the proof is historical, how Super-8 had dried out Regular 8. Eastman-Kodak had not discontinued Double-Eight altogether.

If Kodak Ektachrome 100 D became available in 2 × 8, I’d try it, of course, but I’d rather purchase a Ferrania -chrome film. I live in a neighbour country to Italy.

The fact sheet says: Kodak has not shown up with an announced new Super-8 camera in over three years. Film Ferrania is not giving sign of a planned reversal color film after, what was it, four years. The existing Super-8 cameras are all at least 30 years old and full of ill-ageing plastics. The existing Super-8 projectors have no spare parts backing. The existing Double-Eight cameras haven’t got any spare parts backing, either, yet are of more solid designs and contain less to no plastics. The existing Regular 8 projectors are rather well made in comparison to the Super-8 ones, the older the better generally. I service and repair motion-picture equipment and optics professionally. I don’t touch a Super-8 camera. Kodak is stuck with the outdated throw-away mentality of cybernetics, you all know, the dark times of hoaxes and lies.

To be fair, Super-8 is superior in one single respect, the frame line was set between the perforation holes.

 

[Agulliver]

Reg 8mm film was usually daylight balanced as per the current Ektachrome 100. Super 8 film was usually tungsten balanced with super 8 cameras having an internal filter which could be disabled for daylight filming.

Yes, I'd shoot Ektachrome in reg 8mm, though probably not much given likely prices. I have a couple of hundred feet of Fomapan R lying around and the ability to home process it - though I am getting back into home processing 8mm film after a 15+ year hiatus and honing my technique again.

 

[AgX]

to perforate Regular 8 on already perforated stock, the punch would have to line up exactly with the existing perfs. Any missaliighment would make every second hole bigger. Not a hard task except that the film does change dimensions with temperature and humidity. (and it maters if the 16mm is perffed as negative or positive perfs)

The perforator punches are made to high standards and are within the same tolerances as the Kodak ones.
However, if tolerances of both perforating runs sum up and one adds climate effects on film dimensions, the resulting holes may be irregular positioned.
As the Wittner punches will punch each hole, and not just every second hole, the doubble punched holes themselves may be irregular shaped or rather not sharp edged as with too little deviation the hole edges will no longer be cut but deformed resulting in a burr.

 

[BAC1967]

Without even asking I got an answer from Wittner on why they have to use non perforated stock.

as you did inquire about the manufacture of Double 8 film and this question frequently arises, I enclose my answer as well. You and your colleagues may find this information helpful. You are allowed to publish the question and my reply, if desired.

What about re-perforating single-perforated 16mm film? For example, adding
another set of perforations on single-perforated film (such as the new Kodak
Ektachrome) so that it becomes double 8 perforated. Is that possible?
We experimented in the past with exactly what you describe.
But the results of those experiments were negative.
It is not possible to do this - at least if you are interested in good
quality!
(if you are looking for rhytmically shaking pictures, this may be an
option - in theory. We do not offer this)

To achieve a good perforation / registration of frame, the distance between
perforartion holes must be 100% identical.
This can't be achieved with this technique. You need to start from 16mm NP.

The 16mm 1R camera film available is 0.2994 perforation pitch.
But R8 is per definition 0.1500
This does not fit.
In theory you could re-perforate 16mm film with a pitch of 0.3000 to R8.
But this is not available as a camera film. This would be printfilm then.

Furthermore TAC is start shrinking the day it leaves the factory.
So even using 0.3000 TAC film - it is nearly impossible to meet the real
pitch to add the additional perforations at the correct distance from/to the
existing holes.

So we abandoned this idea / project completely.
It is not possible to use this "trick" if a good perforation quality is the
goal.


Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Best regards

Ingolf Joost
Wittner Cinetec GmbH & Co. KG
Beaulieu Deutschland

 

[AgX]

I gave some explanation on perforating above, and by purpose neglected the pitch as all cine textbooks describe R8 as as having exactly twice the perforations of 16mm. Furhermore, R8 was introduced long before short and long pitches were established. The pitches thus would be in phase.

It took me diving very deep into tables and then some calculating to find the fine discrepancy Ingolf Joost described.

 

[cmacd123]

BAC1967, that is what I was saying. it is mostly the shrinkage