Kodak Reintroduces Ektachrome.

[xtolsniffer]

I have to say I'm completely delighted but also rather surprised, I had assumed that 35mm E6 would be the first to disappear forever. Mind you, reading 'The Revenge of Analog' by David sax makes you believe that anything is possible (though my dream of Kodachrome 25 is never likely to be realised). Makes me glad I rescued the three Leitz Pradovit slide projectors I found in a skip a few years back...

 

[RattyMouse]

I agree, however Kodak did say it was being reformulated, which to me says it's more than dusting off the Ektachrome recipe and dumping the chemicals in the coating machine.

That's true. Someone with knowledge has to be there to do that.

 

[mynewcolour]

I agree, however Kodak did say it was being reformulated, which to me says it's more than dusting off the Ektachrome recipe and dumping the chemicals in the coating machine.

But if you change anything, even one-percent ... does that constitute a re-formulation? (wearing my cynical marketing-man hat)

I'd like some of the scan-optimisation magic of Ektar and Portra.

 

[flavio81]

Why people worry so much for reformulation???

Even if we go back to the technology of (early 1990s?) Ektachrome 100 Plus, it would be a really nice film to shoot.

 

[mynewcolour]

Judging from the interview on filmsnotdead it sounds like starting any new production of film necessitates a 're-formulation'.

Film's not Dead: So, In terms of the formulation is it exactly the same, or has it been upgraded?

Kodak Alaris T. J. Mooney: Well that is still TBD (to be discussed) which is part of the reason why the availability is set for later this year, in the fourth quarter. Bringing back a film is not as simple as you might think. There's a very significant R&D (Research & Development) that is necessary to re-formulate the product based on component availability and any equipment changes that have been made or any changes to environmental health and safety regulations. So the intent here is to bring back a daylight 100 speed Ektachrome film. Saturation levels and performance characteristics are still TBD at this point but in terms of the old Ektachrome it will certainly be along those same lines and we'll know more as we go along.

http://www.filmsnotdead.com/​

 

[MattKing]

There were a significant number of re-formulations of Ektachrome in the 15 or so years before it was discontinued.
There have been re-formulations in the last few years of most Kodak film products.
While there isn't nearly the Kodak R&D capacity as there once was, there remains at least some capacity for responsive change.
So in essence, they have challenges, but they also have experience dealing with challenges.
So I am hoping for the best.

 

[Prest_400]

There were a significant number of re-formulations of Ektachrome in the 15 or so years before it was discontinued.

E100g is a 2003 product? That'd be the last sizeable update/reformulation.

For that reason it's cringeworthy to read some of those "Ektachrome sucked, blue skies, fading, yadda" because it's not a single product, rather an extended line that wraps lots of iterations from 1940 to 2012.

Kodachrome had its own quirks, thankfully good archival qualities were one of them!


According to PE, small changes can require reformulation. Different coaters, an unavailable ingredient, etc.

 

[fstop]

But if you change anything, even one-percent ... does that constitute a re-formulation? (wearing my cynical marketing-man hat)

I'd like some of the scan-optimisation magic of Ektar and Portra.

Sure why not, New old Coke comes to mind.Although Eektachrome emulsion probably tastes better.

 

[cmacd123]

as far as stability, I have been led to believe that Kodachrome was known for "dark Keeping" stability, while Ektachrome was good for withstanding being shown continuously.

So if you were to have a display with a projector showing slides for a month or more, you would have probably wanted those slides to be Ektachrome, but if you wanted to store the pictures away for 50 years you would have wanted to use Kodachrome.

Kodak made a motion picture print film at one time that faded to pink after a few years. BUT the folks that designed it were more concerned with it standing up to being shown in theatres many times a day for several months. knowing that most prints would be deliberately destroyed once the theatre run was over. it would have not been an issue except they also sold it as 16mm print film and those educational films were kept in media libraries until they looked very pink.

 

[Nzoomed]

as far as stability, I have been led to believe that Kodachrome was known for "dark Keeping" stability, while Ektachrome was good for withstanding being shown continuously.

So if you were to have a display with a projector showing slides for a month or more, you would have probably wanted those slides to be Ektachrome, but if you wanted to store the pictures away for 50 years you would have wanted to use Kodachrome.

Kodak made a motion picture print film at one time that faded to pink after a few years. BUT the folks that designed it were more concerned with it standing up to being shown in theatres many times a day for several months. knowing that most prints would be deliberately destroyed once the theatre run was over. it would have not been an issue except they also sold it as 16mm print film and those educational films were kept in media libraries until they looked very pink.

There are so many stories about the pink eastman stock that I dont know what holds true.

I hear from some sources, that Kodak did care about quality and tried their best to improve it over time as they saw fit.

On the other hand I read that the movie studios did not care, for the reasons you also mentioned and wanted kodak to make the cheapest film available for projection and that archivability was not an issue for them.

But hey presto after 1980, all film went LPP and stopped fading!

Reasons i hear was the movie studios at that time were learning the hard way that films in their vaults had deteriorated badly and were near impossible to restore due to fading etc, this seems to hold true to me.

Either way it did affect commercially available prints for sale and no doubt Kodak would want that fixed.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The movie studios did indeed want inexpensive print films due to the short expected lifetime. Therefore, they were designed for good light stability in the projector and an indifferent tolerance to dark keeping.

HOWEVER, film in many cases, lasts longer than digital and is easier to transcribe and correct. See the numerous discussions on this here on APUG.

PS LPP? (Lipoma Preferred Partner)

PE

 

[StoneNYC]

I just hope it doesn't damage the already low quantity of Velvia50 being made and purchased. Especially considering I only shoot it in 8x10 and 4x5. And Kodak doesn't seem to be making it in anything but movie format (where the money is).

So my main concern isn't if E100G (reformulated) scans better. It's that it could drop sales of the other E-6 films still in production i.e. Rollie E-6 (forget the name / Velvia50 / Velvia100 / Provia100f (and about to be produced like FILMFerrania's E-6). But for me I'm particular Velvia50. I know it's not even in competition with E100G because of it's more "true to life" saturation, it could pull enough of the 35mm purchases down enough to kill a line or two (or whole production).

I guess we shall see...

 

[unityofsaints]

I just hope it doesn't damage the already low quantity of Velvia50 being made and purchased. Especially considering I only shoot it in 8x10 and 4x5. And Kodak doesn't seem to be making it in anything but movie format (where the money is).

So my main concern isn't if E100G (reformulated) scans better. It's that it could drop sales of the other E-6 films still in production i.e. Rollie E-6 (forget the name / Velvia50 / Velvia100 / Provia100f (and about to be produced like FILMFerrania's E-6). But for me I'm particular Velvia50. I know it's not even in competition with E100G because of it's more "true to life" saturation, it could pull enough of the 35mm purchases down enough to kill a line or two (or whole production).

I guess we shall see...

IIRC there was a leaked Fuji roadmap months ago which pointed towards a Velvia 100 discontinuation sometime mid-2017. That would do quite a bit to safeguard the continued production of Velvia 50 but then again, that roadmap was leaked before this announcement. I think you're making a very good point, unfortunately

 

[Athiril]

I have to say I'm completely delighted but also rather surprised, I had assumed that 35mm E6 would be the first to disappear forever. Mind you, reading 'The Revenge of Analog' by David sax makes you believe that anything is possible (though my dream of Kodachrome 25 is never likely to be realised). Makes me glad I rescued the three Leitz Pradovit slide projectors I found in a skip a few years back...

Personally Id rather an Ektachrome 25 or Ektar 25

 

[pdeeh]

There must be, how else could they make it? I can't see Kodak making an announcement like this and then saying " Sorry, it's all cancelled as we don't know how to make it any more"

To say "the people who made this product before are not here any more" is not the same as saying "there are no people who can make this product any more"

 

[Cropline]

Personally Id rather an Ektachrome 25 or Ektar 25

I'd like to see a Portra or Ektar 25, also. With the grain structure of Cinestill 50d or better yet, Adox CMS 20 ll, for 35mm and MF.

 

[Helinophoto]

I think it's a little strange that they reintroduce a E6-film, when the E6 shooting/processing in general is down in demand/use.
(I keep hearing how expensive it is to both shoot it and develop it).

And the comments when it was axed back in 2012 is telling:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Makes sense that they re-engineer already existing products though, researching and creating a whole new film is a massive undertaking, I am sure.

Kodak, in general has a nice lineup on films, the only thing really missing from their lineup, was E6, but still.....I hope it sell well enough.

After Ektrachrome, I wished they would look into reviving Plus-x (35mm and 120), but from what I gather, they axed it because it wasn't selling well enough, so who knows....
I have bought and seen that the last remaining rolls of bulk Plus-X 5231 (cine) has never lasted for very long online, before being snatched away at pretty good prices.

One can hope

Great news that they are indeed going trough the old emulsions for possible reintroduction, they would not do it if it wasn't a marked out there.

 

[Anon Ymous]

...After Ektrachrome, I wished they would look into reviving Plus-x (35mm and 120), but from what I gather, they axed it because it wasn't selling well enough, so who knows....

To be honest, I haven't shot any Plus-X, not even a single roll. But then, I had a look at it's datasheet and compared it to that of TMY2. These two films have the same granularity, but TMY2 has a bit more resolution. 125PX had more pronounced shoulder, whereas TMY2 is quite straight at the highlights. So, do we really need 125PX? Maybe we have an even better film that is 2 stops faster. On the other hand, if you consider TMax 100, we have a film that is both finer grained and sharper. Does it make any sense for Kodak to reintroduce 125PX and undermine the sales of some of their existing products?

 

[pdeeh]

People want to be able to buy the long hot summers and snowy Christmases of their youths again.
A lot of this has very little to do with film and much to do with a yearning for time travel

 

[Lachlan Young]

To be honest, I haven't shot any Plus-X, not even a single roll. But then, I had a look at it's datasheet and compared it to that of TMY2. These two films have the same granularity, but TMY2 has a bit more resolution. 125PX had more pronounced shoulder, whereas TMY2 is quite straight at the highlights. So, do we really need 125PX? Maybe we have an even better film that is 2 stops faster. On the other hand, if you consider TMax 100, we have a film that is both finer grained and sharper. Does it make any sense for Kodak to reintroduce 125PX and undermine the sales of some of their existing products?

I'd suspect that TMZ with some alterations might be a more likely re-introduction, especially if it was able to be produced in 120 too - spreading production across multiple formats is probably what has enabled Delta 3200 to remain on the market.

As much as I liked PX, the TMAXes have distinct advantages.

 

[Helinophoto]

To be honest, I haven't shot any Plus-X, not even a single roll. But then, I had a look at it's datasheet and compared it to that of TMY2. These two films have the same granularity, but TMY2 has a bit more resolution. 125PX had more pronounced shoulder, whereas TMY2 is quite straight at the highlights. So, do we really need 125PX? Maybe we have an even better film that is 2 stops faster. On the other hand, if you consider TMax 100, we have a film that is both finer grained and sharper. Does it make any sense for Kodak to reintroduce 125PX and undermine the sales of some of their existing products?

The spectral sensitivity-curve between Plus-x and the TMax-films is quite different.
Different grain-structure as well.

Nothing to do with nostalgia, but I like Plus-x, even though it is nothing wrong with the TMax-films.

 

[laser]

Judging from the interview on filmsnotdead it sounds like starting any new production of film necessitates a 're-formulation'.

Film's not Dead: So, In terms of the formulation is it exactly the same, or has it been upgraded?

Kodak Alaris T. J. Mooney: Well that is still TBD (to be discussed) which is part of the reason why the availability is set for later this year, in the fourth quarter. Bringing back a film is not as simple as you might think. There's a very significant R&D (Research & Development) that is necessary to re-formulate the product based on component availability and any equipment changes that have been made or any changes to environmental health and safety regulations. So the intent here is to bring back a daylight 100 speed Ektachrome film. Saturation levels and performance characteristics are still TBD at this point but in terms of the old Ektachrome it will certainly be along those same lines and we'll know more as we go along.

http://www.filmsnotdead.com/​

 

[laser]

Judging from the interview on filmsnotdead it sounds like starting any new production of film necessitates a 're-formulation'.

Film's not Dead: So, In terms of the formulation is it exactly the same, or has it been upgraded?

Kodak Alaris T. J. Mooney: Well that is still TBD (to be discussed) which is part of the reason why the availability is set for later this year, in the fourth quarter. Bringing back a film is not as simple as you might think. There's a very significant R&D (Research & Development) that is necessary to re-formulate the product based on component availability and any equipment changes that have been made or any changes to environmental health and safety regulations. So the intent here is to bring back a daylight 100 speed Ektachrome film. Saturation levels and performance characteristics are still TBD at this point but in terms of the old Ektachrome it will certainly be along those same lines and we'll know more as we go along.

http://www.filmsnotdead.com/​

TJ is a "straight shooter" and is an expert. His comments are accurate. If you want to see why it is so complex look at Dead Link Removed film.com Remember, even the slightest change can make the film unsatisfactory. There is an old film making saying "Pray for the emulsion".

 

[AgX]

Kodak made a motion picture print film at one time that faded to pink after a few years. BUT the folks that designed it were more concerned with it standing up to being shown in theatres many times a day for several months. knowing that most prints would be deliberately destroyed once the theatre run was over. it would have not been an issue except they also sold it as 16mm print film and those educational films were kept in media libraries until they looked very pink.

Movies were (are) made for the day. Cinema copies were seen as consumables.

 

[Diapositivo]

The context in 2012 when Kodak was axing films was completely different. Kodak was scaled for massive productions, and could not downscale or would not dedicate itself to small productions. It was a huge ill elephant, not to say dinosaur. They had to demolish entire buildings in order to save the taxes on factory surface! The speed of film demise took Kodak by surprise and found it unprepared. They had to prune with the motorsaw.

Now it's a different Kodak. Much, much smaller. Fuji raised prices, Agfa ceased slide film production.
Kodak is re-launching the Super8 format and is the heir of a glorious tradition and the owner of a very valuable trademark in film.
Everything invites Kodak to re-enter the slide film arena now. The choice makes sense.

Colour film production can be lucrative also in relatively small amount, provided that your "industrial scale" is the right size for the production you undertake.