• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Kodak Reintroduces Ektachrome.

Latest Gallery

Tompkins Square Park

A
Tompkins Square Park

  • 4
  • 0
  • 65
Siesta Time

A
Siesta Time

  • 2
  • 0
  • 49

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,859
Messages
2,846,678
Members
101,573
Latest member
IanSeehorn
Recent bookmarks
0
Accelerated testing, testing to failure, is great. It's usually enough to predict most failures. I don't have a clue on what goes into manufacturing film, but I've been involved in chasing down quality problems in manufacturing. Real world will always surprise. It's a miracle Kodak has survived the downsizing of their film business. Most of their suppliers were in the same position, shrink the volume of production by 98%.

When you're a Dow 30 stock, you've got everybody and their brother knocking on your door begging for a chance. Totally different world now. Engineering and Procurement have to qualify new suppliers, glad I'm done with that. I remember when Hurricanes would shut down supplies, we would be running day to day, when UL certifies your product, OY!

The other thing all the new regulations regarding chemicals, ask ADOX about REACH and RoHS, Prop 65 etc. It might have been as simple as the ink on the backing paper had to meet a weird regulation.
If you sell a product that has a few milligrams of an epoxy paint on a component, in the state of California, you are required to place clear labels saying this product contains a substance that has been proven by the state of California to cause cancer.
 
The state of California is rather unique in regards what it, and it alone, believes causes cancer.....but yes, often a product and it's manufacturing process must pass various safety requirements worldwide.
 
Nzoomed said:
Well since they have rectified the issue with the paper on their other films, I would assume it should be fine with Ektachrome too?
Click to expand...
You are still missing the point.
The reference wasn't to backing paper. It was a reference to bringing product or product changes to market before potential problems reveal themselves. The backing paper issues were a particularly damaging example of that.
 
Has anybody heard anything regarding Ektachrome in 2 1/4" roll or sheet sizes? Kodak had been internet-rumored to be doing test coating of 2 1/4" roll film in late July, 2019, but I haven't seen/heard anything recently.
 
I haven't heard anything as of yet. I sold off all my E100G in 120 and 4x5, so I can buy fresh stock when it comes out. I hope I didn't do that for nothing.
 
I'm sure we will see more Ektachrome, I suspect there's no big rush. The biggest competition are thousands of freezers full of film.

Super 8 Ektachrome is 48 bucks a cartridge of 50 feet. That's mind boggling to me, add in processing and scanning, wow.
 
Received a message from kodak about Ektachrome in 120:

dutchsteammachine Q: Any news on the medium format pilot coat for Ektachrome and/or TMZ 3200 that was suppose to happen in July?
Kodak A: Hi [RETRACTED]. Neither one of these was announced for July. What we did say is that the wide coating tests for E100/120 were taking place at the end of July. This did happen and we're waiting for the results now.
 
A 25-ft. roll of Kodak Pan reversal film in Double-Eight cost $2.25 in the summer of 1932, returned as processed 8mm film comprising 4,000 frames. That would be $42.14 as of today. A 100-ft. roll of 16mm Kodak Pan reversal cost $6 then, today $112.37, also 4,000 frames. A 100-ft. roll of Kodacolor reversal cost $9 in 1932, today’s $168.55. The first rolls of Kodachrome as Double-Eight cost $3.75 in 1936 ($69.22), a 100-ft. roll of 16mm Kodachrome $9 processing and return included ($166.13). https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
 
Europan said:
A 25-ft. roll of Kodak Pan reversal film in Double-Eight cost $2.25 in the summer of 1932, returned as processed 8mm film comprising 4,000 frames. That would be $42.14 as of today. A 100-ft. roll of 16mm Kodak Pan reversal cost $6 then, today $112.37, also 4,000 frames. A 100-ft. roll of Kodacolor reversal cost $9 in 1932, today’s $168.55. The first rolls of Kodachrome as Double-Eight cost $3.75 in 1936 ($69.22), a 100-ft. roll of 16mm Kodachrome $9 processing and return included ($166.13). https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
Click to expand...

The maths behind the numbers are valid but you can’t infer much else from this type of comparison. This is because you are comparing a product from a period where there were no realistic alternatives, and it could (or maybe needed to) be priced accordingly, to a time today where there are plenty, many of which do a lot more.

In cases like this the real comparison is to look at the current price vs current alternatives. So for s8 or 16mm you should compare the cost to digital alternatives today and some how factor in the need for additional equiptment to capture sound or discount the value of sound in digital or ignore added feature for simplicity.

mshche a few posts above bulks at the cost of a s8 cartridge today and I would agree when you compare to alternatives. The reality is many people are waking around with smartphones which take better videos than your average s8 camera did, and you can get HD action cams for very little on a well known auction website. The one I bought a while ago was less than a s8 Ekt cartridge and definitely has a better image than my old canon 1014 ever managed, it just doesn’t have a zoom lens. I do miss shooting s8 though!
 
I can't wait till E100 is produced in 120 and 4x5. Fuji's options have jumped up by 20 percent in the last while, so its getting ridiculous what Fuji is charging for their films. $100 US dollars for 20 sheets of 4x5. Wow.
 
What I wanted to allude to is a market price installed by Kodak. Alright, it was the Eastman-Kodak Company, but State street is State street. Or is it State Street? In the thirties they managed to cascade-coat for a no-dyes black-and-white film called Kodachrome, so the comparison with the simple panchromatic reversal film can’t be too much misaligned. Ektachrome is also multi-layer reversible stock although dyes laden and without a jet-black backing. The main difference is that Kodachrome was never freed from proprietary processing.

What leaves me with a somewhat bitter taste is that we have no more 10-to-25 ISO black-white film on colourless TAC. Fomapan R is a gravel pit where one would wish to see fine sand.

To compare film to video is not correct.
 
Europan said:
A 25-ft. roll of Kodak Pan reversal film in Double-Eight cost $2.25 in the summer of 1932, returned as processed 8mm film comprising 4,000 frames. That would be $42.14 as of today. A 100-ft. roll of 16mm Kodak Pan reversal cost $6 then, today $112.37, also 4,000 frames. A 100-ft. roll of Kodacolor reversal cost $9 in 1932, today’s $168.55. The first rolls of Kodachrome as Double-Eight cost $3.75 in 1936 ($69.22), a 100-ft. roll of 16mm Kodachrome $9 processing and return included ($166.13). https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
Click to expand...

You're comparing prices today to prices during the great depression and WPA. How is the market similar/different between today and the time of soup kitchens? Comparing prices from these two eras is problematic, unless your point is simply that film and processing were cheaper during the depression.
 
Europan said:
A 25-ft. roll of Kodak Pan reversal film in Double-Eight cost $2.25 in the summer of 1932, returned as processed 8mm film comprising 4,000 frames. That would be $42.14 as of today. A 100-ft. roll of 16mm Kodak Pan reversal cost $6 then, today $112.37, also 4,000 frames. A 100-ft. roll of Kodacolor reversal cost $9 in 1932, today’s $168.55. The first rolls of Kodachrome as Double-Eight cost $3.75 in 1936 ($69.22), a 100-ft. roll of 16mm Kodachrome $9 processing and return included ($166.13). https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
Click to expand...

Nice but all of that really means nothing. When the Hasselblad 30mm Fisheye lens came out it costs $8,000US which was more than most household incomes at that time. I recently picked one up for around $850US. So there is no use in making such comparisons, unless you have a time machine in your back pocket.
 
mshchem said:
I'm sure we will see more Ektachrome, I suspect there's no big rush. The biggest competition are thousands of freezers full of film.

Super 8 Ektachrome is 48 bucks a cartridge of 50 feet. That's mind boggling to me, add in processing and scanning, wow.
Click to expand...
Well, im sure im not the only one who is slowly starting to shoot the majority of my stockpile in my freezer!
Im sure Kodak was well aware of this fact too. Its probably bad enough with the number of fridges out there full of kodachrome waiting to be shot when a reliable process is achieved.
 
Any info on when 120 format will be available? I have some 220 in the freezer and a 220 magazine for my Hasselblad . . . needs light seals.
 
What is the status of 16mm currently? I heard it was available for sale, but not from dealers. What is going on with 16 at this time? Now that we're in September, Im surprised Kodak hasn't announced anything on the 120 yet.
 
braxus said:
....... Now that we're in September, Im surprised Kodak hasn't announced anything on the 120 yet.
Click to expand...

I read this elsewhere. Kodak did do a trial coating of 120 Ektachrome in July and is now evaluating the results.

Jim B.
 
braxus said:
What is the status of 16mm currently? I heard it was available for sale, but not from dealers.
Click to expand...

On the shelf of one dealer in Germany, so it was shipped to dealers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom