Slit Kodachrome processing

michaelbsc said:

I think it will come to this in the end, because it's a way for larger manufactures to continue to make a profit against the cheaper manufacturers. For instance, I agree with a lot of people the the Chinese film can't stand up to FP4 or Plus-X, but I've got a few rolls, and when I want to see if I've got a shutter working I'll reach for the Shanghai. Kodak wants to cut that out of the loop if they can, bet your booty. So if they can cut costs such that I can keep Plus-X on hand within a reasonable differential of the Shanghai, like most reasonable people I would do it. But they aren't hurting badly enough yet to sell "generic" film.

Perhaps one could even pitch it as, "we abandon the box for the environment" or something. Give a marketing guy a few minutes to put a positive spin on it, and it will be in a TV commercial.

Click to expand...

This is part if the issue, when I buy a roll of film, say 120, even though I don't have a 120 format camera (I wish I did), it comes with a foil packet, and a cardboard box. 35mm is even worse, you have a plastic film can and a cardboard box. Why not just a foil packet, most 35mm folks have dozens of the plastic containers, so if you want you can always open the packet and put the roll in a plastic film can yourself. If they eliminated it, then it would save a lot of money in packaging, and be better for the environment. Perhaps this is a challenge for the film manufacturers, can they come up with a container for film that is light proof, water proof, cheao and can be recycled. Like I said, a sticker could be applied that identifies the film. Of the 15 or so rolls of 35mm film I have, not one has the cardboard box, it takes up extra room in the freezer.

They should make magazines that hold unperforated 70mm film. You should wind it in and be able to take something like 120 in camera exposures before changing rolls. Especially for some film like kodachrome where the amount of wasted film for splicing would be greatly reduced and is processed in continuous strand so length doesn't matter.

tiberiustibz said:

They should make magazines that hold unperforated 70mm film. You should wind it in and be able to take something like 120 in camera exposures before changing rolls. Especially for some film like kodachrome where the amount of wasted film for splicing would be greatly reduced and is processed in continuous strand so length doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

Or idea would be a 120 bulk loader, has one roll of film, one roll of backing paper, you have a chute that accepts a bunch of 120 spools, and bulk length film, say 100m or 200m Set a frame counter on one side, and spool off as many frames as you like. I wonder how many 120 spools you would get out of 200m of film?

michaelbsc said:

Now, if somehow the Ilfochrome/Cibachrome crowd, which is also becoming a marginalized product by the market, could hook up and pitch that Kodachrome and Cibachrome were made for each other, you might have something.

MB

Click to expand...

I thought they were made for each other, as I have been projecting my kodachromes that I shoot underwater on to cibachrome paper for the last 20 years. Makes for some awesome 16x20's