The return of Ektachrome - CES 2017

[ncollingwood]

I suppose it would be possible to reverse colour negative film, but perhaps that would result in negative colours on a positive image.

It is! I did it with Mono No Aware in Brooklyn last year. https://vimeo.com/163746494

It's Vision3 500T shot at 160 then processed in E6 chems with some adjusted times. Works pretty well. But you do end up with heavily blue shadows and yellow highlights due to the film base color being brown. Very sharp though!

Anyways... I'm pretty pumped for new E100. I know some people complain but in this day and age with film, I'm eager for anything positive. I've shot a handful of E100D rolls in Super 8 and also some Fuji 100D and some E64T and I'd say the 64T is sharpest then F100D then E100D but still, I love love seeing my E100D projected. Shot 4 rolls in Patagonia and it looks incredible!

Hurry it up Kodak!! (and Ferrania haha)

[Silverdream]

ncollingwood,
Those are interesting images. Looks sharp but I was expecting false colours. Is this the image one would expect if one projected it or have corrections been made in the telecine transfer?
Since the neg is rated at a lower ASA during shooting, hense overexposed, is it then pulled in processing?
What camera was used and has it been cropped for a wider image during transfer or was the camera gate widened?
Thanks for sharing.

[Andreas Wideroe]

Ektachrome 100D, 7294 is back!

https://www.facebook.com/filmshooting/p ... 0984589726

[Silverdream]

Hmm... 7294 was a colour negative film from 1983 till 1986. I suppose Kodak couldn't come up with some new numbers? This could be confusing for future film stock searches or references.

Anyway, it's great news Ektachrome is back!

It seems that Kodak is going to a lot of effort to make sure the film will be excellent quality, what with all the testing they're doing and even though the wait was lengthy, this was the right approach to take. As they say, good things take time.
Based on that, Farrania's film could turn out to be unbelievable.
With spring arriving shortly the Ektachrome is right on time to be tested here, down under. Maybe you guys sweating it out in the European winter might venture outside too. Ha.
Ok, enough of the good news, tell us the price. (George says keep it real).

[doug]

Hope that 'negative' number won't add some confusion when we send them to be processed
At least it seems like it will be slightly different from the previous Ektachrome ? Hope slightly better. And look forward very much to the return of 16mm.

[camera8mm]

Seems like a long time from announcement to release of the new ektachrome, but I actually hope kodak takes their time with this to get it right. how many movie film prints from the 60s' and 70s are color faded now or have some sort of vinegar syndrome?

[Tscan]

The guy who runs a popular FB S8 group from Spain is shooting a batch now as a beta tester. Could be available by late Sept

[Silverdream]

I'll post this winge here so nobody sees it.
Regarding the predicted cost of the new Ektachrome Super 8 cartridge is to be around $US40, I say it's totally unfair to the Super 8 user.
Why is Super 8 so expensive compared to 16mm? There is 4 times as much film in a 100' roll of 16mm than a 50' cartridge of Super 8. OK, there's the cost of the cartridge which is $3.00 but the spool for 16mm is going to cost something too and packaging costs will be similar with both film gauges.
A fair price for a Super 8 cartridge should not be more than half the price of a 100' roll of 16mm, and preferably one third the price. That would make it $20 to $30.
Kodak needs to reconsider their Super film prices if they want to sell boatloads of the stuff. The way it is 16mm is a much better proposition. The only problem is 16mm equipment is more expensive.
I appreciate that Kodak has reissued Ektachrome but since they can sell the 16mm at a reasonable price then I don't see the reason for milking the Super 8 users. And this also applies to the negative and B/W films.
I don't now how others feel, but it would be nice to hear their views.

[avortex]

I'll post this winge here so nobody sees it.
Regarding the predicted cost of the new Ektachrome Super 8 cartridge is to be around $US40, I say it's totally unfair to the Super 8 user.
Why is Super 8 so expensive compared to 16mm? There is 4 times as much film in a 100' roll of 16mm than a 50' cartridge of Super 8. OK, there's the cost of the cartridge which is $3.00 but the spool for 16mm is going to cost something too and packaging costs will be similar with both film gauges.
A fair price for a Super 8 cartridge should not be more than half the price of a 100' roll of 16mm, and preferably one third the price. That would make it $20 to $30.
Kodak needs to reconsider their Super film prices if they want to sell boatloads of the stuff. The way it is 16mm is a much better proposition. The only problem is 16mm equipment is more expensive.
I appreciate that Kodak has reissued Ektachrome but since they can sell the 16mm at a reasonable price then I don't see the reason for milking the Super 8 users. And this also applies to the negative and B/W films.
I don't now how others feel, but it would be nice to hear their views.

+1000
Fully agree with everything. Also, the price for the European market is now at around 60€. That's completely ridiculous and the fastest way to discourage the european super-8 filmmakers.

[avortex]

[Silverdream]

Ovortex,
Hilarious! They need to get the film appointed by Her Majesty. Then they can up the price another 25%!

[Silverdream]

For those that have not already seen this.
A nice 15 minute presentation of the new Super 8 Ektachrome 7294 versus the old Ektachrome 7285 by Ignacio Benedeti the Spanish Super 8 enthusiast.
https://vimeo.com/296154486
The new Ektachrome looks great.