the name Techicolour has meant differnt things at different times. the Older technicolor used a camera with Three different rolls of film, and some filters and prisims, much like an early colour TV camera. Kodak made three speific camera stocks and the result was three strips of black and white film each with the record of One of the three primary colours.
they were used to produce a set of three "matrixs" which would be pressed into the filmal print, transfering the three colours to each strip of film. the Matrices could be used to make hundreeds of prints, and so the process was actually slightly cheaper than the later Eastman Color process.
once Eastman color Negative was available, technicolor was able to come up with a process to make the Matrices from the colour negative. (this was "color by Tecnicolor") Later they just became a convetional lab using the Eastman Colour process.
the older technicolor process produced prints that did not fade, unlike many of the early and middle Generations of Eastman Color... BUT back in the 1930s, they were often made on Nitrate Stock.
I think safety film also came up as in the 30s home movies (on smaller formats) started to become popular and it would have been problematic if every second user burnt down his home while trying to show some fun movies to his family.
I think i heard of PET coming to the theaters in the 70s - Single-8 from Fuji was on PET right from the start i think and the Single-8 system started in the 60s. Without PET the IMAX 65/70mm 15-Perf probably would not have been possible - i mean when taking the shot with the camera.
for that mater, I somehow am grated by something produced with a glorified Video Camera and projected in a theater with a fancy Video Projector as a "film"
Why bother filming in the larger horizontal if they converted to a smaller verticle resolution? Were the verticles better because the original horizontal was better?
Yes, this also bugs me, but such things seem to happen once again. For example, cylinders for phonographs only were made of wax for about two years in the very early days of phonographs - until they found out that a rather soap-like material was better suited to make cylinders from. Though, cylinders were referred to as "wax cylinders" for decades - i think the word "wax" was even put on the boxes of cylinders, though it wasn`t made of wax any more.
Probably people got used to the term "wax cylinder" very quickly, so they decided to stick to this term though the material was changed after about two years.
The change to safety film happened earlier, it was the 30s i think, but during wartime they sometimes again did use celluloid as it apparently is cheaper in production.
OK, now getting back to Kodak Rochester upgrades. I wouldn't be surprised if they are trying to simply improve the process to remain competitive and to serve the growth in film.
This seems possible. Although, in the transcript that originated all of our debate, there is mention of using an additional building right after the discussion of film, but it is not really clear if this building is for film or something else.
"We're also looking at, as we look at the park, the buildings and the infrastructure. We've invested heavily in the infrastructure. And I'm proud to say we just reopened another one of our buildings, and we have now moved into that building. So the park is really coming to life. It's one of our key assets and something we can't forget."
This seems possible. Although, in the transcript that originated all of our debate, there is mention of using an additional building right after the discussion of film, but it is not really clear if this building is for film or something else.
"We're also looking at, as we look at the park, the buildings and the infrastructure. We've invested heavily in the infrastructure. And I'm proud to say we just reopened another one of our buildings, and we have now moved into that building. So the park is really coming to life. It's one of our key assets and something we can't forget."
As an example, the finishing of the still film "bulk" rolls is spread amongst two or more buildings, because the antiquated equipment used for that is not dedicated to that process, and is normally used mostly for other things.
If volumes of any particular product - photographic or related to the other things they do - are picking up, it makes sense that they would put some of their mothballed and out of use space back into a production status.
it proably depends on WHAT step you are thinking off. For example @laser is credited with the Rotary Perforators, that are now used in place of the older reciprocating B&H perforators which were the same principles of those sold in the 1920s. the rotary machines can crank out 35mm film at perhaps 10 times the speed of the older machines.Is the finishing equipment really so adaptable?
Why bother filming in the larger horizontal if they converted to a smaller verticle resolution? Were the verticles better because the original horizontal was better? This reminds me of theaters advertising IMAX but it is really 2K resolution digital converted from the original IMAX size. Only a few special theaters projected the original-size IMAX onto a huge screen.
Now we burn our houses down with electric bicycles.
Film speed was a real problem back then, they needed floodlights having several kW - in the early days of silent cinema actors suffered eye damage from the floodlights after some years.
Is the finishing equipment really so adaptable? I am thinking of that great look we got inside the Ilford factory with the short movie several years ago. The machines for finishing seemed incredibly specific, with totally different machines used for the various processes in finishing the 135 (35mm) and 120 film. It is possible Kodak has something different, but I assumed it would be of similar specialization.
How does tungsten differ?I wonder if that has to do with the light source -- the carbon-arc lamps and mercury-vapor lamps. Because later with the tungsten incandescent lamps, 5,000 and 10,000 watts and even higher were and are common.
I fear we are going to be finding eye damage with the LED lamps, too, because it is such an unnatural and harsh light source.
In my opinion, incandescent is the only good form of electrical light. And just think of the beauty of so many movies in the 1930s-1990s period that used tungsten incandescent compared even to the movies on film today that often use HMI and LED.
Not really.
It is just that the process used with the still film bulk rolls uses a portion of the finishing process for one product, then the film is removed manually and added to part of the process for another product, then removed manually and completed mostly manually on another piece of machinery left over from when bulk still rolls were high volume products, serving markets like school and ID photos. Even that last machine requires a lot of manual intervention.
All of that non-automatic/manual work is a major reason that Kodak still bulk rolls are as expensive as they are.
I wonder if that has to do with the light source -- the carbon-arc lamps and mercury-vapor lamps. Because later with the tungsten incandescent lamps, 5,000 and 10,000 watts and even higher were and are common.
I fear we are going to be finding eye damage with the LED lamps, too, because it is such an unnatural and harsh light source.
In my opinion, incandescent is the only good form of electrical light. And just think of the beauty of so many movies in the 1930s-1990s period that used tungsten incandescent compared even to the movies on film today that often use HMI and LED.
Could the new November expansion automate some of these processes lowering costs that could be passed on with lower prices to us?
unless the disruption in the workflow of the rest of the plant is such a pain point that they fix it just to avoid that Pain Point.Extremely unlikely - any such improvements are not going to be directed toward products with such low volumes of sale, because return on investment is paramount.
But what has actually been done?
Could the new November expansion automate some of these processes lowering costs that could be passed on with lower prices to us?
Didn’t Kodak just announce a price increase for 2025? I think I read somewhere (will look for it) that prices on most films will increase. Something like 5% on Portra, 30% on Gold, something similar for TMax. But lower prices on TriX for some reason. I’ll get back when I find it.
Edit: I googled it and choose the first of several hits. https://kosmofoto.com/2024/11/kodak...or-january-2025-but-tri-x-is-getting-cheaper/
Including Ektachrome? How do you know that?Extremely unlikely - any such improvements are not going to be directed toward products with such low volumes of sale, because return on investment is paramount.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?