Kodak films direct from Eastman Kodak (was: Kodacolor 100. New)

[MattKing]

What we do know is that suppy is more than they want it to be.

32,000 rolls of Verita in 135-36 cassettes would probably end up costing almost all the end users about the same as 32,000 rolls of Ektacolor/Portra costs now, once all the expenses associated with actually getting the film to them, in the ways that the vast majority of those users want to have access to them.

The actual cost of making film in the short lengths for distribution in that way is about the same, whether it is cine film or the films designed for still film.

A very, very small number of users would be happy with bulk lengths of film, if they could save some money on it.

So if EK can find a way to serve that small user group, make enough money to satisfy their own internal money constraints, and not materially damage the monies earned from the much, much larger group of users that buy "normal" film, then that would be great. And there really would be no advantage to making it from cine stocks.

On the subject of an ECN-2 film where development is likely to be C41, in days of yore, another very large concern would have been the photofinishing industry, which was a huge source of EK's revenues.

An ECN-2 film in a C41 universe would have been a total no-go. Even today, with the availability of much more complex sets of controls, that "cross-process" would be far from ideal where volume and speed of service at a competitive price remains of some importance.

Even today, I expect the tiny remnant of that industry has some sway.

 

[brbo]

32,000 rolls of Verita in 135-36 cassettes would probably end up costing almost all the end users about the same as 32,000 rolls of Ektacolor/Portra costs now, once all the expenses associated with actually getting the film to them, in the ways that the vast majority of those users want to have access to them.

No. It would cost whatever Kodak thinks would give them the most profit (not the most profit from this single film but from the whole still film operations). So roughly somewhere between $8 and $20 at retail.

 

[farpointer]

The wildly more possible reason why we probably won't see Verita (or other cine films) available directly from Kodak for still film users is that Kodak is happy with their product mix and see no big opportunity for price or volume gains by adding cine film line to their existing still film lineup.

Exactly.

 

[Lachlan Young]

A very, very small number of users would be happy with bulk lengths of film, if they could save some money on it.

And (at the risk of sounding cynical) we know almost exactly who that small number of one-bulk-roll-a-year-at-most cohort are, as they will always tell you about it.

32,000 rolls of Verita in 135-36 cassettes would probably end up costing almost all the end users about the same as 32,000 rolls of Ektacolor/Portra costs now, once all the expenses associated with actually getting the film to them, in the ways that the vast majority of those users want to have access to them.

I think that's pretty much about right. What I have also found is that the more someone cares about the quality of outcome through anything other than minilab scanners, the less they use repackaged cine neg (even in ECN-2) after initial experimentation.

 

[mshchem]

I'm still trying to understand why someone wants to shoot cinema film for stills? In the olden days it was Seattle Film works that sold cinema film in cassettes, returned "slides" and 3 1/2 × 5" prints and another roll of film. Terrible quality, this was a niche market.
Ektacolor and Ektar are light years better for stills in a normal process, scan and print. If you plan on actuality printing yourself normal still film is easier.

 

[gbroadbridge]

I'm still trying to understand why someone wants to shoot cinema film for stills?

There are folks who like Hot Cross buns with chocolate chips.
And grass flavoured milkshakes.

 

[mshchem]

There are folks who like Hot Cross buns with chocolate chips.
And grass flavoured milkshakes.

But if you are just having scans made just add the grass and chips digitally. I just don't get it. Of course for me the reason to shoot film is to get into the darkroom or slide projector.

 

[isaac7]

I'm still trying to understand why someone wants to shoot cinema film for stills? In the olden days it was Seattle Film works that sold cinema film in cassettes, returned "slides" and 3 1/2 × 5" prints and another roll of film. Terrible quality, this was a niche market.
Ektacolor and Ektar are light years better for stills in a normal process, scan and print. If you plan on actuality printing yourself normal still film is easier.

I started asking these questions because now that Kodak is seemingly no longer constrained selling film to consumers. It was my understanding that one of the reasons they did not sell single rolls of cine films to consumers is because of agreements with Alaris. Kodak could not be seen encouraging competition to Alaris. I was mostly interested in Double x but thought that the new color cine film without the remjet backing could also be possible.

As to why would anyone want to shoot them, well why not? They are different emulsions and look different. Why have Gold and Portra? Why have Tri-x and TMax? I will admit to adding some negativity to the thread by being defensive about my reasoning about the economic difficulty of releasing cine films for the stills market. But now there's snide remarks about "bulk loaders will always let you know who they are" and implying that people that use cine film for stills have bad taste or are just dumb. My comments were about Kodak and film, some of these later comments are hard not to take personally.

Kodak doesn't owe me or anyone else every film they want but there's no harm in talking about the possibility of using any of their stocks. People are already via Cinestill and some other outlets but there's no reason to get snippy because someone might want to save a few bucks by using bulk film instead.

 

[gbroadbridge]

But if you are just having scans made just add the grass and chips digitally. I just don't get it.

I agree.

For most folks who are using colour film and scanning it, you can make any film look like any other by twiddling a few sliders in photoshop - or in whatever scan software you are using. All you really need is film speeds like Gold 100 and 400 - 1600 would be nice.

Proper optical prints or reversal is another kettle of fish.

 

[mshchem]

I started asking these questions because now that Kodak is seemingly no longer constrained selling film to consumers. It was my understanding that one of the reasons they did not sell single rolls of cine films to consumers is because of agreements with Alaris. Kodak could not be seen encouraging competition to Alaris. I was mostly interested in Double x but thought that the new color cine film without the remjet backing could also be possible.

As to why would anyone want to shoot them, well why not? They are different emulsions and look different. Why have Gold and Portra? Why have Tri-x and TMax? I will admit to adding some negativity to the thread by being defensive about my reasoning about the economic difficulty of releasing cine films for the stills market. But now there's snide remarks about "bulk loaders will always let you know who they are" and implying that people that use cine film for stills have bad taste or are just dumb. My comments were about Kodak and film, some of these later comments are hard not to take personally.

Kodak doesn't owe me or anyone else every film they want but there's no harm in talking about the possibility of using any of their stocks. People are already via Cinestill and some other outlets but there's no reason to get snippy because someone might want to save a few bucks by using bulk film instead.

I use bulk film. I bought a 400 foot roll of Ektachrome, same thing as the 135 cassettes. I bought a 400 foot roll of Double X, that was out of curiosity. I didn't buy any Vision 3 films, didn't want it, still don't. It's special purpose film. Making big time movies, I want to make prints. Can't do that directly with Ektachrome anymore R.I.P. Cibachrome.

 

[Agulliver]

I'm still trying to understand why someone wants to shoot cinema film for stills? In the olden days it was Seattle Film works that sold cinema film in cassettes, returned "slides" and 3 1/2 × 5" prints and another roll of film. Terrible quality, this was a niche market.
Ektacolor and Ektar are light years better for stills in a normal process, scan and print. If you plan on actuality printing yourself normal still film is easier.

I can only speak for myself, but I use 500T derived high speed CN film for still use because I shoot gigs. I don't like Portra 800 for this purpose, no amount of "twiddling" with the software brings the kind of results I desire. I do like Lomography 800CN but supplies are inconsistent and the price is ludicrously high.

Must be attractive to someone other than just me because the musicians that I photograph keep saying that my film photos look so different to the digital ones, and they're the ones that get used for promotional material 80% of the time.

As for the slower films....I would assume they offer different looks to Gold, Color Plus and Portra. And that's all you need. If it really was possible to make everything look like Portra via Photoshop or whatever software you prefer....nobody would have ever bought Portra.

 

[koraks]

I'm still trying to understand why someone wants to shoot cinema film for stills?

It is/was cheap (when you could still easily obtain 400ft bulk rolls). Also, the Vision3 line is relatively low in contrast and saturation, which can work very well when optically enlarged to current RA4 paper. Since saturation adjustments during printing are not very practical, the easy solution is to use a low-saturation film stock to print from.

Currently I don't print much RA4 anymore; it's mostly inkjet (more flexible), but I'm still 'stuck' with a pile of Vision3 film. I'm enjoying shooting it since I don't have to worry or even think about cost; I can spool in a roll and blast it through by means of 'target practice' on a lazy afternoon.

 

[Lachlan Young]

you can make any film look like any other by twiddling a few sliders in photoshop - or in whatever scan software you are using

You can't, not truly convincingly at least. But that's a different story.

 

[brbo]

I used a bit of Vision3 when it was dirt cheap to get short ends, but only cared for 5219 (500T). Today I'd rather shoot Portra 800 with filter for those conditions if it wasn't more impractical to collect filters and/or step-up rings for all my lenses and some cameras don't even have filter threads. So I shoot an odd roll of 5219 now and then and process it in ECN-2 (which is another "complication" if you mainly use C-41) when I don't expect to wet print anything from that roll.

I never understood why anyone would shoot Cinestill film with remjet pre-removed. Awful. But people seem to shoot it quite a bit. I did a quick "survey" on Instagram and Cinestill 800T has about the same "footprint" as Ektar 100 (with us, older folk (flickr), it's a bit less popular, but still). So, yeah, 32,000 rolls and struggling to sell even that...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It is/was cheap (when you could still easily obtain 400ft bulk rolls). Also, the Vision3 line is relatively low in contrast and saturation, which can work very well when optically enlarged to current RA4 paper. Since saturation adjustments during printing are not very practical, the easy solution is to use a low-saturation film stock to print from.

Currently I don't print much RA4 anymore; it's mostly inkjet (more flexible), but I'm still 'stuck' with a pile of Vision3 film. I'm enjoying shooting it since I don't have to worry or even think about cost; I can spool in a roll and blast it through by means of 'target practice' on a lazy afternoon.

Reminds me when I was a teenager, I had an 8mm cine camera that had a single frame shuttter release in addition to the movie release. So I would shoot hundreds of "still" photos on the 8mm looking at them a frame at a time with the projector. Often, the film would overheat and melt on the frame. I still have the camera but alas, no 8mm film.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I used a bit of Vision3 when it was dirt cheap to get short ends, but only cared for 5219 (500T). Today I'd rather shoot Portra 800 with filter for those conditions if it wasn't more impractical to collect filters and/or step-up rings for all my lenses and some cameras don't even have filter threads. So I shoot an odd roll of 5219 now and then and process it in ECN-2 (which is another "complication" if you mainly use C-41) when I don't expect to wet print anything from that roll.

I never understood why anyone would shoot Cinestill film with remjet pre-removed. Awful. But people seem to shoot it quite a bit. I did a quick "survey" on Instagram and Cinestill 800T has about the same "footprint" as Ektar 100 (with us, older folk (flickr), it's a bit less popular, but still). So, yeah, 32,000 rolls and struggling to sell even that...

Doesn't the film "flare" in bright lights because the remjet is removed?

 

[mshchem]

Ok good reasons

Shooting up cheap film,
Lower contrast
Tungsten when needed
Clients love it!!!

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Doesn't the film "flare" in bright lights because the remjet is removed?

Yes, it definitely does. It as red halos around bright light ssources.

 

[Agulliver]

Reminds me when I was a teenager, I had an 8mm cine camera that had a single frame shuttter release in addition to the movie release. So I would shoot hundreds of "still" photos on the 8mm looking at them a frame at a time with the projector. Often, the film would overheat and melt on the frame. I still have the camera but alas, no 8mm film.

Then buy some

And to answer another post, yes you can get reddish halos around bright light sources on repurposed MP film. Some people specifically enjoy it. Some don't mind. Some will compose shots to avoid it as much as possible. It is, potentially, another reason to shoot MP film in a stills camera.

 

[lamerko]

In my opinion, Kodak will not release Vision3 and Verita in cartridges. The reason is probably simple - these films would not end up being cheaper. The finishing processes - perforation, markings, spooling and cutting the film into cartridges (plus the cartridges), combined with distribution, higher added value, and local taxes for the end customer, would significantly increase the price per roll.
For reference, take a look at Kodak Ektachrome E100 in 135 format. This is essentially the same product as the film sold in large cinema cans, but repackaged and priced much higher afterward.
As a home user, I can easily respool film from a 400ft roll into old cartridges myself. What would it cost me? About 10 minutes in the dark to load around ten rolls. Sure, there would be no fancy cardboard box, no brand-new cartridge, the perforations would not be the "correct" ones, and the edge markings would be unusable… but so what? The film would cost me more than twice less. Not just a little cheaper - multiple times cheaper.
Can Kodak afford to offer that kind of pricing directly to end customers? No, they can't. There’s simply no way.
But… they can keep selling 400ft cans at catalog prices for those who aren't afraid to roll their own film.

 

[koraks]

But… they can keep selling 400ft cans at catalog prices for those who aren't afraid to roll their own film.

They likely won't. To serve the still film market, Kodak has invested significantly in expanding esp. their 35mm finishing capacity. Routing sales away from a relevant part of this infrastructure would make the return on that investment lower, making it an unattractive option.

 

[lamerko]

I agree that they most likely won't do it. But there’s another perspective to consider - the consumers.
There was a time when film had almost disappeared. At first, the reasons were the rise of affordable digital technologies, which were developing rapidly. But at some point, people started looking back at film. A cautious comeback began - very cautious, but enough to give Kodak hope.
However, prices also started increasing gradually, and at a fairly rapid pace. As a result, demand for short ends and expired stock reached unprecedented levels. Dozens of small companies appeared, respooling anything they could get their hands on. That's how motion picture stocks became so popular - they were simply more affordable.
By cutting off access to cine stock options, the people most affected are those who actually wanted to use the film, not profit from it. Meanwhile, the dozens of respooling companies kept finding film and continued selling it.
I personally had a very unpleasant experience with a well-respected production company in Germany. It was founded by filmmakers, and despite caring a lot about their image, they launched their own "brand" by respooling the stock they supposedly used in their productions. And they sell it under their own name, without even trying to hide it.
Price increases will only work up to a certain point. The lack of flexible budget-friendly options will eventually drive many people away. Sooner or later, there will come a point where producing still film is no longer economically viable because of insufficient demand. Nobody wins in that scenario.

 

[koraks]

If I peel off your story into the beginnings of a business case, the rationale would be "selling 400ft bulk rolls would expand the market." It's questionable whether that argument holds at all, and if it does, to what extent. Also, if the option is provided, this opens the door to cannibalization of the existing still film product ranges. After all, not only people who otherwise find themselves incapable of affording the confectioned still film products will buy the hypothetical 400ft cine offering. Adventurous or simply cost-sensitive but otherwise sufficiently affluent consumers will do the same.

Keep in mind this is not some kind of social service we're talking about. Eastman Kodak is a commercial enterprise. They're primarily in it for the money.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

At approximately the same time Eastman came out with their own still film emulsions, they stopped selling 35mm cine film to individuals and companies, and only to bona fide movie companies to prevent the former from creating still film from cine film. Considering both things happened around the same time, it seems apparent that Eastman considers still film from cine film a competition they don't want.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Then buy some

And to answer another post, yes you can get reddish halos around bright light sources on repurposed MP film. Some people specifically enjoy it. Some don't mind. Some will compose shots to avoid it as much as possible. It is, potentially, another reason to shoot MP film in a stills camera.

I thought only Super 8 is still made. My camera is regular 8mm.