Kodak Film Prices

[camera8mm]

Not sure about use it lose it.
Unless you meant ordering ektachrome when one day Kodak stops making it.
Lps came back. Perhaps some people think of super 8 as the epitmy of 70s culture with 8 tracks and leisure suits.
If and when Kodak releases ektachrome in 16mm, there will be more semi pros and film students ordering it.

[Will2]

As can be seen the 35mm stock is almost twice the price of the 16mm stock, proving that it is the film component that is the main cost of the total price.

That doesn't PROVE the film component is the main cost of the total price (although obviously it is) as the cans and plastic cores cost about the same for 35mm and 16mm so there's no real difference to analyze except when you go to Super 8 which would be significantly more cost since it's half the size of 16mm and therefore twice as much "non-film" direct costs involved per package AND each of those packaging costs may be more because the Super 8 cartridge takes hands-on people time to assemble while other stocks can be completely automated.

Actually Super 8 is almost 3 times the cost of 16, 35 or 65mm stock when you look at it per square mm. So the question is does the significant additional cost of the cartridge justify it? Keep in mind that the cartridge cost is amplified because it's only for 50 ft of 8mm stock...

But if we were just basing it off of the other stock (and the non-film costs per package were the same) the cost should be $9.84 per 50ft cartridge.

This gets confusing fast because I'm converting feet to mm in the formula. Also, I'm not talking Ektachrome, I'm talking 7219 as we don't have other sizes to base costs off of and we know there were/are significant costs to reviving Ektachrome. And this is rounding significantly on the price per sq. meter.

Side note: This also shows why a company like Pro8mm can still make money cutting down 35mm and filling their own cartridges, especially when they use re-cans and short ends.

Sorry for the rambling post.

[Silverdream]

If and when Kodak releases ektachrome in 16mm, there will be more semi pros and film students ordering it.

Apologizes for dropping back into this discussion.
If Kodak sells Ektachrome 16mm for less than US$120 a 100' roll I'll be stepping up my campaign. It's not fair to have such a big difference between Super 8 and 16mm prices.
Of course if they offer 100' rolls of Double Super 8 and 16mm Ektachrome at $60 I will shut up and hand my money over.

[Silverdream]

That's an interesting table you've put together and shows what a big price difference there is per square mm between Super 8 and the larger gauges.
Sure there is some added cost with loading the cartridge but roll film needs to be loaded on rolls and packaging costs would be similar for both.
You're probably right to say it's hand loaded as I recall seeing that shown in a video but the packing into the foil and box is done automatically.
Let us consider this extra cost of the Super 8 cartridge.
An empty cartridge is listed at $3.00. Kodak's price is let's say $2.00. Now how long does it take to load a cartridge? On a production line, I would say 2 minutes. I've worked on production lines so I've got some experience. But let's say 3 minutes to cover workers blowing their nose, going to the loo, checking their phone and having a rest. That means 20 cartridges per hour. Cost of worker per hour $40. That calculates at $2.00 per cartridge. So far it's cost $4.00 per cartridge. Now let's be generous and add in another $1.00 to cover rejects or other unforeseen costs.
Total $5.00
Then we've got your $9.84 for the 50' of negative Super 8 film stock which already has profit built in since you took it as a breakdown from the 16mm selling price. We don't know what their profit margin is on roll film but let's be conservative and suggest it's between 25% - 50%. I very much doubt it's less than 20% and could be 100% for all we know.
For my example I will chose 34%. That makes the profit $3.34. So actual cost of 50' Super 8 film would be $9.84 - $3.34 = $6.50.
Total cost;
$6.50 +$5.00 = US$11.50 per cartridge.
If sold at US$22.50 (half the cost of a 100' roll of 16mm), that's a nice $11.00 profit or nearly a 100% markup.
But in reality it's being sold for US29.99. That yeilds a profit of $18.50 or an obscene markup of 247%.
Maintain the rage!

[Will2]

If sold at US$22.50 (half the cost of a 100' roll of 16mm), that's a nice $11.00 profit or nearly a 100% markup.
But in reality it's being sold for US29.99. That yeilds a profit of $18.50 or an obscene markup of 247%.
Maintain the rage!

It would seem like a crazy markup, but I'd bet the accountants could tell us why our numbers aren't correct...like all the unseen costs we don't know about.

The main point would be that almost ALL of their costs are UPFRONT. So while we look at them selling one roll at a 247% profit, it's not REALLY a profit until they've sold enough to cover all the upfront costs of making that giant master roll, assembling, boxes, all the payroll, building maintenance, vacations, crazy government taxes and regulatory costs, ect. So if they sell out like they did...maybe they achieve that kind of profit...probably not...but then they have to put in half or more of that into creating another master roll and doing it over again. So yes, they make money, but it's not really as obscene as it looks I bet.

The trick is to do volume, but if they guess wrong on demand and make too much film, they could lose money pretty quick. I'm sure that's why the sold out so fast...they were being conservative to cover their behinds. Plus like we said, Ektachrome re-invention has it's own huge upfront costs that were MUCH more than the Vision 3 stocks they've been making for years now.

[silverhalide]

Reality:

They coated one master sheet only. They did this because they could not source more ingredients initially. So they converted some of the master sheet, and it sold out. Then they converted more, and it will sell out soon. The master sheet is either gone or almost gone at this point. Another one will not be coated for awhile.

[Mmechanic]

The trick is to do volume,

Oh, yes, and from that I don’t understand why they don’t open all the valves.
Super-8 is DS-8 in an earlier step and that is a 16mm strip another step before.
So Kodak, as we’ve already said, could offer new Ektachrome as 16mm film,
in Double-Eight, and DS-8, too. They are now making the single only one colour
reversal film which has wonderful tonality and flesh tones reproduction. It goes
into the well-known E-6 process. They must be lost at some mad thought not
trying to pour Ektachrome into every possible channel.

There are magazines and cameras that take 1,200 feet of 16mm film.
There are COMOPT sound cameras that record on the film. It should work decently,
according to the tech. spec. sheet https://www.kodak.com/uploadedFiles/Con ... E-100D.pdf
no exposure correction is needed down to 1/10,000 second.

There are thousands of magazine cameras around that take 400-ft. loads.

There are hundreds of thousands of Double-Eight cameras out there only waiting to be
loaded with this film. Still more 8mm film projectors only sit around.

There are hundreds of DS-8 cameras ready for Ektachrome.

The Ciné-Club 9,5 of France only waits for Ektachrome in unperforated 35mm.
They have conversion equipment from former Kodak, Chalon.

Thousands of 35mm cameras want to see Ektachrome at least in 100-ft. rolls.

It can’t be that difficult to sketch out a marketing scheme. It’s a film, so traditional
methods seem appropriate, even distribution via photo dealers. Shop windows, the
shelves from Toledo, Ohio, to Tokyo, Japan, should bear shiny yellow boxes again.

[doug]

The trick is to do volume,

Thousands of 35mm cameras want to see Ektachrome at least in 100-ft. rolls.

It can’t be that difficult to sketch out a marketing scheme. It’s a film, so traditional
methods seem appropriate, even distribution via photo dealers. Shop windows, the
shelves from Toledo, Ohio, to Tokyo, Japan, should bear shiny yellow boxes again.

Presumably you mean movie 35mm cameras ? Also keen still 35mm users would buy 100ft rolls for loading into cassettes thus saving money.
I run a small camera shop, and it's a nice experience to see the faces of ordinary people lighting up when they see the shelves of film again They first stare in disbelief.
Shops such as our chemist Boots have begun C41 film processing again. People yearn for something to touch and feel outside their mobile phones.

[Tscan]

Lower costs have always been the advantage of S8 and should still be. This post reminds me of when you could buy 100ft rolls of DS8 for $40 and process for the same cost as a 100ft roll of 16mm which was about $12 plus a $3 slitting fee. So $55 for 200ft of S8 processed. That was 2006. But soon after the labs started gouging the processing costs, charging the equivalent closer to 4 rolls of S8 as opposed to 1 roll of 16mm. I feel like pricing above the scale of actual volume is crooked.

[Mmechanic]

Presumably you mean movie 35mm cameras ?

I do. I have a Bell & Howell Eyemo 71-C.

[doug]

Presumably you mean movie 35mm cameras ?

I do. I have a Bell & Howell Eyemo 71-C.

Nice! I have always fancied the Eyemo. Not many came this way UK I think. Also the Devry lunchbox camera... regrettably once I let one slip through my hands due to lack of funds, should have grabbed it.

[David M. Leugers]

Lower costs have always been the advantage of S8 and should still be. This post reminds me of when you could buy 100ft rolls of DS8 for $40 and process for the same cost as a 100ft roll of 16mm which was about $12 plus a $3 slitting fee. So $55 for 200ft of S8 processed. That was 2006. But soon after the labs started gouging the processing costs, charging the equivalent closer to 4 rolls of S8 as opposed to 1 roll of 16mm. I feel like pricing above the scale of actual volume is crooked.

The secret is to slit the film yourself. Send the film to the lab as 100ft of 16mm film (which it is) and note that it has S8 perfs and not to slit it. They can only charge you for processing the 16mm film footage. Investing in a slitter is a good thing if you shoot any DS8 or R8 film. Doing this has saved me quite a lot.

[marc]

The prices have become "REDONKULOUS". And you notice that the new re-released Ektachrome is more expensive than the negative stocks. Kodak probably does not want it to cannibalize into their negative stocks. Also, Kodak may not want people to get too comfortable with Super 8 and not go up to the larger formats. They could probably make the same emulsions much cheaper in regular 8. One website has 28' feet of regular 8mm v3 50D for $44.00. There are plenty of regular 8mm cameras that have multiple speed ranges beyond any Super 8mm camera. Just imagine shooting regular 8mm at 32 FPS. You up your cumulative resolution by shooting at this speed and having it transferred at 30 FPS. Plus you have the added advantage of a steadier image and prime lenses that yield superior resolution.

[synthnut]

If you thought those prices were crazy, here in the UK, the new Ektachrome is being offered for around £54 including VAT, some even higher. That's nearly $69 at the lower price!
I remember buying Kodachrome 10 carts at a time for under a tenner a roll and that was process paid in the early Noughties (sorry I hate theat term) I think there needs to be some price reductions if they ever want to shift much of this stuff. I realise that some pro's will just cost this into productions, but for the wider user who has a bunch of cameras kicking about, this is just crazy territory.
Would dearly love to be shooting film on a regular basis, I did several carts a month when Kodachrome was still with us, and maybe halving after that for a while, but soon found it just too dear when you factored in developing services.
Bring on Ferrania, we need some affordable stock, I have a hole stack of cameras feeling hungry!

TTFN,
Ben

[Silverdream]

The prices of Super 8 are off the charts now. I thought Kodak was continuing support of this small format so film makers could learn on it before moving to the larger formats.
There's no point in Super 8 anymore as one might as well use 16mm, the price difference is so close.
This must be driven by some greedy accountants who think they can gouge the existing users and the hipster people. They haven't got the vision to realize that by reducing the prices to sensible levels they could sell many more cartridges and make more profits.
It's even cheaper to shoot Super 8 negative and have a print made by Andec than use this new Ektachrome.
Standard 8 is the other option that could be a cheap alternative if one reperforates from 16mm.
Maintain the rage!