Kodak Reintroduces Ektachrome.

[Lachlan Young]

Notice how no one is talking about this film since its release. P30 from Ferrania got way more post release chatter than P3200.

Probably because it doesn't sell to the market that wastes its time piddling around with random developers & posting interminable threads about this activity.

 

[BrianShaw]

Notice how no one is talking about this film since its release. P30 from Ferrania got way more post release chatter than P3200.

What release? I haven’t heard of Ektachrome release. Or did you mean P3200 (AKA p800)

 

[Photo Engineer]

Probably because it doesn't sell to the market that wastes its time piddling around with random developers & posting interminable threads about this activity.

I love your response!

 

[Cholentpot]

Notice how no one is talking about this film since its release. P30 from Ferrania got way more post release chatter than P3200.

Maybe I don't want to pay $10 a roll for some film that I don't need. If someone gives it to me for free or very cheap I'll have fun, but I'm happy pushing Tri-x or whatever or maybe even using flash or another format. It's a bit expensive for a one trick pony.

 

[mshchem]

Probably because it doesn't sell to the market that wastes its time piddling around with random developers & posting interminable threads about this activity.

in·ter·mi·na·ble
inˈtərmənəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. endless (often used hyperbolically).

Ouch. I'm assuming your remarks are hyperbolic . Not just being a (insert your own)
Peace All

 

[flavio81]

Notice how no one is talking about this film since its release. P30 from Ferrania got way more post release chatter than P3200.

Because no one from Kodak Alaris is active on this forum promoting the product, telling how things are going, showing example shots from P3200, etc.

 

[BrianShaw]

Because no one from Kodak Alaris is active on this forum promoting the product, telling how things are going, showing example shots from P3200, etc.

That’s their loss, I think. But haven’t read any user experience either.

 

[RattyMouse]

What release? I haven’t heard of Ektachrome release. Or did you mean P3200 (AKA p800)

I meant P3200.

 

[Agulliver]

I turned 45 this year and I care about Kodachrome. I accept it's not coming back but I hope I am allowed to miss it.

Heck I'll even be shooting Ektachrome in super 8 when it comes out.

Kodak is NOT aiming Ektachrome and super 8 at the "educational film" market but at the "film education" market....getting aspiring movie makers learning the craft on small gauge film.....they're not trying to get instructional films released on super 8 with optical sound....

 

[Ste_S]

getting aspiring movie makers learning the craft on small gauge film

I don't get why an aspiring movie maker would want to use Super 8. They did in the past because it was the budget option, but now after paying for film, dev and scan where with digital you don't have to pay for any of those...
I just can't see why a cash strapped beginner director would choose to do that. Are Kodak subsidising costs ?

 

[Agulliver]

When Kodak made the announcement in 2016 about their proposed new Super 8 camera, they had testimonials from lots of well known film-makers such as Spielberg, Tarantino, Nolan and others saying that super 8 would still be the best way for aspiring directors to cut their teeth. It certainly teaches about exposure and lighting for film rather than video...and somewhat about how different film stocks are suited to different situations which you won't get if you follow a digital only route and then try to shoot film.

 

[RattyMouse]

I don't get why an aspiring movie maker would want to use Super 8. They did in the past because it was the budget option, but now after paying for film, dev and scan where with digital you don't have to pay for any of those...
I just can't see why a cash strapped beginner director would choose to do that. Are Kodak subsidising costs ?

No they are not. In fact, the projected cost of this new camera (should it ever exist) went from $700 to $2500. That's a huge increase.

 

[AgX]

When Kodak made the announcement in 2016 about their proposed new Super 8 camera, they had testimonials from lots of well known film-makers such as Spielberg, Tarantino, Nolan and others saying that super 8 would still be the best way for aspiring directors to cut their teeth.

But this attitude is not shared by all film academies... to put it mildly.

 

[iandvaag]

No they are not.

I wouldn't be so sure. Kodak currently has a deal to subsidize film costs for projects shot on 16 mm and 35 mm:
https://nofilmschool.com/2016/04/kodak-and-kickstarter-want-help-you-shoot-film

I would not be at all surprised if Kodak offered a discount on bulk orders made by schools on their new s8 film, and maybe "indie" projects as well.

 

[RattyMouse]

I wouldn't be so sure. Kodak currently has a deal to subsidize film costs for projects shot on 16 mm and 35 mm:
https://nofilmschool.com/2016/04/kodak-and-kickstarter-want-help-you-shoot-film

I would not be at all surprised if Kodak offered a discount on bulk orders made by schools on their new s8 film, and maybe "indie" projects as well.

Kickstart?? Are they kidding?

 

[Lee Rust]

Outside of the film schools, the market for the proposed Kodak Super 8 camera would be infinitesimal, especially if it's priced above $2000. I'm guessing that the rapid advancement and nearly universal acceptance of digital cinema technology over the past few years has far outpaced Kodak's increasingly limited capacity to develop, test, manufacture and distribute their resurrected E6 film and hybrid movie camera. What seemed like a viable business model in 2016 might now seem preposterous in 2018. My son-in-law is a cinematographer, and although he personally has a soft spot for film, all of his commercial projects are shot with digital cameras.

If the new generation of movie makers will be doing their work exclusively in electronic media, why waste expensive educational time and effort on marginal film techniques and materials? If they just want the 'look' of film, it's a straightforward matter of post-processing. If they really want to go to the trouble of using actual film, why mess around with Super 8 when Super 16 and 35mm negative stocks and cameras offer vastly superior quality?

Without a viable Super 8 market to justify volume production, there will probably be no 35mm reversal film for the rest of us.

I hope I'm wrong, though.

 

[RattyMouse]

Outside of the film schools, the market for the proposed Kodak Super 8 camera would be infinitesimal, especially if it's priced above $2000. I'm guessing that the rapid advancement and nearly universal acceptance of digital cinema technology over the past few years has far outpaced Kodak's increasingly limited capacity to develop, test, manufacture and distribute their resurrected E6 film and hybrid movie camera. What seemed like a viable business model in 2016 might now seem preposterous in 2018. My son-in-law is a cinematographer, and although he personally has a soft spot for film, all of his commercial projects are shot with digital cameras.

If the new generation of movie makers will be doing their work exclusively in electronic media, why waste expensive educational time and effort on marginal film techniques and materials? If they just want the 'look' of film, it's a straightforward matter of post-processing. If they really want to go to the trouble of using actual film, why mess around with Super 8 when Super 16 and 35mm negative stocks and cameras offer vastly superior quality?

Without a viable Super 8 market to justify volume production, there will probably be no 35mm reversal film for the rest of us.

I hope I'm wrong, though.

Even Ferrania needs Super 8 film to justify their foray back into E6 film.

 

[railwayman3]

Probably because it doesn't sell to the market that wastes its time piddling around with random developers & posting interminable threads about this activity.

I sometimes quite like experimenting with odd films and developers, etc.
OTOH, I can't see the fun in paying for expensive "alpha" film (on the rare occasions it is not "sold out"!), then having to spend more money and time piddling around trying to get an acceptable result. If I want try a change from my usual quality favourite films, I can buy any Ilford film and the inside of the packet gives me recommended times and temperatures for about a dozen different developers (not only Ilford's own brands) which I know will give me acceptably good results. Kodak, Adox, Foma, etc., all given similar reliable information either with the product or on the web.

 

[Cholentpot]

Outside of the film schools, the market for the proposed Kodak Super 8 camera would be infinitesimal, especially if it's priced above $2000. I'm guessing that the rapid advancement and nearly universal acceptance of digital cinema technology over the past few years has far outpaced Kodak's increasingly limited capacity to develop, test, manufacture and distribute their resurrected E6 film and hybrid movie camera. What seemed like a viable business model in 2016 might now seem preposterous in 2018. My son-in-law is a cinematographer, and although he personally has a soft spot for film, all of his commercial projects are shot with digital cameras.

If the new generation of movie makers will be doing their work exclusively in electronic media, why waste expensive educational time and effort on marginal film techniques and materials? If they just want the 'look' of film, it's a straightforward matter of post-processing. If they really want to go to the trouble of using actual film, why mess around with Super 8 when Super 16 and 35mm negative stocks and cameras offer vastly superior quality?

Without a viable Super 8 market to justify volume production, there will probably be no 35mm reversal film for the rest of us.

I hope I'm wrong, though.

Maybe some Hollywood guys want the stuff. With the ability to scan into really hi rez 16mm or super 8 can become a viable option for the silver screen? I can see some scenes in a movie being shot on 16mm or 8mm for effect. A half dozen movies shot with this film would roll through more film than most of us would use in a lifetime.

 

[RattyMouse]

Maybe some Hollywood guys want the stuff. With the ability to scan into really hi rez 16mm or super 8 can become a viable option for the silver screen? I can see some scenes in a movie being shot on 16mm or 8mm for effect. A half dozen movies shot with this film would roll through more film than most of us would use in a lifetime.

We're really grasping at straws here. Desperation is starting to sink in. We seriously think Hollywood is going to shoot movies on Super 8??

 

[Kino]

We're really grasping at straws here. Desperation is starting to sink in. We seriously think Hollywood is going to shoot movies on Super 8??

I hate these threads...

 

[cmacd123]

Film Schools I can see

Hollywood movies where they are showing the characters watching - err Home Movies, yes.

SkateBoard and Snow Board Videos - Heck Yes. (it was a cult thing until e100 went away.)

VERY low budget pictures using Super 16. Maybe. More latitude with Vision 50D. Super 8 would be really pushing it. ("The Hurt Locker" is about the only successful movie shot on Super16)

All Undeserved Niche markets.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I hate these threads...

Yet here you are both reading and posting in one.

 

[MattKing]

All Undeserved Niche markets.

Did you, by chance, mean to post instead: "All under-served niche markets"?
If not, I'm really intrigued about what makes a market "deserving".

 

[Cholentpot]

We're really grasping at straws here. Desperation is starting to sink in. We seriously think Hollywood is going to shoot movies on Super 8??

Some scenes sure. It's not any crazier than shooting 70mm Ultrapanamorphic cameras from the 60's that some directors are doing.