Kodak's current view on Vision 2 50D and Ektachrome 100D?

[Jim Carlile]

100D is not a still film. Jim really doesn't have a clue when it comes to reversal...sad to say...

It was, I believe, specificallty designed as a modern 16mm MP reversal film.

My understanding is that it was originally an E-6 still film, basically ported over for MP, to replace the older Eastman stocks, for those few customers who for some reason wanted color reversal.

But whatever, reversal is almost exclusively the domain of non-professionals, and that's how Kodak views it these days. That's why they don't offer it, realistically. It's basically dead in the catalog. I can't imagine who's using 35mm, except for perhaps "the client."

Also-- 100D can't be used indoors to any extent, which is one more reason why the marketing people will put the kabosh on it. Combine that with its predilection towards underexposure in many newer cameras, and it's a limited film.

[Jim Carlile]

Don't want to gloat, but this is from the Kodak 100D FAQ:

Q: How does the new Ektachrome 100D, 5285, compare to the older Kodak 160D reversal stock, 7239?

A: Well, the first and most obvious difference between these stocks is their design background. The older 160D is a staple of our VNF reversal motion picture line while the new 100D is built off of the very successful Ektachrome professional and consumer still reversal film line. The 7239 stock is intended for processing in VNF-1 chemistries; the 5285 stock is designed for E6 chemistry. Both films offer positive images through their respective processes with general contrast positions that are quite similar.

I believe I first heard this from the APUG boys. And Kodak makes a point of mentioning that it is B+H perfed, which would go without saying in an MP film.

[Angus]

Is 5258 100D available in any still format? Just because it was developed from the Ektachrome slide film line does not mean it was actually designed as a slide film. AFAIK 100D was specifically designed as a 16mm MP stock.

Nobody argues against the line of thinking that reversal is mostly used by amateurs and film schools...pro's only shoot reversal when they are looking for a specific look (Kodachrome in Kill Bill for example).

And BTW I still maintain that underexposure is preferable with reversal, compared to overexposure.

[Mitch Perkins]

Negative film is clearly not intended for the general user.

So that Kodak was not thinking of the general user when they released it, which pretty much proves they don't have to think of the general user when releasing stocks...

No, negative film is not being marketed to the general consumer.

Neither, then, would 100D have to be marketed to the general consumer. Simple as that.

Reversal has become completely consumer-- they barely even offer it any more.

Reversal offerings outnumber neg 3 to 2. None of it is in the consumer catalogue.

Not so.

TriX, PlusX, 64T - three reversal emulsions, all in the professional catalogue.

[...] the "technically aware" users always complain about how technical they've made negative with the notchless cartridge!

Where do they "always complain" about this? I've seen folks ask questions here about proper exposure...does Kodak receive a lot of these complaints? How do you know this?

People on this site are always complaining about the notchless VISION cartridge

So you have no firsthand knowledge of Kodak receiving these complaints? Again, I have seen questions pertaining to exposure of the negs on this site, not complaints. Do you have examples of complaints?

You think 64T's a problem?

If it is, it's simply proof that Kodak is willing to release an emulsion that requires more technical awareness than is possessed by the general user. 100D would just be more of the same...as to using it indoors, the required blue filter would perhaps shave a stop off the available speed, making it slightly brighter than K40, the old general user film.

Once you've admitted that Kodak has released three emulsions (or even one!), in Super 8 that are not for the general user, it is illogical to contend that they would not release another emulsion in Super 8 that is also not for the general user. The evidence, as it relates to Kodak's actions, and regardless of specific emulsion characteristics, is against you.

Mitch

[T-Scan]

100D was released in 1999 as a 35mm MP film, designed for saturated contrasty looks. It's been used a lot in music videos, and here and there for feature films. It was released in 16mm in 2004 when all the VNF stocks were axed.

[mattias]

reversal is used a lot professionally, especially in 35mm. and 100d works just fine indoors if you have professional lighting equipment, go figure, but also for day interiors. windows are not uncommon even in low budget locations. :-)

/matt

[mattias]

[dp]

[Jim Carlile]

Once you've admitted that Kodak has released three emulsions (or even one!), in Super 8 that are not for the general user, it is illogical to contend that they would not release another emulsion in Super 8 that is also not for the general user. The evidence, as it relates to Kodak's actions, and regardless of specific emulsion characteristics, is against you.

Mitch

They are for the general user. Kodak moved all of their super 8 stocks out of the consumer division a few years ago. But that doesn't mean they tailor all of them for professional use. The fact that the new color reversal stocks were ported over from the still line proves that reversal is not a research area for them. They've basically abandoned it for MP use.

My point is that reversal means nothing to Kodak any more in the MP world. They only offer it for orphan technologies like super 8, or old-time 16mm clients who-- for some reason-- prefer the one stock they have to negative.

It doesn't take a mind reader to see this-- just look at the catalog. General users use reversal, and 100D presents serious compatibility problems for many cameras, compared to 64T, which is a pain enough.

If it is, it's simply proof that Kodak is willing to release an emulsion that requires more technical awareness than is possessed by the general user. 100D would just be more of the same...as to using it indoors, the required blue filter would perhaps shave a stop off the available speed, making it slightly brighter than K40, the old general user film.

Come on, that's laughable. No one has ever used an 81 with daylight film indoors unless they absolutely had to. I've never heard of it in the real world. I mean we're talking at least two stops filter factor! It's a serious weakness with 100D, and another reason why the marketing people won't approve it.

The only way I ever see Kodak marketing E100D in super 8 is if they get tired of making 64T, which I understand is only coated for super 8. If that happens, they may be left with 100D as the only alternative.

But until that day comes, it's obvious they have already made their decision, and all I've done here is point out some of the compelling issues they had to deal with. It's a problematical stock for super 8-- so why try to dispute this?

And Angus, E100D is still film. That's why Kodak stresses to users that they perf it in "B+H" pitch. The base may be a little different-- it may not-- but it's from the still film world.

So before you go personalizing things and make claims that I don't know anything about reversal film, look it up.

[Mitch Perkins]

Kodak moved all of their super 8 stocks out of the consumer division a few years ago. But that doesn't mean they tailor all of them for professional use.

Does it mean they want their tech reps to have to answer a bunch more stupid questions than before?

The fact that the new color reversal stocks were ported over from the still line proves that reversal is not a research area for them. They've basically abandoned it for MP use.

Until they abandon it altogether, it should be no great stumbling block for them to send over a pancake or two to the slitter. The mechanics are in place - toss some out and see how it goes. I think it would compete with the negs more than with 64T for sales.

My point is that reversal means nothing to Kodak any more in the MP world. They only offer it for orphan technologies like super 8, or old-time 16mm clients who-- for some reason-- prefer the one stock they have to negative.

It doesn't take a mind reader to see this-- just look at the catalog.

Does it say in the catalogue - "100D - for old-time 16mm clients who-- for some reason-- prefer the one stock they have to negative"? :?)

General users use reversal, and 100D presents serious compatibility problems for many cameras, compared to 64T, which is a pain enough.

"Pain enough" meaning "64T presents compatibility problems for many cameras"...yet Kodak released it. Kodak does not need to consider the general user in every case, as shown by their decision to release negative emulsions in Super 8.

Mitch

[Jim Carlile]

My point is that reversal means nothing to Kodak any more in the MP world. They only offer it for orphan technologies like super 8, or old-time 16mm clients who-- for some reason-- prefer the one stock they have to negative.

It doesn't take a mind reader to see this-- just look at the catalog.

Does it say in the catalogue - "100D - for old-time 16mm clients who-- for some reason-- prefer the one stock they have to negative"? :?)

Why do they only offer one color reversal stock? It's a dinosaur for them. Who uses it? Students, amateurs, etc., and how much? They won't even double perf it any more.

General users use reversal, and 100D presents serious compatibility problems for many cameras, compared to 64T, which is a pain enough.

"Pain enough" meaning "64T presents compatibility problems for many cameras"...yet Kodak released it. Kodak does not need to consider the general user in every case, as shown by their decision to release negative emulsions in Super 8.

Mitch

Kodak released 64T because they needed a general color reversal stock to replace Kodachrome. For them, it was a better choice than 100D.

100D was released in 1999 as a 35mm MP film, designed for saturated contrasty looks. It's been used a lot in music videos, and here and there for feature films. It was released in 16mm in 2004 when all the VNF stocks were axed.

What can I say? If Kodak says 100D was developed from their still film Ektachromes, who am I to argue with them? And why is anyone else doing so?

It's basically still film. I suspect it's almost identical to the E100 Ektachromes-- the still guys would know better. Probably thinner base and B/H perfs. It's been awhile since there's been a separate Eastman program for new color reversals, like the good old days-- Kodak has obviously abandoned reversal technology specifically for color MP stocks, and probably B/W too.

[super8man]

Intense saturation + true 100 speed
7285 Film Sample

Now you have a 100-speed color reversal motion picture film designed for daylight. Whether you're shooting ads, music videos, documentaries, television, or features, it delivers intensely saturated color, plus a neutral gray scale and accurate skin tones. All with a sharpness you won't find in any other 100-speed reversal film.



Color Balance

Balanced for daylight illumination (5500 K). You can also expose this film with incident - or reflected-light exposure meters and cameras marked for ISO speeds or exposure indexes. These indexes apply for meter readings of average subjects made from the camera position or for readings made from a gray card of 18-percent reflectance held close to and in front of the subject. For other light sources, use the correction filters in the table below.
LIGHT SOURCE KODAK FILTERS ON CAMERA* EXPOSURE INDEX
Daylight (5500 K) None 100
Tungsten (3000 K) WRATTEN Gelatin No. 80A 25
Tungsten (3200 K) WRATTEN Gelatin No. 80A 25
Tungsten Photoflood (3400 K) WRATTEN Gelatin No. 80A 25
White-Flame Arcs WRATTEN Gelatin/Color Compensating 20Y + 10C 64
Yellow-Flame Arcs WRATTEN Gelatin No. 80A 25
Optima 32 WRATTEN Gelatin No. 80A 25
Vitalite None 100
Fluorescent, Cool White WRATTEN Gelatin/Color Compensating 20M 80
Fluorescent, Deluxe Cool White WRATTEN Gelatin No. 85C 80
Metal Halide H.M.I. None 100

*These are approximate corrections only.

Standard Products Available
KODAK EKTACHROME 100D Color Reversal Film 5285/7285
IDENTIFICATION LENGTH IN FEET (METRES) DESCRIPTION PERFORATION/PITCH
35 mm KCR727 400 (122) On Core BH-1866
35 mm KCR727 1000 (305) On Core BH-1866
16 mm SP457 400 (122) On Core 1R 7605 (2994)

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/ ... 7285.jhtml

[T-Scan]

Is 5258 100D available in any still format? Just because it was developed from the Ektachrome slide film line does not mean it was actually designed as a slide film. AFAIK 100D was specifically designed as a 16mm MP stock.

Nobody argues against the line of thinking that reversal is mostly used by amateurs and film schools...pro's only shoot reversal when they are looking for a specific look (Kodachrome in Kill Bill for example).

And BTW I still maintain that underexposure is preferable with reversal, compared to overexposure.

100D is the offspring from 100EVS slide film. Not that it matters, reversal film is slide film, but 5285 is designed for MP use. As I stated earlier, it was introduced to 35mm MP in 1999 as a specialty film for punchy, contrasy looks... just like the new Fuji 160T neg is designed for a unique look. It is entirely new technology from the older VNF reversals... So 100D is not some old school remnant of reversal film, it is new technology designed for a unique look that negative film doesn't offer. Kodak brought it to 16mm in 2004, because there was an out cry by the film schools over VNF reversals being eliminated. I was told this by Kodak at that time.

[Mitch Perkins]

General users use reversal, and 100D presents serious compatibility problems for many cameras, compared to 64T, which is a pain enough.

"Pain enough" meaning "64T presents compatibility problems for many cameras"...yet Kodak released it. Kodak does not need to consider the general user in every case, as shown by their decision to release negative emulsions in Super 8.

Mitch

Kodak released 64T because they needed a general color reversal stock to replace Kodachrome. For them, it was a better choice than 100D.

So what did they "need" the negs for? Not the general user - same could easily go for 100D.

Buh Bye, Jim.

Mitch

[David M. Leugers]

reversal is used a lot professionally, especially in 35mm. and 100d works just fine indoors if you have professional lighting equipment, go figure, but also for day interiors. windows are not uncommon even in low budget locations.

Good point. From the review in Super 8 Today, E100D can be pushed with excellent results. Shooting indoors at ASA 200 with suitable lighting is easily done and mixed lighting from windows is no problem. Also it seems that many if not all school gyms have lighting more balanced for daylight as I have shot E100D in such locations without filtering and the colors look good.


David M. Leugers

[MIKI-814]

And BTW I still maintain that underexposure is preferable with reversal, compared to overexposure.

At least, that's what I've been always told when studying still photography, and tried very succesfully when shooting colour slides, so I couldn't agree more...