Kodak Reintroduces Ektachrome.

[BrianShaw]

Very odd.

And completely off-topic... if not just argument for the sake of argument.

Maybe ONF is a role model here... which is a bizarre thought but not an incorrect thought, I think.

 

[RattyMouse]

And completely off-topic... if not just argument for the sake of argument.

Maybe ONF is a role model here... which is a bizarre thought but not an incorrect thought, I think.

1357 posts in this thread. I suggest that many many posts are off topic. A few more hurts no one.

 

[AgX]

This whole thread could be reduced to post #1.

 

[Cholentpot]

And completely off-topic... if not just argument for the sake of argument.

Maybe ONF is a role model here... which is a bizarre thought but not an incorrect thought, I think.

Nah, we can't let things go. Have you ever looked at a thread on Rodinal?

 

[BrianShaw]

This whole thread could be reduced to post #1.

Thanks. Brilliant post. Put this dead horse to bed. Ended the conversation... quite effectively!

 

[trendland]

Let's discuss real hazards. Right now I have 2 cars in my attached garage. Each has a tank with at least 40 liters of gasoline. I have a 5 gallon gas can for my riding mower too. It's a $50 industrial steel can, but it's still gasoline. Liquid propane tanks on my deck for my grill.

The last thing on my list of worries is my color chemistry I use for film and printing. Kodak in their prime designed the processes that we still use. All this stuff goes through regulatory review. The US EPA, State of California etc. Especially back when analog was king , when the volumes were huge. Kodak worked with the regulators to make sure people and the environment didn't get hurt. Follow the instructions, use some common sense.
Long gone are the days of the really dangerous stuff mercury, sodium cyanide, stuff that even trained chemists with fume hoods have avoided.

My wife and I are traveling late summer. I will be shooting 35mm and 6x6 transparencies for projection. Nothing beats a good slide show.
Best Mike

Well Mike that seams to be a good idea (last issues you mentioned).
By the way : Do you have problems to get 6x6 mounts? Looking to some manufakturers price increasement (2times - 5 times higher pricing within 4 years) that could indicate we might see discontuniations. ....next ?
4,5 x 6 mounts should be the first ob es . ...
with regards

PS : I can not imagine what shall be soo expensive with the manufacturing of simple plastic mounts.
If it will proceed in that way (higher and higher pricing) I would like to produce it handmade. The material what seams to be good is K-Resin (r). The moulding is from cad/cam ......
PPS : Seams to be much more expensive. ......damned!

 

[bvy]

"We're very close to announcing availability."

 

[RattyMouse]

"We're very close to announcing availability."

View attachment 202135

Interesting news. Kodak has not down scaled their production as often stated in this forum. Building 38 is still the final production facility for this film.

 

[Willyekerslike]

This is good news.........

 

[bvy]

This was on Facebook and probably some of their other social media outlets, by the way...

Note the part that reads. "...we recognize that the scans don't necessarily do the film justice..." I'd say someone's listening.

 

[RattyMouse]

This was on Facebook and probably some of their other social media outlets, by the way...

Note the part that reads. "...we recognize that the scans don't necessarily do the film justice..." I'd say someone's listening.

Incredible. They recognized the poor quality of the scans yet posted them anyway. Unreal.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Interesting news. Kodak has not down scaled their production as often stated in this forum. Building 38 is still the final production facility for this film.

That is the approx 1 mile minimum coating length. Same as Ilford or pretty much any similar coating technology setup (even Adox & Ferrania) - you scale by width, not length of coating. Kodak used to coat 5-6x that amount as a normal batch. This is the scaled down coating amount

 

[BrianShaw]

Incredible. They recognized the poor quality of the scans yet posted them anyway. Unreal.

Well give them credit for one thing, please: providing some sort of “proof of life”. That was much better than what they showed at CES. I sure hope they show more with better quality soon... before release!

 

[BrianShaw]

This was on Facebook and probably some of their other social media outlets, by the way...

Note the part that reads. "...we recognize that the scans don't necessarily do the film justice..." I'd say someone's listening.

Thanks for sharing that!

 

[AgX]

That is the approx 1 mile minimum coating length. Same as Ilford or pretty much any similar coating technology setup (even Adox & Ferrania) - you scale by width, not length of coating. Kodak used to coat 5-6x that amount as a normal batch. This is the scaled down coating amount

Scaling down so far in the industry was used to indicate a lessening of the coating width, lessening of losses at tubings, but not lessening in coating length by reducing number of coated rolls as you indicate. Mooney explicitely speaks of not only of a 50inch wide coater but even of a 50inch wide coating.
So, as Ratty Mouse, I read that as not having scaled down on width. Though they may have modified their coater to coat wide and small production runs.

 

[bvy]

Incredible. They recognized the poor quality of the scans yet posted them anyway. Unreal.

Am I the only that just didn't find the scans that egregious?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Scaling down so far in the industry was used to indicate a lessening of the coating width, lessening of losses at tubings, but not lessening in coating length by reducing number of coated rolls as you indicate. Mooney explicitely speaks of not only of a 50inch wide coater but even of a 50inch wide coating.
So, as Ratty Mouse, I read that as not scaling on width. Though they may have modified their coaster to coat wide and small production runs.

Given that both Ilford & Kodak have talked about minimum coating distance of 1 mile & that they used to coat greater multiples of that (and still do for certain products), it's pretty clear from interviews with engineers at Kodak & Ilford (can't be bothered to look them up, but they're on various recent podcasts) that the scaling goes down to minimum coated distance, before going down in width. I'll take the comments from the actual chemical engineers over the opinions of yourself or RattyMouse. The Kodak machine in B38 is actually narrower than Ilford's which can do 60". That 1 mile still produces multiple coated rolls - at a guess, 2000ft at a time.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Am I the only that just didn't find the scans that egregious?

No. It's not that they were particularly good, but certainly not the eye sore that people made them to be. I took them only as an indication of progress.

 

[BrianShaw]

No. It's not that they were particularly good, but certainly not the eye sore that people made them to be. I took them only as an indication of progress.

... but not good enough to make me crave a roll of Ektachrome for anything other than the novelty value. It will take better indications of progress to do that. They weren’t bad... just amateurish. As indication of progress... that’s a whole lot better than nothing!

 

[RattyMouse]

That is the approx 1 mile minimum coating length. Same as Ilford or pretty much any similar coating technology setup (even Adox & Ferrania) - you scale by width, not length of coating. Kodak used to coat 5-6x that amount as a normal batch. This is the scaled down coating amount

Several people in the forum (i dont recall who) made the claim that Kodak was going to use a research coater as a production device, thus allowing them to scale down production. The info given above clearly shows that production is going to occur on the big machine in building 38.

 

[RattyMouse]

Well give them credit for one thing, please: providing some sort of “proof of life”. That was much better than what they showed at CES. I sure hope they show more with better quality soon... before release!

Yes, it appears that this film has been living behind the scenes. I wonder if the new Super 8 camera is also still alive?

 

[ME Super]

I just saw EK's/KA's announcement referenced in post #1362. I'd say this is pretty good news for Ektachrome, though I'm surprised that they're planning on using their wide coater in Bldg 38. I was thinking they'd bought a new coater whose max width was narrower. But I guess this makes sense based on what PE and others have said about coatings, the minimum length can't be changed because you have to feed leader through the coater and so on. It does make sense though that you'd scale by length first, and then once the minimum length was reached, if you needed to coat less, you'd shrink the width of the coating.

As an E-6 shooter, I wish Kodak the best in their production of Ektachrome. I will definitely buy and shoot some when it becomes available, and look forward to their next update. In the meantime, I think I better order some more Velvia 50. I've got 10 rolls of Provia 100F so I'm probably set for a while, anyway. And I've really taken to liking B&W transparencies too. I took a roll of HP5+ (ISO 400) and shot it at EI 1600 and sent it through DR5's process. The results were so wonderful they were twoderful, maybe even threederful. (Google Victor Borge's Inflationary Language if you don't understand that last part).

I'm looking forward to EK's/KA's announcement "in a couple weeks."

 

[RattyMouse]

Provia and Velvia can't die off soon enough to help Kodak.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Several people in the forum (i dont recall who) made the claim that Kodak was going to use a research coater as a production device, thus allowing them to scale down production. The info given above clearly shows that production is going to occur on the big machine in building 38.

No idea where they got that from, other than their overheated imagination connecting what Adox & Ferrania have been doing & misreading what Kodak had said. For what it's worth, that minimum coating will net approx 35000 135/36 films, but it'll be less because it's being split with the S8 50ft loads. A number of Ilford's products are made in similarly small quantities quite successfully, some at fairly lengthy intervals.

 

[RattyMouse]

No idea where they got that from, other than their overheated imagination connecting what Adox & Ferrania have been doing & misreading what Kodak had said. For what it's worth, that minimum coating will net approx 35000 135/36 films, but it'll be less because it's being split with the S8 50ft loads. A number of Ilford's products are made in similarly small quantities quite successfully, some at fairly lengthy intervals.

It was mentioned by someone from Kodak in a podcast. Apparently a misinformed Kodak person.