After Kodak modernize their film production, will they unify the movie films and still films?

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Initially, I was hoping Kodak unified the still and movie film to be more cost effective, so that we customer could get some benefits, but I was wrong. 

Specifically, I hoped Kodak to make the movie film more available, not in the sense of lower the unit price, but to lower the minimum ordering quantity. Now it turned out much harder for still photographers to use the movie film. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[PetPhoto]

and if you read that npr link thing, the money is being spent on NON photographic and non movie film things. 

[hansvons]

4 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Initially, I was hoping Kodak unified the still and movie film to be more cost effective, so that we customer could get some benefits, but I was wrong. 

Specifically, I hoped Kodak to make the movie film more available, not in the sense of lower the unit price, but to lower the minimum ordering quantity. Now it turned out much harder for still photographers to use the movie film. 

Movie film and still film stocks are quite different on many levels. First, the technology is different in gamma and colour, requiring different development chemicals and routines. Second, the base is vastly different. Movie films are used with film cameras for up to 150 fps. The base of films for still photography would break, probably already at 24 fps when the camera speeds up. The sprocket holes must be highly precise to prevent gate wavering, and the materials must be exceptionally abrasion-resistant to avoid dirt accumulation in the gate. This costs money and isn't required for still photography. I cannot see how that can be unified.

The movie films' Rem jet technology against halation and their latest tabular grain technology produces the best results in the correct workflow. However, Kodak Portra provides similar results, especially Portra 160, compared to 5207. It doesn't require removing a Rem jet layer to handle it at regular labs, but it's still nicely protected against halation. Portra costs approximately two dollars more than the market charges for re-spooled movie films, which is okay considering the packaging, etc. 

Cinestill is an experimental diversion of regular movie films because it has the rem jet stripped off before development. Cinestill isn't comparable with proper colour still films like Portra, Ektar, or Gold (which is better than its reputation) because the red halation you are getting is what I'd call a deal breaker.

There is a vast difference in your results when going the proper filmmaking route or shooting movie films in still cameras and home-developing them in C-41. The home grow workflow is experimental at best, as you bypass practically all standards, including scanning, vastly different from C-41 scans. In practice, the Silbersalz offering is the only one that offers proper movie stock handling for still photography. But it's pricey for a reason. 

Bottom line: I'm not surprised that Kodak has started protecting its technology and market power in a growing market. The only way to bring down costs is competition. There is none around for now, but I hope Ilford will come up with something usable in the future.

[BernardC]

Exactly. There's nothing magical about motion picture film. It's just optimized for projection instead of prints. The main reason why it seems cheaper is because productions buy hundreds of thousands of feet at a time, direct from Kodak (no distributors or retailers).

If anything, motion picture stock is usually a few generations behind consumer film, because film producers value consistency over innovation.

As hansvons mentions, motion picture stock probably costs more to make, because of Remjet and a more expensive film base. If Kodak sold it in 36 exposure lengths at retail it would cost you more (and give you worse results).

There's a long history of companies that re-spool motion picture film and sell it to bargain-seeking consumers. A company called Seatle Filmworks advertised in all the US camera mags of my youth. You had to mail the exposed film back to them for processing, so a big part of what you saved in money was paid-for in inconvenience. I never used them myself, but the prints that I saw were sub-par, certainly even worse than what you'd get from any 1-hour lab at a mall. Getting reprints or enlargements done was a huge hassle as well, because regular photo finishers couldn't balance the colours without a lot of manual work and wasted prints. Most would just refuse to print those negs.

On the other hand, my favourite black and white film during my university days was an Agfa Gaevert motion picture stock that a local retailer had a few 100 meter cans of. They must have picked it up as a favour to the Agfa rep. It was the most impractical stock because the rolls were way too big for a bulk loader, so I had to load it in pitch darkness, measuring-out each roll against the length of my arm. The modern equivalent to that stock is sold as Rollei Superpan 200, so I still use it.

Long story short: motion picture film is not anything special. The main reason why it is cheap is because it doesn't go through the usual retail channels.

[Einst_Stein]

Many people have used Kodak Vision 3 for still photography. Me included. Yes, we can even develop it with C41. 

Yes, ramjet can be removed. Yes, the tonal curve is easy to deal with in post processing. and, yes, even to use it for movie, it is also printed to another film for final projection. It is never direct projected.

I have not used E100 movie film yet. aFAIK, it does not have ramjet layer. It might be another example that movie film and still photography film can be further unified. Technology wise, of course. Business wide, is another story.

Edited February 25 by Einst_Stein

[PetPhoto]

the  only actual impact is that bhphoto video no longer has cans of kodak 5222 for sale.  the wanted 340$ per 400'can.   Now the only temporary option is ultrafine selling 100' stools for 110$

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Yes, ramjet can be removed. Yes, the tonal curve is easy to deal with in post processing. and, yes, even to use it for movie, it is also printed to another film for final projection. It is never direct projected.

That's why companies like Seattle Film Labs used to offer both prints and slides. Slides were easy to do because they were contact printed onto a projection stock, like a film release print would be. As I mentioned, the paper prints weren't as good, because motion picture film didn't have a paper print workflow.

Your best bet if you want to shoot motion picture film on the cheap is to buy short ends. These are unused cans left-over after a production has wrapped. Some are full cans (400 or 1,000 feet), but most will be shorter, thus the name. These are left over when there isn't enough footage on a roll to shoot the next take. The exposed part of the roll is sent to the lab, and the unexposed part is saved and sold at a discount. A quick web search tells me that there are still a few short-end brokers in different markets, but not as many as there used to be.

[Einst_Stein]

4 hours ago, BernardC said:

That's why companies like Seattle Film Labs used to offer both prints and slides. Slides were easy to do because they were contact printed onto a projection stock, like a film release print would be. As I mentioned, the paper prints weren't as good, because motion picture film didn't have a paper print workflow.

Your best bet if you want to shoot motion picture film on the cheap is to buy short ends. These are unused cans left-over after a production has wrapped. Some are full cans (400 or 1,000 feet), but most will be shorter, thus the name. These are left over when there isn't enough footage on a roll to shoot the next take. The exposed part of the roll is sent to the lab, and the unexposed part is saved and sold at a discount. A quick web search tells me that there are still a few short-end brokers in different markets, but not as many as there used to be.

1: Yes, buying short end is a good option. For 35mm format, usually it is sold in units of 100ft, perfect for DIY bulk loading. The price per 100ft was around US$70, but the shipping cost is high, ends up around US$90 per 100ft, still worth though. 

2: It is more difficult for 65mm format. I don't know any offering of short end yet. 1000ft per order unit was available. I usually cut it into 12.5ft per unit to load into Hasselblad A70 back.  Its gives 60-exp 6x6. But It seems this is no longer possible after the recent Kodak arrangement.

3: Now a day most people I know who use Kodak Vision 3 process the film at home and do digital scanning. On digital camera, mostly. It is very easy once get over the psychological barrier. 

4: Hypothetical, if Kodak ever choose to make the movie film more available to still photography, or even emerging into standard in parallel of the other still films, I assume Kodak would offer print papers to match the property.  ...but this hope is no longer valid.  

Edited February 25 by Einst_Stein

[BernardC]

17 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

1: Yes, buying short end is a good option. For 35mm format, usually it is sold in units of 100ft, perfect for DIY bulk loading. The price per 100ft was around US$70, but the shipping cost is high, ends up around US$90 per 100ft, still worth though. 

It sounds like they repackage those short ends into 100 foot rolls for stills shooters. That's not a bad thing, but it might be worth a few phone calls to find "shorter shorts," especially if you live near a film production centre (NY, LA, maybe Atlanta in the US). I would ask labs and rental houses, they probably have a good grasp of who the local players are.

My experience with short ends was in the 1990s and early 2000s when I worked on a series of low-budget films. Often we would have a variety of stocks, speeds, and lengths, keeping precious long rolls for special scenes. These would be in original cans, with the name of the original production/remaining footage/emulsion type written on white camera tape. Nine times out of ten the stock would come from direct-to-video films that didn't leave a trace, but we once managed to piggy-back on a George Clooney gig for a few B&W release prints.

[Einst_Stein]

3 hours ago, BernardC said:

It sounds like they repackage those short ends into 100 foot rolls for stills shooters. That's not a bad thing, but it might be worth a few phone calls to find "shorter shorts," especially if you live near a film production centre (NY, LA, maybe Atlanta in the US). I would ask labs and rental houses, they probably have a good grasp of who the local players are.

My experience with short ends was in the 1990s and early 2000s when I worked on a series of low-budget films. Often we would have a variety of stocks, speeds, and lengths, keeping precious long rolls for special scenes. These would be in original cans, with the name of the original production/remaining footage/emulsion type written on white camera tape. Nine times out of ten the stock would come from direct-to-video films that didn't leave a trace, but we once managed to piggy-back on a George Clooney gig for a few B&W release prints.

The source I deal with actually also has variable length shorter pieces, but I find 100ft is just right for me. 

They also offer  65mm format in 1000ft unit, not a short end, but at least it's much better than from B&H. B&H only sold 400ft x 16 as a minimum quantity, I guess required by Kodak. 

[PetPhoto]

11 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

The source I deal with actually also has variable length shorter pieces, but I find 100ft is just right for me. 

They also offer  65mm format in 1000ft unit, not a short end, but at least it's much better than from B&H. B&H only sold 400ft x 16 as a minimum quantity, I guess required by Kodak. 

alot of what Kodak sells as far as length is set in stone. There are a few movie films, that they charge $0.20 per foot, but they spool it on a 6,000 foot reel, and require a minimum order of 114,000 feet on one, and i think 300,000 feet on the other.. Not exactly something anyone here can deal with. 

 

But alot of the 16 and 8 mm movie films kodak sells, in the official 2025 price list pdf, are sold to everyone in the same size retail units that you can get and FPP website..