Kodak no longer selling E100D directly to customers?

[Bill Burk]

These are in all likelihood the kind of parties EK is trying to put the thumb screws on, as they're likely to put a real dent into regular Ektachrome and C41 film sales. I don't believe for a minute they care all that much about the few Joe Averages who jump through the necessary hoops to respool a 400ft roll into 72 cassettes every other year for their own use. As long as they can divert a reasonable part of the clientele that now opts for "3rd party fancy schmancy brand name" respooled cine film back to their still film product lines, they probably have the arguments they need to convince Alaris they're not backstabbing their business partner.

Jo Average and Josie.on.film are buying from these resellers and they are getting hooked on the look of cinema film in s still camera.

I care that they don’t get their ideas quashed.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Is this happening because of the sale of Alaris to private investors?

 

[koraks]

demanding hand-holding from the manufacturer who wasn't recommending using the products in that way in the first place

Does this happen? I've not seen any evidence thereof so far. Looks like many people turn to online sources to deal with the remjet removal etc, not so much the manufacturer.

Is this happening because of the sale of Alaris to private investors?

It's not an outlandish idea, but keeping into account what @MattKing said, it's not likely to be a factor.

 

[MattKing]

Does this happen? I've not seen any evidence thereof so far. Looks like many people turn to online sources to deal with the remjet removal etc, not so much the manufacturer.

Eastman Kodak is doing special runs of the ECN film for Cinestill - no remjet applied. They are big runs.

 

[koraks]

Eastman Kodak is doing special runs of the ECN film for Cinestill - no remjet applied. They are big runs.

We all know, but how does that relate to what I responded to?

 

[MattKing]

We all know, but how does that relate to what I responded to?

Only that it is an example of how Kodak is supporting such a "non-recommended" use.
Although of course technically Kodak's name isn't on the product itself.

 

[koraks]

it is an example of how Kodak is supporting such a "non-recommended" use.

I don't think that's the kind of 'supporting' @Lachlan Young alluded to, at least that's not my interpretation. Does Kodak offer end-user/consumer support on Cinestill products in case people run into problems with them, and/or is Kodak pushed to provide this support by end users/consumers on any significant scale, and if so, is this the likely cause for Kodak's current attempts to curb the sale of motion picture film stock for non-cinematography uses?
When it comes to Cinestill film, I wouldn't be surprised if a large proportion of its end users haven't even figured out yet that it's Kodak film (not everyone spends too much time on forums talking about who makes what.)

I'm really skeptical about that. To me, it looks like a combination of:
* Let's get rid of small-scale / single roll buyers because of the high transaction cost incurred (with Kodak possibly reasoning "when we set up direct sales, we were expecting to be dealing with wannabe Chris Nolans who would buy at least a stack of 50 cans of 400ft with the budget they scraped together using a small inheritance and the generous donation of the owner of Pete's Prep Palace who happens to be their uncle; not Jack Jones living at 50 Aspen Crest in Sticksville, Iowa, asking us to sell him a single 400ft can and 'is there any possibility you guys cutting it into 4 equal lengths for me, please - oh and can I pay COD because our dishwasher died so this month we're a little tight?'")
* Let's move some of the 'rogue' motion picture film buyers who use this for still photography back to our more profitable still imaging films. After all, "those confectioning lines pay for themselves only if we're going to get some good use out of them!"
* Quite possibly: "Let's appease Alaris in their requests to limit 'misuse' of motion picture film for still photography", with Alaris potentially being egged on by the financial targets set with/by their new owners. I can very well imagine Alaris having approached Kodak with essentially the message "it's bad enough that the Cinestill thing is allowed per our contracts, but could you pretty please stop the rest of the bleeding - we're trying to run a business here and you're not helping the way it's been going lately."

Pure speculation on my end, of course. But not entirely silly, is it?

 

[Lachlan Young]

I don't think that's the kind of 'supporting' @Lachlan Young alluded to, at least that's not my interpretation. Does Kodak offer end-user/consumer support on Cinestill products in case people run into problems with them, and/or is Kodak pushed to provide this support by end users/consumers on any significant scale, and if so, is this the likely cause for Kodak's current attempts to curb the sale of motion picture film stock for non-cinematography uses?
When it comes to Cinestill film, I wouldn't be surprised if a large proportion of its end users haven't even figured out yet that it's Kodak film (not everyone spends too much time on forums talking about who makes what.)

I'm really skeptical about that. To me, it looks like a combination of:
* Let's get rid of small-scale / single roll buyers because of the high transaction cost incurred (with Kodak possibly reasoning "when we set up direct sales, we were expecting to be dealing with wannabe Chris Nolans who would buy at least a stack of 50 cans of 400ft with the budget they scraped together using a small inheritance and the generous donation of the owner of Pete's Prep Palace who happens to be their uncle; not Jack Jones living at 50 Aspen Crest in Sticksville, Iowa, asking us to sell him a single 400ft can and 'is there any possibility you guys cutting it into 4 equal lengths for me, please - oh and can I pay COD because our dishwasher died so this month we're a little tight?'")
* Let's move some of the 'rogue' motion picture film buyers who use this for still photography back to our more profitable still imaging films. After all, "those confectioning lines pay for themselves only if we're going to get some good use out of them!"
* Quite possibly: "Let's appease Alaris in their requests to limit 'misuse' of motion picture film for still photography", with Alaris potentially being egged on by the financial targets set with/by their new owners. I can very well imagine Alaris having approached Kodak with essentially the message "it's bad enough that the Cinestill thing is allowed per our contracts, but could you pretty please stop the rest of the bleeding - we're trying to run a business here and you're not helping the way it's been going lately."

Pure speculation on my end, of course. But not entirely silly, is it?

There's another far simpler possible reason: the amount of 35mm E100 that is coated and finished for cinema usage in a given period of time may be quite tightly calculated to cover known orders for feature/ streaming production work + a small percentage to cover commercial/ short/ fine art/ student usage - and 3rd parties profiteering (with unknown QC at spooling) off that is making it harder to obtain for those who want to be able to access it in a timely fashion for the intended use (and who are frankly more likely to become future customers for hundreds of 400ft cans than people who make a virtue out of how long they can eke out a 400ft can). And cinema stock has (from recall) slightly different quality pass/ fail levels than still stock.

 

[koraks]

@Lachlan Young that's an interesting point; I can see how production planning could play a role in this. Although I'd offer the counter-argument that the demand forecast is inherently imbued with some uncertainty, one way or another. Whether the mix would be (let's say) 80/20 motion/still or e.g. 81/19 wouldn't be all that consequential as long as they manage to fairly accurately predict what it'll be so they divert sufficient stock to the still imaging finishing lines. I don't see any reason why the 'misuse' of motion stock for still imaging would make this forecast particularly volatile. It's just a (relatively small) factor to take into account, and while there may be a clear trend to it, it's not necessarily much more challenging planning-wise than anticipating the 'true positive' demands (motion-motion, still-still).

 

[MattKing]

Kodak Alaris was the motivator for the Ektachrome return, even if it wouldn't have been possible without the motion picture part of the market.
I doubt they are making enough of it to divide the master rolls into two categories - one for still, the other for motion picture.
But I'm sure there is very close attention being paid to the volume of production -- most likely order projections are critically analyzed before any coating happens.

 

[koraks]

I doubt they are making enough of it to divide the master rolls into two categories - one for still, the other for motion picture.

Is confectioning bound to entire master rolls? They can't / don't confection pancakes?

most likely order projections are critically analyzed before any coating happens.

Evidently, but given that EK stock master rolls for some time, the decoupling point for confectioning volumes is not necessarily before coating. It can very well be after coating. In fact, it makes sense in general to place the decoupling point as far downstream as possible.

 

[MattKing]

Most of course is slit for Super 8! That was the size that served as motivation from the motion picture marketers for re-inttroduction.
As I understand it, the master roll of film is first slit into rolls (of whatever the target width is) that range between 3200' and 6400' lengths, cut into two lengths, then go on to where perforating, edge printing, and spooling happen.

 

[koraks]

Yes, that's what I would have expected. So there's no need for them to assign an entire master roll to either motion or still; they can confection a mixture of both from the same roll.

 

[SMD]

Instead of caring to much of who buys their film Kodak better should offer bulk rolls cut at the width of MF film so I can make my own type 220 Ektachrome rolls.

 

[Formulahunter]

Does anyone have a reliable source for Kodak Bulk Ektachrome in europe?
Since Elokuvakonepaja has gone out of bussines, its been hard to find.
On B&H its also not in stock.

looking forward to any tips and repys

{Moderator note: this post was originally a separate thread, but because it converged with the existing thread about availability of Kodak motion picture, both threads have been merged.}

 

[WeiW]

Most likely Eastman Kodak - which is not in any way resourced or set up to deal with large numbers of small retail orders - decided that they will just feed the distribution chain for small volume motion picture customers.
E.g. direct sellers like B&H.
This is the B&H listing for 16mm:
View attachment 380571

There are also some other variants like 35mm ones. I remember B&H can do edu discount for them.

 

[MattKing]

Instead of caring to much of who buys their film Kodak better should offer bulk rolls cut at the width of MF film so I can make my own type 220 Ektachrome rolls.

Their bulk roll production facilities require use of substantially more manual labour and some really outdated equipment that is far more costly to set up, operate and take down than the rest of their production systems. You would need to place a humungously big commercial order before the price would make sense.

 

[lamerko]

You can order directly from Kodak in Europe by emailing EI-Order at kodak.com.

 

[cmacd123]

Is confectioning bound to entire master rolls? They can't / don't confection pancakes?

I understand that they have to slit to either 16mm or 35mm. (super 8 is slit from 16 after perforating) and the slit film is not stored, and goes directly to the perforating room.

 

[koraks]

You can order directly from Kodak in Europe by emailing EI-Order at kodak.com.

Seems like Kodak has been creating some barriers for this: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/kodak-no-longer-selling-e100d-directly-to-customers.209595/

 

[lamerko]

That's bad... I guess I'll try to order another roll even though I have almost a full one. It's not good...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don't think that's the kind of 'supporting' @Lachlan Young alluded to, at least that's not my interpretation. Does Kodak offer end-user/consumer support on Cinestill products in case people run into problems with them, and/or is Kodak pushed to provide this support by end users/consumers on any significant scale, and if so, is this the likely cause for Kodak's current attempts to curb the sale of motion picture film stock for non-cinematography uses?
When it comes to Cinestill film, I wouldn't be surprised if a large proportion of its end users haven't even figured out yet that it's Kodak film (not everyone spends too much time on forums talking about who makes what.)

I'm really skeptical about that. To me, it looks like a combination of:
* Let's get rid of small-scale / single roll buyers because of the high transaction cost incurred (with Kodak possibly reasoning "when we set up direct sales, we were expecting to be dealing with wannabe Chris Nolans who would buy at least a stack of 50 cans of 400ft with the budget they scraped together using a small inheritance and the generous donation of the owner of Pete's Prep Palace who happens to be their uncle; not Jack Jones living at 50 Aspen Crest in Sticksville, Iowa, asking us to sell him a single 400ft can and 'is there any possibility you guys cutting it into 4 equal lengths for me, please - oh and can I pay COD because our dishwasher died so this month we're a little tight?'")
* Let's move some of the 'rogue' motion picture film buyers who use this for still photography back to our more profitable still imaging films. After all, "those confectioning lines pay for themselves only if we're going to get some good use out of them!"
* Quite possibly: "Let's appease Alaris in their requests to limit 'misuse' of motion picture film for still photography", with Alaris potentially being egged on by the financial targets set with/by their new owners. I can very well imagine Alaris having approached Kodak with essentially the message "it's bad enough that the Cinestill thing is allowed per our contracts, but could you pretty please stop the rest of the bleeding - we're trying to run a business here and you're not helping the way it's been going lately."

Pure speculation on my end, of course. But not entirely silly, is it?

Maybe Eastman got a lawyer's letter from Alaris's new owners. Or maybe the new Alaris owners have just sat down with Eastman to make friendly arrangements that would benefit both companies over the arrangements they had when Alaris was run poorly in the past. Frankly, the new Alaris owners may also help Eastman become a better company in the process. I suspect we will see other arrangements change between the two companies.

 

[koraks]

@Alan Edward Klein all of what you said is possible. How likely each scenario is, IDK. The details we'll probably will never know for sure. That Alaris' new ownership also brings changes in their requirements w.r.t. financial performance is evident; that this somehow percolates to the arrangement with EK in my view is probable.

 

[Formulahunter]

That's bad... I guess I'll try to order another roll even though I have almost a full one. It's not good...

feel free to post updates about the availability, and if they are willing to sell you small amounts.

 

[MattKing]

Or if they refer you to any potential retail oriented sources.