No more Kodak Vision 3 35mm and 65mm

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It was told that Kodak still film distributor had requested Kodak to stop selling 35mm and 65mm movie films to ban the respooling for still photography. 
Now B&H no longer list these films. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Smudgerer]

Well I guess you can still buy cans of 122m/400' 35mm Vision 3 stock and spool it yourself..........Arduous but doable.

[Alexander-HH]

This has been discussed a lot in the film community lately. From my understanding going forward their movie film stock will only be sold to productions who can prove it will be used for movies.

[Einst_Stein]

2 hours ago, Alexander-HH said:

This has been discussed a lot in the film community lately. From my understanding going forward their movie film stock will only be sold to productions who can prove it will be used for movies.

So that the still film will keep on raising the price. 

[oldwino]

Cinestill seems to have a contract with EK to allow them to sell the movie stocks, for the time being anyway. They have Kodak make it without the remjet for them. 

[Einst_Stein]

2 hours ago, oldwino said:

Cinestill seems to have a contract with EK to allow them to sell the movie stocks, for the time being anyway. They have Kodak make it without the remjet for them. 

I tried once, don't like it. Looks somewhat different from the generic Kodak Vision 3.  I guess maybe it's the removal of remjet thus removing the anti-reflection, but not sure yet.

But more important is the price. I went to Kodak Vision 3 mainly for its price. I bought short end (100ft x 35mm) from Mono No Aware. After tax and the expensive shipping, I paid about US$4.5 per roll.  

[oldwino]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

I tried once, don't like it. Looks somewhat different from the generic Kodak Vision 3.  I guess maybe it's the removal of remjet thus removing the anti-reflection, but not sure yet.

But more important is the price. I went to Kodak Vision 3 mainly for its price. I bought short end (100ft x 35mm) from Mono No Aware. After tax and the expensive shipping, I paid about US$4.5 per roll.  

That’s it exactly - no anti-halation layer, so funky red glow around bright objects. And because it’s a custom product, it’s expensive. 

[PetPhoto]

On 2/16/2025 at 9:59 AM, oldwino said:

Cinestill seems to have a contract with EK to allow them to sell the movie stocks, for the time being anyway. They have Kodak make it without the remjet for them. 

depends on what you go by as "film stock".. its all film stock. and certain types of Vision3 are made as DUPLICATING film, for making distribution copies of a film master.. and these films dont HAVE remjet layers from the get go.  So Cinestill may not be telling people the exact film being respooled as

the company making the film, isnt going to make that big of a produciton change like that. They cant risk any part of the "special cinestill without remjet" being shipped to a movie production.  God, just think what would have happened if the production for Lord of the Rings had been sent special "without remjet layer" by accident. 

 

The lawsuit probably would have ended Kodak.

[Einst_Stein]

On 2/23/2025 at 10:47 PM, PetPhoto said:

 just think what would have happened if the production for Lord of the Rings had been sent special "without remjet layer" by accident. 

With today's production control? hardly imaginable.  That type of production mistakes have been long gone!

What happened to the recent Kodak production change is likely due to the business aliance. Not likely to do with pure technology.  

[PetPhoto]

7 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

With today's production control? hardly imaginable.  That type of production mistakes have been long gone!

What happened to the recent Kodak production change is likely due to the business aliance. Not likely to do with pure technology.  

if that linked article in one of these trheads was accurate, 90% of the money went to creating lab space and production space of DRUG STUFF.

[Einst_Stein]

11 hours ago, PetPhoto said:

if that linked article in one of these trheads was accurate, 90% of the money went to creating lab space and production space of DRUG STUFF.

OMG, don't take too much. Bad for health. 

and, don't puff and post! Time to bed. 

[BernardC]

12 hours ago, PetPhoto said:

if that linked article in one of these trheads was accurate, 90% of the money went to creating lab space and production space of DRUG STUFF.

I'm not sure what article you are referring to, but another one stated that part of their old manufacturing will be leased to a company making batteries.

They only need 10% of the film capacity that they had ion the previous century (if that), so the other 90% can be used by industries that also need to produce and mix chemicals at high volume and precision. It sounds like a win-win.

[PetPhoto]

10 hours ago, BernardC said:

I'm not sure what article you are referring to, but another one stated that part of their old manufacturing will be leased to a company making batteries.

They only need 10% of the film capacity that they had ion the previous century (if that), so the other 90% can be used by industries that also need to produce and mix chemicals at high volume and precision. It sounds like a win-win.

one article on this website in the last few months said that the shutdown of kodak american film produciton gear, was done to create lab space and production space for DRUG COMPONENT materials.  And that only the air handling system and a pump system for the film lines were worked on.. so not much at all for the film side of anything. 

 

And i have seen the fact that they sold two entire film lines, coating, slicing, etc.. to an electric battery company that wants to make batteries printed on a film like material.. That article talking about that sale, mentioned that the Kodak company sold the 2 film lines at 20-40% of the actual equipment value. 

[BernardC]

7 hours ago, PetPhoto said:

And i have seen the fact that they sold two entire film lines, coating, slicing, etc.. to an electric battery company that wants to make batteries printed on a film like material.. That article talking about that sale, mentioned that the Kodak company sold the 2 film lines at 20-40% of the actual equipment value. 

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. We've known for decades that Kodak had excess capacity. It's a good thing for the people of Rochester that they've found buyers for some of those empty factories. It's a good thing for photographers that they are modernizing their remaining film lines.

[PetPhoto]

4 hours ago, BernardC said:

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. We've known for decades that Kodak had excess capacity. It's a good thing for the people of Rochester that they've found buyers for some of those empty factories. It's a good thing for photographers that they are modernizing their remaining film lines.

around the covid shutdown, kodak did a yaarly price change annoucement and mentioned "raising film prices to stabilize the market, reduce demand, stabilize supply, and to raise money to build film lines at its supplier in asia.."

 

when they have at least two unused COMPLETE film lines that had been shutdown and left alone.. sure it would have cost a small amount to get them running.. but far far less then jacking prices on retail film so as to build a completely new equipment line or two in a foreign country

[BernardC]

52 minutes ago, PetPhoto said:

but far far less then jacking prices on retail film so as to build a completely new equipment line or two in a foreign country

Rochester NY is not in a foreign country for Kodak. It's their historical home. I know that they have produced film in other countries (UK and China, for instance), but the most recent news is that they did some major upgrades to their Rochester film lines, starting last November.

I won't comment on any speculation as to what Kodak should have done over the past two decades (and earlier, they've known that digital was coming since the 1970s). It's fair to say that not all of their decisions played-out as intended!