E100VS discontinued...What does this mean for E100D?

Forum covering all aspects of small gauge cinematography! This is the main discussion forum.

Moderator: Andreas Wideroe

User avatar
MIKI-814
Posts: 665
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:53 pm
Real name: Miguel
Location: BILBAO, Basque Country, EU
Contact:

Re: E100VS discontinued...What does this mean for E100D?

Post by MIKI-814 »

aj wrote:The main use for 35mm ciné is projection copies for the still very large number of cinemas who project using film :)
But Ektachrome is reversal film, not positive film for projection prints...
woods01
Posts: 822
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 3:09 am
Location: Vancouver

Re: E100VS discontinued...What does this mean for E100D?

Post by woods01 »

woods01 wrote:I wonder how much motion picture 35mm 'chrome is being shot these days? Havn't heard of any features recently using it, and even then they seem to only use it for cross processing.
aj wrote:Who do you mean by 'they' ? Fuji, Kodak do you have actual insight in their decision making?
They = Hollywood, the professional film industry, etc.

U-Turn & Clockers were shot on 35mm reversal and cross processed. Large parts of Three Kings and X-Men 2 also used it. I don't know of any recent features that have shot on reversal nor do I know of any films that have used it with regular E-6 chemistry. Maybe its still popular with commercials and music videos.
Tscan
Posts: 548
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:44 pm
Real name: Anthony Schilling
Contact:

Re: E100VS discontinued...What does this mean for E100D?

Post by Tscan »

I'd call it a safe bet that you won't see 100D in motion picture much longer. It is the same scenrio as 64T. i can still shoot Fuji and Lomo 35mm slides... but the thought of no longer projecting 16mm and Super 8 reversal is really sad. I put in an order yesterday for 4 100ft spools 16mm and 12 carts of S8. The lady at Kodak told me that the discontinuence of E100VS is not at all relevant to E100D motion picture. But I think the days are numbered. When it comes to the wire, I will stock up on 16mm.
Reborn member since Sept 2003
Rio
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:46 am
Real name: Robert Moseley

Re: E100VS discontinued...What does this mean for E100D?

Post by Rio »

Stocking up on film is one thing, but if the use of reversal film dwindles, will processing labs remain in business and will chemicals for processing still be manufactured?
nickrapak
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 12:51 am
Real name: Nicholas Rapak

Re: E100VS discontinued...What does this mean for E100D?

Post by nickrapak »

Rio wrote:Stocking up on film is one thing, but if the use of reversal film dwindles, will processing labs remain in business and will chemicals for processing still be manufactured?
The nice thing about E-6 chems (as opposed to, say, K-14) is that the formula is not proprietary, so any chemical company worth their salt would be able to make the six E-6 baths. In fact, there are many close approximations on the internet for homebrew E-6, although none of them are perfectly accurate.

P.S. Kodak doesn't even make their own E-6 chems. They're made by Champion Photochemical under agreement by Kodak, so if Kodak goes under, they'll probably go it alone and still provide E-6 chems.
Tscan
Posts: 548
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:44 pm
Real name: Anthony Schilling
Contact:

Re: E100VS discontinued...What does this mean for E100D?

Post by Tscan »

The proceesing should last well beyond the film production. Fuji is still making Velvia E6 film, so there's still an active need.

If Kodak wants to be a new company that supposedly focuses more on film, then they should do it accordingly. The low use of slide film is just that when compared to the mass market... but a new film company needs to shrink down to the nitch market for stills and MP stocks. There are plenty of people on the planet shooting enough film for a smaller company to exist... Kodak can't seem to think of something less than the entire world shooting on it like they used to. They need to take some cues from Lomography.
Reborn member since Sept 2003
Post Reply