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.
And completely off-topic... if not just argument for the sake of argument.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.
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.
Thanks. Brilliant post. Put this dead horse to bed. Ended the conversation... quite effectively!This whole thread could be reduced to post #1.
Well Mike that seams to be a good idea (last issues you mentioned).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
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.
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.
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!Incredible. They recognized the poor quality of the scans yet posted them anyway. Unreal.
Thanks for sharing that!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.
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.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
Am I the only that just didn't find the scans that egregious?Incredible. They recognized the poor quality of the scans yet posted them anyway. Unreal.
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.
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.Am I the only that just didn't find the scans that egregious?
... 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!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.
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
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!
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?