Kodak stops production of Ektachrome 100D

[Angus]

Kodak are still listing Ektachrome 100D on their motion picture website and in the Super 8 products page.

I can see that it must be a marginal product for them but it pretty much means the end of any tinkering with super 8 for me after my current small stock of carts is used up.

[mr_x]

Negative film stocks simply don't have the same aesthetic characteristics that super 8 reversal produces. I'd sooner treat digital footage to look the way I want before using color negative super 8. Negative film always looks like fake super 8 to me.

I take it you're referencing teleciné? That procedure whereby you shoot real film - albeit negative film - and are doomed by the process never to actually see, feel or touch it - and it comes back to you as an anodyne digital video disc? That ain't film, that's something else

[mr_x]

Any option is better than no option at all. Remember also that Edward Turner was coaxing colour from black and white film stock, how he did this (filters) is still something of a mystery to me, but did it - he did.

The frames are exposed alternatively with a red and a green filter. This filter change with each frame is also done when you project the film and voila - you see a coloured image. If the frame rate is little you will get falsely coloured edges on objects moving fast though. Probably an alternative for DIY guys when the last colour reversal film is off the market.

This is too complicated, it will never catch on! (ironic lol) but seriously, the tech exists to do this digitally but not for ciné cameras which, as we know & love, are hard wired. I am going to experiment with negative stocks because, at length, there is no alternative. We don't have small film companies in the UK and I can't afford to send out to mainland Europe for film stocks so I am left with Vision T when Ektachrome runs dry. Pity me, Kodak obviously don't.

Epilogue: this writer says the fault is that Kodak should have gone digital sooner: maybe there is something in this. If Kodak had commanded the digital image there would have been profit margins to keep photographic emulsion afloat?

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-0 ... meras-fuji

But I am sceptical. The advent of acrylic paint did not drive oil paint to the wall. Indeed, champions of the 'acrylic revoloution' like Hockney ended up working in oils (more irony). Acrylic paint mimiked the texture of oil paint just as 'digital films' mimic analogue films, they will never replace photographic emulsion. Why? Because it is impossible. Someone somewhere upstairs needs to wake up to that fact.

Ric

[Chris Cottrill]

I just tried to order some today from Kodak and was told they have already sold out completely.

[super8man]

Sadly, as I recall, they got rid of K40 since we "needed" "professional" film. Apparently K40 was holding everyone back from realizing their dream to become a professional. Then we had E64T that was "officially" approved for use in cameras since 64 ASA was a standard ASA rating despite the physical incapability of 40/160 cameras to meter that film. Alas, now we see the final nail with the ending of the last color reversal film. It was fun while it lasted. But, yes, K40 was the beginning of the end. If you have not sold your movie camera collection yet, you may want to consider doing so.

[Nicholas_C]

This is an unfortunate development but there are some shooters out there, myself included, who like to shoot on film for the process and beauty of the medium and not just to get the "super 8" look which is associated with k40 and reversal. so despite this announcement i think we should be encouraged by the introduction of 50D and continue to shoot on film as much as possible to help keep the medium alive and kicking. I prefer shooting on negative as it gives a much better range, that's not to say that I don't want to shoot on reversal if the option is there as obviously projected colour film is a different experience to telecined film.

I saw The Master projected on 70mm recently and before it the trailer for the Hobbit, I don't need to tell you which one looked amazing and which one looked cold and artificial...

At least Black and white reversal is still being produced and black and white super 8 is beautiful to use

[msp1518]

Much like the die-hards who vowed to boycott HDMI connections in favor of Firewire (since HDMI was too restrictive), us film shooters are in the minority and cannot win. It's over and only a matter of time. Super8 camera prices have been crashing all year. My 1014 XL-S is now worth half what I paid for it only 11 months ago. There is no point in my selling it. I just need to keep shooting for as long as I can to make the expense worthwhile.

Ektachrome 100D is irreplaceable. Color reversal's vibrant look and inexpensive investment is not doable with negative stocks. I can shoot some 100D's and send them almost anywhere for a transfer at less than $20 in 1080p! Even just a single roll. Can you do that with negative stocks? No. The scanning houses have minimum charges and the cost per roll is anywhere from 25% to 100% higher. If you want a great scan and color correction, you gotta pay.

I'm shooting two rolls of 100D today and one roll of 200T tomorrow. I'll be able to see my Ektachrome right away. the 200T will have to lay around for me to shoot at least five more negative cartridges.

[mr_x]

I will not stop using film. When there is no more film I shall invent my own.

[wado1942]

Sadly, as I recall, they got rid of K40 since we "needed" "professional" film. Apparently K40 was holding everyone back from realizing their dream to become a professional. Then we had E64T that was "officially" approved for use in cameras since 64 ASA was a standard ASA rating despite the physical incapability of 40/160 cameras to meter that film.

If that was true (it was about cost, despite what marketing may have said), it wouldn't matter if the cameras could meter the stuff properly or not because professionals don't use auto-iris. Most film cameras don't even have auto-iris.

I have only shot one reel of color reversal in my whole life. It was 64T to see if it was any good, but it wasn't any good. It wasn't sharp or low grain and there seemed to be an odd color shift. That said, if there's only one existing film stock for Super-8, it would be Vision2 100T. It was the sharpest color film available when I started shooting Super-8 and had the lowest grain with natural color. You can use it indoors (unlike 100D) or outdoors with the use of internal or external CC filter. To me, it's the perfect stock. 200T was too grainy. 50D is great but not as sharp as 100T and you can't shoot indoors with it. Vision3 is finer grain, but not as sharp as Vision2, which isn't as sharp as Vision. The digital craze has cause Kodak to sacrifice resolution (which film does really well) to reduce noise (which digital does well, even if artificially) and that's a bit of a sad thing. Still, I really wish Kodak could make a reversal film specifically optimized FOR Super-8 because I have no use for a reversal film that can ONLY be used outdoors.

[Pj]

I will miss Ektachrome 100D, personally I think it’s a great emulsion, watching a projected film is fascinating and Ektachrome is just brilliant in Super 8, it’s great vivid colours and great texture are amazing. I am sure that another company, a smaller outfit will step in and fill the void by introducing a new colour reversal film in Super 8 so that those of us who like to project colour reversal film can still do so.

I wonder if the problem with Kodak is that it can’t continue to produce materials in small quantities for a very small market, as far as I know they are geared up to produce material in huge volumes. I believe they wanted to stop making colour reversal for some time, it’s difficult and costly and not a lot of people use it, besides as far as I know photographers always prefer Fuji colour reversal film over Kodak.

P

[etimh]

I will not stop using film. When there is no more film I shall invent my own.

Right on.

I'm just sick and sad about this whole thing. What a waste.

Tim

[nikonr10]

When I heard about this" I to feel very sad" it takes so long to find the right camera's that feels right in the hands ,
then been" able find and feed it film ", That feels right in what you have to say!
I really liked Ektachrome 100d on super 8 film it's was not that old , I feel like it a break up , sick sad F//// over !
a sad day for film makers ,

kodak why ?

[woods01]

I know its not the same but Tri-X does look pretty terrific. I know many hated its grain compared to plus-x but when you accept it for what it is (a 50 year old film stock) it really can produce some great images, of course I like a good contrasty & grainy image so I am biased

The loss of colour reversal is certainly going to ruin the fun for a lot of people and I can't really think of any consolation for those shooters. I will say that anyone interested in prints and tinkering with different film stocks should consider shooting 16mm. Its not as cheap as super 8 but you do have a lot more options and can still get prints made. Bolexs are cheap now and there are still a lot of stocks in 16mm and you can buy and shoot the very cheap lab print stocks like 7363, which can give you really unusual and striking images.

[wado1942]

Yeah, I was pretty upset about Plus-X. It was my GO TO stock for B/W images. Then, they changed the developer and made Plus-X higher speed and grainier, so there just wasn't much difference over Tri-X anymore. I've never been a Tri-X fan, though that's what I have in my 16mm camera right now for shooting home movies (I don't have a video camera anymore).

[marc]

It's not as simple as filtering the film with a complimentary color. It's the film itself that takes on the yellow cast and your exposure latitude in different colors is significantly shifted. I suppose it would be possible to partially cancel the difference with a filter to allow better results from color correction in post. Personally, I'd just find a different source for real reversal film if you must use reversal at all.

You could filter the projector lens.