Kodak Reintroduces Ektachrome.

Brentwood Kebab!

A
Brentwood Kebab!

  • 0
  • 0
  • 31
Summer Lady

A
Summer Lady

  • 0
  • 0
  • 36
DINO Acting Up !

A
DINO Acting Up !

  • 0
  • 0
  • 24
What Have They Seen?

A
What Have They Seen?

  • 0
  • 0
  • 34
Lady With Attitude !

A
Lady With Attitude !

  • 0
  • 0
  • 36

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,762
Messages
2,780,543
Members
99,700
Latest member
Harryyang
Recent bookmarks
0

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
14,630
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format
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.
 

Agulliver

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
3,555
Location
Luton, United Kingdom
Format
Multi Format
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.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,880
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Well since they have rectified the issue with the paper on their other films, I would assume it should be fine with Ektachrome too?
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.
 

MultiFormat Shooter

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 24, 2016
Messages
567
Format
Multi Format
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.
 

braxus

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
1,784
Location
Fraser Valley B.C. Canada
Format
Hybrid
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.
 

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
14,630
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format
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.
 
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Messages
394
Location
Netherlands
Format
35mm
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.
 

Europan

Member
Joined
May 21, 2009
Messages
634
Location
Äsch, Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
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/
 

jrhilton

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
82
Format
Medium Format
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/

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!
 

braxus

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
1,784
Location
Fraser Valley B.C. Canada
Format
Hybrid
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.
 

Europan

Member
Joined
May 21, 2009
Messages
634
Location
Äsch, Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
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.
 

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,033
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
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/

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.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,359
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
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/

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.
 

Nzoomed

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
1,259
Format
35mm
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.
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.
 

John Galt

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2017
Messages
357
Location
Rivendell
Format
Medium Format
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.
 

braxus

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
1,784
Location
Fraser Valley B.C. Canada
Format
Hybrid
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.
 

cmacd123

Subscriber
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,312
Location
Stittsville, Ontario
Format
35mm
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