I have lately been reading Richard W. Haines' History of Dye Transfer >Printing.
About how Technicolor new management gave up the IB tech process misreading >the market demand for prints which were only profitable above a run of 75 >copies, when in fact print orders increased to upwards of 1,500 copies.
Ian
Ian Partridge <i@ipartridge.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/Press_center/Kodak_Brings_Back_a_Classic_with_EKTACHROME_Film/default.htm
I have lately been reading Richard W. Haines' History of Dye Transfer >>Printing.
About how Technicolor new management gave up the IB tech process
misreading
the market demand for prints which were only profitable above a run of 75 >>copies, when in fact print orders increased to upwards of 1,500 copies.
Well, we got a bunch of factors going into this one.
First of all, Kodak is not able to make small production runs. They don't have any small alleys left anymore, they were all bulldozed in the 1980s
when Kodak management was convinced that production would keep going up
and
up. So all Kodak can do is produce one jumbo at a time, and a jumbo turns into a whole lot of 35mm still rolls. They then have to be able to sell
all
of that film before it goes out of date.
One strategy for this is to cut the film into as many formats as possible
and sell the same emulsion into as many markets as possible. Once you
have
made a jumbo, there's no reason not to make 16mm, 35mm, 120, and 4x5 all
from the same film (assuming the customer can live with the sheet film
being
annoyingly thin-based).
But... the thing is that nobody really knows what the market is. It's
likely
not as big as the market for Kodachrome would be. And by making a slide
film
Kodak is going into competition with Fuji and (hopefully soon) Ferrania.
So
they have to make a better product, or they have to make the product in formats
that the competition doesn't have, or they have to make a new and
different
product that the competition doesn't have.
If I were Kodak I would considering building a small pilot-plant-sized
alley
back like Building 7 where the RAR films used to be made in small batches,
or
like Ferrania is trying to start up today. Because there is a lot of
demand
for film out there, but it's all fragmented: people want a little bit of
each
of a lot of kinds of material.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
I had no idea Kodak had stopped making Ektachrome until I saw the link. It >was good to take a roll of medium format Ektachrome transparencies to the >local 'Q Lab' for processing and flatbed scan the images to digital files. >Then a quality digital camera became affordable so, like everyone, I used >this instead of film.
Ian Partridge <i@ipartridge.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
I had no idea Kodak had stopped making Ektachrome until I saw the link. It >was good to take a roll of medium format Ektachrome transparencies to the >local 'Q Lab' for processing and flatbed scan the images to digital files. >Then a quality digital camera became affordable so, like everyone, I used >this instead of film.
Right, and the folks shooting film are mostly doing digital post. So from their perspective, the workflow is the same whether they shoot negative or reversal... and because the only advantage of reversal is the particular look of the stuff and the disadvantages are many (beginning with limited tonal range and consequent lack of exposure latitude). So although there is a limited market for film there is a far more limited market for reversal. --scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
On Thursday, 12 January 2017 05:57:27 UTC+11, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Ian Partridge <i@ipartridge.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
I had no idea Kodak had stopped making Ektachrome until I saw the link. It >> >was good to take a roll of medium format Ektachrome transparencies to the >> >local 'Q Lab' for processing and flatbed scan the images to digital files. >> >Then a quality digital camera became affordable so, like everyone, I used >> >this instead of film.
Right, and the folks shooting film are mostly doing digital post. So from >> their perspective, the workflow is the same whether they shoot negative or >> reversal... and because the only advantage of reversal is the particular look
of the stuff and the disadvantages are many (beginning with limited tonal
range and consequent lack of exposure latitude). So although there is a
limited market for film there is a far more limited market for reversal.
Is Ektachrome still in production?
cinemad <cinemad@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 12 January 2017 05:57:27 UTC+11, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Ian Partridge <i@ipartridge.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
I had no idea Kodak had stopped making Ektachrome until I saw the link. It
was good to take a roll of medium format Ektachrome transparencies to the >> >local 'Q Lab' for processing and flatbed scan the images to digital files.
Then a quality digital camera became affordable so, like everyone, I used >> >this instead of film.
Right, and the folks shooting film are mostly doing digital post. So from >> their perspective, the workflow is the same whether they shoot negative or >> reversal... and because the only advantage of reversal is the particular look
of the stuff and the disadvantages are many (beginning with limited tonal >> range and consequent lack of exposure latitude). So although there is a >> limited market for film there is a far more limited market for reversal.
Is Ektachrome still in production?
It was discontinued in 2012, but they should be shipping Ekta 100 again soon.
Fuji never did stop making reversal stocks, and Film Ferrania is trying to get the old Ferrania-Scotch plant in Luguria back into production making a reversal film.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
I'm amazed that Ferrania is still in business. When I was 12 I occasionally used Ferrania in standard 8 with my Kodak Brownie movie camera. It's faded badly whereas the Kodachrome is still perfect.
Currently Ferrania is making only one 35mm B&W film, the old 80 ASA
stock that films like Nights of Cabiria were filmed in. They're doing
BH camera perfs with cine tolerances so you could put it in your Arri,
but right now they are only selling it in still cartridges. They are >promising 35mm and 16mm cine loads soon once they get things running
a bit more smoothly.
In article <oaj7ub$32j$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Currently Ferrania is making only one 35mm B&W film, the old 80 ASA
stock that films like Nights of Cabiria were filmed in. They're doing
BH camera perfs with cine tolerances so you could put it in your Arri,
but right now they are only selling it in still cartridges. They are >>promising 35mm and 16mm cine loads soon once they get things running
a bit more smoothly.
Somewhat OT: why do 35mm film rolls for still cameras normally
use KS perfs? I have a pin-registered Nikon where that might matter,
but, aside from that and pin-registered slide mounts, does the perf
shape even matter for stills? I already know about the advantages
of BH perfs for film used in cine cameras, so this question is only
for stills.
In article <oaj7ub$32j$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Currently Ferrania is making only one 35mm B&W film, the old 80 ASA
stock that films like Nights of Cabiria were filmed in. They're doing
BH camera perfs with cine tolerances so you could put it in your Arri,
but right now they are only selling it in still cartridges. They are >promising 35mm and 16mm cine loads soon once they get things running
a bit more smoothly.
Somewhat OT: why do 35mm film rolls for still cameras normally
use KS perfs? I have a pin-registered Nikon where that might matter,
but, aside from that and pin-registered slide mounts, does the perf
shape even matter for stills? I already know about the advantages
of BH perfs for film used in cine cameras, so this question is only
for stills.
--
Scott Norwood: snorwood@nyx.net, snorwood@redballoon.net
Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 04:11:00 UTC+11, Scott Norwood wrote:
In article <oaj7ub$32j$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Currently Ferrania is making only one 35mm B&W film, the old 80 ASA
stock that films like Nights of Cabiria were filmed in. They're doing
BH camera perfs with cine tolerances so you could put it in your Arri,
but right now they are only selling it in still cartridges. They are
promising 35mm and 16mm cine loads soon once they get things running
a bit more smoothly.
According to IMDB The Gospel According to St. Mathew(1964) was filmed on Ferrania P.30 B/W film' The Italian equivalent of Eastman Plus X.
cinemad <cinemad@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 04:11:00 UTC+11, Scott Norwood wrote:
In article <oaj7ub$32j$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Currently Ferrania is making only one 35mm B&W film, the old 80 ASA
stock that films like Nights of Cabiria were filmed in. They're doing
BH camera perfs with cine tolerances so you could put it in your Arri,
but right now they are only selling it in still cartridges. They are
promising 35mm and 16mm cine loads soon once they get things running
a bit more smoothly.
According to IMDB The Gospel According to St. Mathew(1964) was filmed on Ferrania P.30 B/W film' The Italian equivalent of Eastman Plus X.
Lots of European films from that era were. It's lovely-looking stuff, very much like Plus-X was before 1976, or the lower-speed Orwo stock. Good blacks,
shorter toe than most modern B&W films and lovely midrange separation. You can pick just about any Italian or French film from that era and chances are good that it was shot on P.30.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
On Monday, 27 March 2017 00:49:36 UTC+11, Scott Dorsey wrote:
cinemad <cinemad@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 04:11:00 UTC+11, Scott Norwood wrote:
In article <oaj7ub$32j$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Currently Ferrania is making only one 35mm B&W film, the old 80 ASA
stock that films like Nights of Cabiria were filmed in. They're doing >> >> >BH camera perfs with cine tolerances so you could put it in your Arri, >> >> >but right now they are only selling it in still cartridges. They are
promising 35mm and 16mm cine loads soon once they get things running
a bit more smoothly.
According to IMDB The Gospel According to St. Mathew(1964) was filmed on Ferrania P.30 B/W film' The Italian equivalent of Eastman Plus X.
Lots of European films from that era were. It's lovely-looking stuff, very >> much like Plus-X was before 1976, or the lower-speed Orwo stock. Good blacks,
shorter toe than most modern B&W films and lovely midrange separation. You >> can pick just about any Italian or French film from that era and chances are >> good that it was shot on P.30.
Ferrania have just released a 35mm still film version of the P30 film.
It is called ALPHA P30 and was released in February 2017.
By the way what did KODAK do to change Plus X in 1976?
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/Press_center/Kodak_Brings_Back_a_Classic_with_EKTACHROME_Film/default.htm
I have lately been reading Richard W. Haines' History of Dye Transfer Printing.
About how Technicolor new management gave up the IB tech process misreading the market demand for prints which were only profitable above a run of 75 copies, when in fact print orders increased to upwards of 1,500 copies.
Ian
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 234:46:32 |
| Calls: | 6,624 |
| Files: | 12,172 |
| Messages: | 5,319,700 |