>
> I was just shopping at B&H. They are "temporarily out of
> stock" on all of their Fuji ASA 100 products. The same is
> true at Adorama.
> Maybe Fuji is just mixing up a new vat of chemicals and we'll
> have a new batch in a few weeks ? {fingers crossed}

> I would recommend Kodak Ektachrome 100G.

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Brian Reynolds <mf3d@reynolds.users.panix.com> wrote:

 

John Thurston wrote:
>
> I was just shopping at B&H. They are "temporarily out of
> stock" on all of their Fuji ASA 100 products. The same is
> true at Adorama.
> Maybe Fuji is just mixing up a new vat of chemicals and we'll
> have a new batch in a few weeks ? {fingers crossed}

This is pure speculation on my part, but is it possible that the
earthquake earlier this year has caused a gap in the supply? I know
the Fuji film factory that manufactures their X100 camera was in the
effected area, and shutdown. I've heard several of the other camera
manufacturers (Nikon, Canon) were also in that area and were shutdown
for around 90 days. This has caused Canon to delay the release of
some of the lenses they had announced previously.

Calumet <http://calumetphoto.com/> lists Fujifilm Fujichrome Velvia
100F in 120 as in stock.

I would recommend Kodak Ektachrome 100G.

--
Brian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship.
reynolds@panix.com | You push some buttons and see
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what happens." -- Zapp Brannigan
NAR# 54438 |

--
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

> I was just shopping at B&H. They are "temporarily out of
> stock" on all of their Fuji ASA 100 products. The same is
> true at Adorama.
> Maybe Fuji is just mixing up a new vat of chemicals and we'll
> have a new batch in a few weeks ? {fingers crossed}
> ________________________________________
> John Thurston
> Juneau, Alaska
> http://stereo.thurstons.us
>

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, John Thurston wrote:
>

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck Holzner" <3D4me@...> wrote:

On 9/21/2011 11:11 AM, bob_karambelas wrote:
>
> I was able to track down a bunch of Astia last spring, but haven't seen it since...
> Fuji's discontinuance notice said they expected to have Astia to ship though next March,
> but I've seen no sign of it, nobody is even taking back-orders.
>
> They also dropped their consumer and tungsten slide films, if I'm not mistaken.
>
> So, Kodak has one slide film in two flavors, Fuji will have Provia 100, 400X, and
> Velvia. As far as I can see, that's all the slide film that's left.
>
> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com , "Chuck Holzner"
> <3D4me@...> wrote:
>
>

> What struck me was in looking at some of the slide film
> reviews, a remarkably high percentage of them were 3D
> photographers. I'm quite concerned that slide film will
> become a specialty item within a couple of years.

> I guess as long as there are a few E-6 labs, processing
> will be possible, and that technology is commonplace.
> But I wonder how long Fuji can sustain a production line?
> Slide film was the standard in publishing for many years,
> and that's a huge chunk of the volume that's just gone.

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:00 PM, John Thurston <juneau3d@thurstons.us> wrote:

 

bob_karambelas wrote:
> What struck me was in looking at some of the slide film
> reviews, a remarkably high percentage of them were 3D
> photographers. I'm quite concerned that slide film will
> become a specialty item within a couple of years.

It already is.

> I guess as long as there are a few E-6 labs, processing
> will be possible, and that technology is commonplace.
> But I wonder how long Fuji can sustain a production line?
> Slide film was the standard in publishing for many years,
> and that's a huge chunk of the volume that's just gone.

I doubt there remain any commercial uses for slide film in
the publishing business.

I still shoot MF3D because:
A) The viewing experience can not yet be equaled.
(Large prints in a MirScope come close.)
B) I have stereo cameras with excellent lenses and accurate
shutters which create images on 120 film. If I weren't
making slides for hand-viewers, I don't think I'd bother.

I hope we get a few more years of film, 'cause I just bought
a new scanner :P
--

John Thurston
Juneau Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us

--
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

> Which scanner did you get? What is the largest format it will take?
> Will it scan 6 x 9 format slides (either singly or as pairs)? What actual
> resolutions (not interpolated)? What do you like about it, and what
> don't you like?

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:02 PM, John Thurston <juneau3d@thurstons.us> wrote:

On 9/21/2011 8:40 PM, JR wrote:
> Which scanner did you get?    What is the largest format it will take?
> Will it scan 6 x 9 format slides (either singly or as pairs)?    What actual
> resolutions (not interpolated)?     What do you like about it, and what
> don't you like?

Wow! So many questions and so few answers.

I've have an Epson 4990. I'm getting better with it, but I've
been wondering if I can do better with a film scanner than
with my flat bed.

I've been sorry that I missed out on a CoolScan, and I've
thought about buying one on flea bay. But I have trouble
dropping $2K on a used analog device which could cost me 30%
of that to have serviced if it didn't work properly.

I've been watching the Pacific Image PrimeFilm 120 for a good
part of the summer. Lots of people are talking about it, but
no one has actually touched one.
  http://www.scanace.com/product/pf_120.html
It _looks_ like a CoolScan, but it is no where near the same
scanner. It is, however, a new product and has just become
available in very limited numbers. I bought one yesterday
(Tuesday) from B&H. I paid for 2nd day air. The weather in
Juneau is pretty bad this week, but I don't think it will
keep the planes from landing. I hope to have it Saturday.

So I can't answer many of your questions :(

It claims:
 3200ppi optical resolution
 16 bits per channel
 a carrier for up to 6x12

My query to their pre-sales email got a quick response. It is
a fixed focus device :(

I asked (in a separate message) if they had tested it with
vuescan, but have not yet heard back.

I asked Ed Hamrick by email if he thought it could be driven
with the current version of vuescan. He responded that he
hoped to have support for it a "month or two".

So I hope it will be a little better than working with my
4990. I can return it in the first 30 days, so I have that
long to figure out if it is a $2K improvement.
________________________________________
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/

<*> Your email settings:
   Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/join
   (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
   MF3D-group-digest@yahoogroups.com
   MF3D-group-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   MF3D-group-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
   http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

 

Actually, those answers are pretty good, considering that it hasn't arrived yet.   6 x 12 format: wow!    Fixed focus will depend on whether it is focused on the platen glass or above it.  If above it, you can do both mounted slides and unmounted (with a shim).  I use the Wess mounts for my 6 x 9s.   Back when I used to enlarge my 120 transparencies (to 8 x 10 for dual light box display in a Wheatstone configuration), I used a "stretcher" type film holder (carrier).   It held the film real flat without glass.   Might work good on a scanner if the focus is at the right distance.   Sometimes modifying the scanner can change it from fixed focus to manual focusing.    I am sure that you will have fun with it, in any case.

JR

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:02 PM, John Thurston <juneau3d@thurstons.us> wrote:

On 9/21/2011 8:40 PM, JR wrote:
> Which scanner did you get?    What is the largest format it will take?
> Will it scan 6 x 9 format slides (either singly or as pairs)?    What actual
> resolutions (not interpolated)?     What do you like about it, and what
> don't you like?

Wow! So many questions and so few answers.

I've have an Epson 4990. I'm getting better with it, but I've
been wondering if I can do better with a film scanner than
with my flat bed.

I've been sorry that I missed out on a CoolScan, and I've
thought about buying one on flea bay. But I have trouble
dropping $2K on a used analog device which could cost me 30%
of that to have serviced if it didn't work properly.

I've been watching the Pacific Image PrimeFilm 120 for a good
part of the summer. Lots of people are talking about it, but
no one has actually touched one.
  http://www.scanace.com/product/pf_120.html
It _looks_ like a CoolScan, but it is no where near the same
scanner. It is, however, a new product and has just become
available in very limited numbers. I bought one yesterday
(Tuesday) from B&H. I paid for 2nd day air. The weather in
Juneau is pretty bad this week, but I don't think it will
keep the planes from landing. I hope to have it Saturday.

So I can't answer many of your questions :(

It claims:
 3200ppi optical resolution
 16 bits per channel
 a carrier for up to 6x12

My query to their pre-sales email got a quick response. It is
a fixed focus device :(

I asked (in a separate message) if they had tested it with
vuescan, but have not yet heard back.

I asked Ed Hamrick by email if he thought it could be driven
with the current version of vuescan. He responded that he
hoped to have support for it a "month or two".

So I hope it will be a little better than working with my
4990. I can return it in the first 30 days, so I have that
long to figure out if it is a $2K improvement.
________________________________________
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/

<*> Your email settings:
   Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/join
   (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
   MF3D-group-digest@yahoogroups.com
   MF3D-group-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   MF3D-group-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
   http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Bill G <bglick@rconnects.com> wrote:

I have some Astia 100F if anyone is interested, I think a brick...

Bill




On 9/21/2011 11:11 AM, bob_karambelas wrote:
>
> I was able to track down a bunch of Astia last spring, but haven't seen it since...
> Fuji's discontinuance notice said they expected to have Astia to ship though next March,
> but I've seen no sign of it, nobody is even taking back-orders.
>
> They also dropped their consumer and tungsten slide films, if I'm not mistaken.
>
> So, Kodak has one slide film in two flavors, Fuji will have Provia 100, 400X, and
> Velvia. As far as I can see, that's all the slide film that's left.
>
> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com MF3D-group%40yahoogroups.com>, "Chuck Holzner"
> <3D4me@...> wrote:
>
>


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/

<*> Your email settings:
   Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/join
   (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
   MF3D-group-digest@yahoogroups.com
   MF3D-group-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   MF3D-group-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
   http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--
A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems -- Alfréd Rényi

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Boris Starosta wrote:

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Bob Venezia <bob@chairboy.com> wrote:

 

I have the epson v-750 with the betterscanning dual-channel film holder (2x 6x18) and i use silverfast scanning software. 3200 ppi optical resolution and 16-bit/channel.

The betterscanning film holders are great and have nylon screws for variable height adjustment so focus can be set where you want. I also have some anti-newton glass that holds the film flat inthe channels. Results are pretty remarkable for the price.

That said, i recently opened up one of my prize mf3d slides, taken on a day when the angry gods of photography decided to cut me some slack, and gave one of the chips to a service provider with an imacon scanner. I took the other chip and gave it my best shot w/ the v-750. We both scanned with no sharpening applied.

The im

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 21, 2011, at 10:35 PM, JR <stereoscope3d@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Actually, those answers are pretty good, considering that it hasn't arrived yet.   6 x 12 format: wow!    Fixed focus will depend on whether it is focused on the platen glass or above it.  If above it, you can do both mounted slides and unmounted (with a shim).  I use the Wess mounts for my 6 x 9s.   Back when I used to enlarge my 120 transparencies (to 8 x 10 for dual light box display in a Wheatstone configuration), I used a "stretcher" type film holder (carrier).   It held the film real flat without glass.   Might work good on a scanner if the focus is at the right distance.   Sometimes modifying the scanner can change it from fixed focus to manual focusing.    I am sure that you will have fun with it, in any case.

JR

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:02 PM, John Thurston <juneau3d@thurstons.us> wrote:

On 9/21/2011 8:40 PM, JR wrote:
> Which scanner did you get?    What is the largest format it will take?
> Will it scan 6 x 9 format slides (either singly or as pairs)?    What actual
> resolutions (not interpolated)?     What do you like about it, and what
> don't you like?

Wow! So many questions and so few answers.

I've have an Epson 4990. I'm getting better with it, but I've
been wondering if I can do better with a film scanner than
with my flat bed.

I've been sorry that I missed out on a CoolScan, and I've
thought about buying one on flea bay. But I have trouble
dropping $2K on a used analog device which could cost me 30%
of that to have serviced if it didn't work properly.

I've been watching the Pacific Image PrimeFilm 120 for a good
part of the summer. Lots of people are talking about it, but
no one has actually touched one.
  http://www.scanace.com/product/pf_120.html
It _looks_ like a CoolScan, but it is no where near the same
scanner. It is, however, a new product and has just become
available in very limited numbers. I bought one yesterday
(Tuesday) from B&H. I paid for 2nd day air. The weather in
Juneau is pretty bad this week, but I don't think it will
keep the planes from landing. I hope to have it Saturday.

So I can't answer many of your questions :(

It claims:
 3200ppi optical resolution
 16 bits per channel
 a carrier for up to 6x12

My query to their pre-sales email got a quick response. It is
a fixed focus device :(

I asked (in a separate message) if they had tested it with
vuescan, but have not yet heard back.

I asked Ed Hamrick by email if he thought it could be driven
with the current version of vuescan. He responded that he
hoped to have support for it a "month or two".

So I hope it will be a little better than working with my
4990. I can return it in the first 30 days, so I have that
long to figure out if it is a $2K improvement.
________________________________________
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/

<*> Your email settings:
   Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/join
   (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
   MF3D-group-digest@yahoogroups.com
   MF3D-group-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   MF3D-group-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
   http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

--
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

On 9/21/2011 4:00 PM, John Thurston wrote:
>
> bob_karambelas wrote:
> > What struck me was in looking at some of the slide film
> > reviews, a remarkably high percentage of them were 3D
> > photographers. I'm quite concerned that slide film will
> > become a specialty item within a couple of years.
>
> It already is.
>
> > I guess as long as there are a few E-6 labs, processing
> > will be possible, and that technology is commonplace.
> > But I wonder how long Fuji can sustain a production line?
> > Slide film was the standard in publishing for many years,
> > and that's a huge chunk of the volume that's just gone.
>
> I doubt there remain any commercial uses for slide film in
> the publishing business.
>
> I still shoot MF3D because:
> A) The viewing experience can not yet be equaled.
> (Large prints in a MirScope come close.)
> B) I have stereo cameras with excellent lenses and accurate
> shutters which create images on 120 film. If I weren't
> making slides for hand-viewers, I don't think I'd bother.
>
> I hope we get a few more years of film, 'cause I just bought
> a new scanner :P
> --
> John Thurston
> Juneau Alaska
> http://stereo.thurstons.us
>
>

On Sep 22, 2011, at 8:26 AM, Boris Starosta wrote:

>
> Hey, Bob, you dropped your phone!
>
>
> Let us know comparative results, please!
>
> Also, I'm very keen to learn of John's experience with the 120
> format scanner.
>
> cheers,
>
> Boris
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Bob Venezia <bob@chairboy.com> wrote:
>
>
> I have the epson v-750 with the betterscanning dual-channel film
> holder (2x 6x18) and i use silverfast scanning software. 3200 ppi
> optical resolution and 16-bit/channel.
>
> The betterscanning film holders are great and have nylon screws for
> variable height adjustment so focus can be set where you want. I
> also have some anti-newton glass that holds the film flat inthe
> channels. Results are pretty remarkable for the price.
>
> That said, i recently opened up one of my prize mf3d slides, taken
> on a day when the angry gods of photography decided to cut me some
> slack, and gave one of the chips to a service provider with an
> imacon scanner. I took the other chip and gave it my best shot w/
> the v-750. We both scanned with no sharpening applied.
>
> The im
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 21, 2011, at 10:35 PM, JR <stereoscope3d@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, those answers are pretty good, considering that it hasn't
>> arrived yet. 6 x 12 format: wow! Fixed focus will depend on
>> whether it is focused on the platen glass or above it. If above
>> it, you can do both mounted slides and unmounted (with a shim). I
>> use the Wess mounts for my 6 x 9s. Back when I used to enlarge my
>> 120 transparencies (to 8 x 10 for dual light box display in a
>> Wheatstone configuration), I used a "stretcher" type film holder
>> (carrier). It held the film real flat without glass. Might work
>> good on a scanner if the focus is at the right distance.
>> Sometimes modifying the scanner can change it from fixed focus to
>> manual focusing. I am sure that you will have fun with it, in
>> any case.
>>
>> JR
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:02 PM, John Thurston <juneau3d@thurstons.us
>> > wrote:
>> On 9/21/2011 8:40 PM, JR wrote:
>> > Which scanner did you get? What is the largest format it will
>> take?
>> > Will it scan 6 x 9 format slides (either singly or as pairs)?
>> What actual
>> > resolutions (not interpolated)? What do you like about it,
>> and what
>> > don't you like?
>>
>> Wow! So many questions and so few answers.
>>
>> I've have an Epson 4990. I'm getting better with it, but I've
>> been wondering if I can do better with a film scanner than
>> with my flat bed.
>>
>> I've been sorry that I missed out on a CoolScan, and I've
>> thought about buying one on flea bay. But I have trouble
>> dropping $2K on a used analog device which could cost me 30%
>> of that to have serviced if it didn't work properly.
>>
>> I've been watching the Pacific Image PrimeFilm 120 for a good
>> part of the summer. Lots of people are talking about it, but
>> no one has actually touched one.
>> http://www.scanace.com/product/pf_120.html
>> It _looks_ like a CoolScan, but it is no where near the same
>> scanner. It is, however, a new product and has just become
>> available in very limited numbers. I bought one yesterday
>> (Tuesday) from B&H. I paid for 2nd day air. The weather in
>> Juneau is pretty bad this week, but I don't think it will
>> keep the planes from landing. I hope to have it Saturday.
>>
>> So I can't answer many of your questions :(
>>
>> It claims:
>> 3200ppi optical resolution
>> 16 bits per channel
>> a carrier for up to 6x12
>>
>> My query to their pre-sales email got a quick response. It is
>> a fixed focus device :(
>>
>> I asked (in a separate message) if they had tested it with
>> vuescan, but have not yet heard back.
>>
>> I asked Ed Hamrick by email if he thought it could be driven
>> with the current version of vuescan. He responded that he
>> hoped to have support for it a "month or two".
>>
>> So I hope it will be a little better than working with my
>> 4990. I can return it in the first 30 days, so I have that
>> long to figure out if it is a $2K improvement.
>> ________________________________________
>> John Thurston
>> Juneau, Alaska
>> http://stereo.thurstons.us
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> stereoscope3d@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems --
> Alfréd Rényi
>
>
>
>
>

On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:47 AM, JR wrote:

>
> Regarding antinewton ring glass, a minor caveat: it does reduce
> resolution (very, very slightly). If you hold the glass up to the
> light and observe something with very fine detail, you may notice a
> very slight haze. This will reduce resolution by a measurable
> amount, but usually not visual. That is, if you were to shoot a
> resolution target through it and view it, you probably would not see
> a difference in the number of lines. But if you were to compare
> images shot or scanned with it and without, while they would
> probably look equally sharp (you would see as much detail), the one
> shot through the AN glass would not appear quite as "crisp".
> Probably of practical importance only when you were looking for that
> tiniest bit of extra "snap" in an image. Just thought that you
> would like to know.
>
> JR
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Bob Venezia <bob@chairboy.com> wrote:
>
>
> I have the epson v-750 with the betterscanning dual-channel film
> holder (2x 6x18) and i use silverfast scanning software. 3200 ppi
> optical resolution and 16-bit/channel.
>
> The betterscanning film holders are great and have nylon screws for
> variable height adjustment so focus can be set where you want. I
> also have some anti-newton glass that holds the film flat inthe
> channels. Results are pretty remarkable for the price.
>
> That said, i recently opened up one of my prize mf3d slides, taken
> on a day when the angry gods of photography decided to cut me some
> slack, and gave one of the chips to a service provider with an
> imacon scanner. I took the other chip and gave it my best shot w/
> the v-750. We both scanned with no sharpening applied.
>
> The im
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 21, 2011, at 10:35 PM, JR <stereoscope3d@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, those answers are pretty good, considering that it hasn't
>> arrived yet. 6 x 12 format: wow! Fixed focus will depend on
>> whether it is focused on the platen glass or above it. If above
>> it, you can do both mounted slides and unmounted (with a shim). I
>> use the Wess mounts for my 6 x 9s. Back when I used to enlarge my
>> 120 transparencies (to 8 x 10 for dual light box display in a
>> Wheatstone configuration), I used a "stretcher" type film holder
>> (carrier). It held the film real flat without glass. Might work
>> good on a scanner if the focus is at the right distance.
>> Sometimes modifying the scanner can change it from fixed focus to
>> manual focusing. I am sure that you will have fun with it, in
>> any case.
>>
>> JR
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:02 PM, John Thurston <juneau3d@thurstons.us
>> > wrote:
>> On 9/21/2011 8:40 PM, JR wrote:
>> > Which scanner did you get? What is the largest format it will
>> take?
>> > Will it scan 6 x 9 format slides (either singly or as pairs)?
>> What actual
>> > resolutions (not interpolated)? What do you like about it,
>> and what
>> > don't you like?
>>
>> Wow! So many questions and so few answers.
>>
>> I've have an Epson 4990. I'm getting better with it, but I've
>> been wondering if I can do better with a film scanner than
>> with my flat bed.
>>
>> I've been sorry that I missed out on a CoolScan, and I've
>> thought about buying one on flea bay. But I have trouble
>> dropping $2K on a used analog device which could cost me 30%
>> of that to have serviced if it didn't work properly.
>>
>> I've been watching the Pacific Image PrimeFilm 120 for a good
>> part of the summer. Lots of people are talking about it, but
>> no one has actually touched one.
>> http://www.scanace.com/product/pf_120.html
>> It _looks_ like a CoolScan, but it is no where near the same
>> scanner. It is, however, a new product and has just become
>> available in very limited numbers. I bought one yesterday
>> (Tuesday) from B&H. I paid for 2nd day air. The weather in
>> Juneau is pretty bad this week, but I don't think it will
>> keep the planes from landing. I hope to have it Saturday.
>>
>> So I can't answer many of your questions :(
>>
>> It claims:
>> 3200ppi optical resolution
>> 16 bits per channel
>> a carrier for up to 6x12
>>
>> My query to their pre-sales email got a quick response. It is
>> a fixed focus device :(
>>
>> I asked (in a separate message) if they had tested it with
>> vuescan, but have not yet heard back.
>>
>> I asked Ed Hamrick by email if he thought it could be driven
>> with the current version of vuescan. He responded that he
>> hoped to have support for it a "month or two".
>>
>> So I hope it will be a little better than working with my
>> 4990. I can return it in the first 30 days, so I have that
>> long to figure out if it is a $2K improvement.
>> ________________________________________
>> John Thurston
>> Juneau, Alaska
>> http://stereo.thurstons.us
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> stereoscope3d@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> stereoscope3d@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Bill G <bglick@rconnects.com> wrote:

Fuji will supposedly produce film at least in Japan.... much of this depends on how fast
cinema film sales fall, as the conversion to digital, both Kodak and Fuji only produce
still film, as an "off shoot" of cine film.... once cine film dies, then Lucky Film in
China, which Kodak now owns near half, will continue to make some of the Kodak emulsions
under the Lucky Label...

so I thing one way or another film will be around for awhile.... hopeffuly we will get
huge advance notice before certain emulsions die, like they did with Kodachrome..

bg

On 9/21/2011 4:00 PM, John Thurston wrote:
>
> bob_karambelas wrote:
> > What struck me was in looking at some of the slide film
> > reviews, a remarkably high percentage of them were 3D
> > photographers. I'm quite concerned that slide film will
> > become a specialty item within a couple of years.
>
> It already is.
>
> > I guess as long as there are a few E-6 labs, processing
> > will be possible, and that technology is commonplace.
> > But I wonder how long Fuji can sustain a production line?
> > Slide film was the standard in publishing for many years,
> > and that's a huge chunk of the volume that's just gone.
>
> I doubt there remain any commercial uses for slide film in
> the publishing business.
>
> I still shoot MF3D because:
> A) The viewing experience can not yet be equaled.
> (Large prints in a MirScope come close.)
> B) I have stereo cameras with excellent lenses and accurate
> shutters which create images on 120 film. If I weren't
> making slides for hand-viewers, I don't think I'd bother.
>
> I hope we get a few more years of film, 'cause I just bought
> a new scanner :P
> --
> John Thurston
> Juneau Alaska
> http://stereo.thurstons.us
>
>

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/

<*> Your email settings:
   Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/join
   (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
   MF3D-group-digest@yahoogroups.com
   MF3D-group-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   MF3D-group-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
   http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

 

I snooze, I lose. ;)

BTW, Amazon just said my backorder of Provia 120 would ship within a week or so, instead of "someday."

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Boris Starosta wrote:

> Only a little less than one-fourth of the theaters worldwide are currently digital,
> although the number continues to grow. The big problem for MF is that those (theatrical
> uses) are 35mm, so not an incentive to maintain MF production. The good side is that all
> film formats are cut from huge master rolls, so it does not cost a manufacturer much
> more to cut and package MF. The decision to continue MF will be determined almost
> entirely by the volume of sales of MF, not 35mm.
>

>
> JR
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Bill G <bglick@rconnects.com
> bglick@rconnects.com>> wrote:
>
> Fuji will supposedly produce film at least in Japan.... much of this depends on how fast
> cinema film sales fall, as the conversion to digital, both Kodak and Fuji only produce
> still film, as an "off shoot" of cine film.... once cine film dies, then Lucky Film in
> China, which Kodak now owns near half, will continue to make some of the Kodak emulsions
> under the Lucky Label...
>
> so I thing one way or another film will be around for awhile.... hopeffuly we will get
> huge advance notice before certain emulsions die, like they did with Kodachrome..
>
> bg
>
>
>
> On 9/21/2011 4:00 PM, John Thurston wrote:
> >
> > bob_karambelas wrote:
> > > What struck me was in looking at some of the slide film
> > > reviews, a remarkably high percentage of them were 3D
> > > photographers. I'm quite concerned that slide film will
> > > become a specialty item within a couple of years.
> >
> > It already is.
> >
> > > I guess as long as there are a few E-6 labs, processing
> > > will be possible, and that technology is commonplace.
> > > But I wonder how long Fuji can sustain a production line?
> > > Slide film was the standard in publishing for many years,
> > > and that's a huge chunk of the volume that's just gone.
> >
> > I doubt there remain any commercial uses for slide film in
> > the publishing business.
> >
> > I still shoot MF3D because:
> > A) The viewing experience can not yet be equaled.
> > (Large prints in a MirScope come close.)
> > B) I have stereo cameras with excellent lenses and accurate
> > shutters which create images on 120 film. If I weren't
> > making slides for hand-viewers, I don't think I'd bother.
> >
> > I hope we get a few more years of film, 'cause I just bought
> > a new scanner :P
> > --
> > John Thurston
> > Juneau Alaska
> > http://stereo.thurstons.us
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> stereoscope3d@gmail.com stereoscope3d@gmail.com>
>
>
>

> Good news for all.
>
>
> All motion pictures, whether shot edited or projected on film or digital, are at least
> archived on film. Until somebody comes up with an archive quality digital format, there
> will be film.

>
> Timo
>
> On 22-Sep-11, at 1:35 PM, JR wrote:
>
>> Only a little less than one-fourth of the theaters worldwide are currently digital,
>> although the number continues to grow. The big problem for MF is that those
>> (theatrical uses) are 35mm, so not an incentive to maintain MF production. The good
>> side is that all film formats are cut from huge master rolls, so it does not cost a
>> manufacturer much more to cut and package MF. The decision to continue MF will be
>> determined almost entirely by the volume of sales of MF, not 35mm.
>>
>> JR
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Bill G <bglick@rconnects.com
>> bglick@rconnects.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Fuji will supposedly produce film at least in Japan.... much of this depends on how
>> fast
>> cinema film sales fall, as the conversion to digital, both Kodak and Fuji only produce
>> still film, as an "off shoot" of cine film.... once cine film dies, then Lucky Film in
>> China, which Kodak now owns near half, will continue to make some of the Kodak
>> emulsions
>> under the Lucky Label...
>>
>> so I thing one way or another film will be around for awhile.... hopeffuly we will get
>> huge advance notice before certain emulsions die, like they did with Kodachrome..
>>
>> bg
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/21/2 011 4:00 PM, John Thurston wrote:
>> >
>> > bob_karambelas wrote:
>> > > What struck me was in looking at some of the slide film
>> > > reviews, a remarkably high percentage of them were 3D
>> > > photographers. I'm quite concerned that slide film will
>> > > become a specialty item within a couple of years.
>> >
>> > It already is.
>> >
>> > > I guess as long as there are a few E-6 labs, processing
>> > > will be possible, and that technology is commonplace.
>> > > But I wonder how long Fuji can sustain a production line?
>> > > Slide film was the standard in publishing for many years,
>> > > and that's a huge chunk of the volume that's just gone.
>> >
>> > I doubt there remain any commercial uses for slide film in
>> > the publishing business.
>> >
>> > I still shoot MF3D because:
>> > A) The viewing experience can not yet be equaled.
>> > (Large prints in a MirSc ope come close.)
>> > B) I have stereo cameras with excellent lenses and accurate
>> > shutters which create images on 120 film. If I weren't
>> > making slides for hand-viewers, I don't think I'd bother.
>> >
>> > I hope we get a few more years of film, 'cause I just bought
>> > a new scanner :P
>> > --
>> > John Thurston
>> > Juneau Alaska
>> > http://stereo.thurstons.us
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>> (Yahoo! ID required)
>>
>> MF3D-group-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> stereoscope3d@gmail.com stereoscope3d@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

On 22-Sep-11, at 10:44 PM, Bill G wrote:

Good news for all.

All motion pictures, whether shot edited or projected on film or digital, are at least

archived on film. Until somebody comes up with an archive quality digital format, there

will be film.

                                                A movie is usually 2-3 reels of film.    
So two archives will take 6 reels, x 100 releases per year = 600 reels.    One movie
release to distribute worldwide can be 20k reels * 100 releases per year = 2 million reels
per year, vs. 600 reels per year for archiving.    Which number do you think will have
precedent in controlling whether the big film makers will continue to produce film on a
cost effective basis?


Bill

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bill G wrote:
Which number do you think will have
> precedent in controlling whether the big film makers will continue to produce film on a
> cost effective basis?
>
>
> Bill
>
>

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Boris Starosta wrote:
>
> Is negative film in the same dire straights as slide film? I wouldn't
> know... I never shop for negative film... but I have a notion negative
> film has always been more popular among stills photographers. But maybe
> stills have never mattered as much as the cinema.

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bob Venezia wrote:
>
> Ha ha ha. Yes, I was falling asleep writing this last night and
> thought I'd finish in the morning. Quite surprised to see it got sent!
>
> The imacon scan is a couple levels sharper, without sharpening
> applied. My scan also had no sharpening applied in the scan.
>
> I've just uploaded a couple of photos to show the difference. One
> shows an area of detail for side-by-side comparison and the other
> gives you an idea of the size of the area of detail.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/photos/album/2102477673/pic/list
>
> There's a local outfit that rents time on their Imacon scanner for $60/
> hour, and I think I'll be spending some of my nickels there.
>
> cheers,
> Bob
>
> On Sep 22, 2011, at 8:26 AM, Boris Starosta wrote:
>
> >
> > Hey, Bob, you dropped your phone!
> >
> >
> > Let us know comparative results, please!
> >
> > Also, I'm very keen to learn of John's experience with the 120
> > format scanner.
> >

> Is cinematic archiving done on print film (i.e. reversal / positive transparency film)?
> If that were to become unavailable, wouldn't studios settle for negative film? That
> could always be scanned to retrieve the images in future; and isn't negative film more
> stable?
>

>
> Is negative film in the same dire straights as slide film? I wouldn't know... I never
> shop for negative film... but I have a notion negative film has always been more
> popular among stills photographers. But maybe stills have never mattered as much as the
> cinema. (back of the napkin calculation - I know a pro that used to shoot about 2000
> rolls of 135 slide film per year back in the 1990s. How many pros like that were out
> there? How does that amount of film compare to a typical cinematic print?)

>
> I can imagine that slide film (or similar) might have been more readily consumed by the
> cinema, because of the need to distribute prints. Certainly I see that now it would be
> the last remaining wide scale commercial use of slide film.
>
> So I wonder, was more negative film made over the years, or more positive film? And
> what about now?
>
> (I'd research it except I don't have the time. Maybe someone already has the answers...)
>
> cheers,
>
> Boris
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:29 PM, bob_karambelas <bob_karambelas@yahoo.com
> bob_karambelas@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> Yeah... and digital archiving is pretty trivial, really. It's hard for individuals
> to ensure their great-grandchildren will find their pictures, but every major media
> outlet has digital archives of one sort or another.
>
> Seems reassuring that we'll have slide film beyond the next year or two. But the
> next recession will thin out the options further, I suspect.
>
> What I wonder is... isn't slide film somewhat different than cinema print film?
> Doesn't it still require a separate production run, at least for the coating?
>
>
>
> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com , Bill G
> wrote:
> Which number do you think will have
> > precedent in controlling whether the big film makers will continue to produce film
> on a
> > cost effective basis?
> >
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems -- Alfréd Rényi
>
>
>

>
> What I wonder is... isn't slide film somewhat different than cinema print film? Doesn't
> it still require a separate production run, at least for the coating?
>
>

>
>

 

I also have an Epson V750, and I can't believe the scan would be as soft as what you show. I would love to try a scan here of that old mountain goat, just for yucks.

ron labbe
studio 3D

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bob Venezia wrote:
>
> Ha ha ha. Yes, I was falling asleep writing this last night and
> thought I'd finish in the morning. Quite surprised to see it got sent!
>
> The imacon scan is a couple levels sharper, without sharpening
> applied. My scan also had no sharpening applied in the scan.
>
> I've just uploaded a couple of photos to show the difference. One
> shows an area of detail for side-by-side comparison and the other
> gives you an idea of the size of the area of detail.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/photos/album/2102477673/pic/list
>
> There's a local outfit that rents time on their Imacon scanner for $60/
> hour, and I think I'll be spending some of my nickels there.
>
> cheers,
> Bob
>
> On Sep 22, 2011, at 8:26 AM, Boris Starosta wrote:
>
> >
> > Hey, Bob, you dropped your phone!
> >
> >
> > Let us know comparative results, please!
> >
> > Also, I'm very keen to learn of John's experience with the 120
> > format scanner.
> >

On 9/23/2011 12:15 PM, Bob Venezia wrote:

 

Hi Ron,

You did look at the full shot to see how large the goat is in relation to the entire frame, right? I think we're talking about an area of the film that's about 1/4 inch high.

I'd be a little nervous sending this shot in the mail but if you really think you could do better i'd entertain it. In the end i don't think there's any way you could top the imacon, though.

Bob

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 23, 2011, at 10:17 AM, "studio3_d" <ron@studio3d.com> wrote:

 

I also have an Epson V750, and I can't believe the scan would be as soft as what you show. I would love to try a scan here of that old mountain goat, just for yucks.

ron labbe
studio 3D

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bob Venezia wrote:
>
> Ha ha ha. Yes, I was falling asleep writing this last night and
> thought I'd finish in the morning. Quite surprised to see it got sent!
>
> The imacon scan is a couple levels sharper, without sharpening
> applied. My scan also had no sharpening applied in the scan.
>
> I've just uploaded a couple of photos to show the difference. One
> shows an area of detail for side-by-side comparison and the other
> gives you an idea of the size of the area of detail.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/photos/album/2102477673/pic/list
>
> There's a local outfit that rents time on their Imacon scanner for $60/
> hour, and I think I'll be spending some of my nickels there.
>
> cheers,
> Bob
>
> On Sep 22, 2011, at 8:26 AM, Boris Starosta wrote:
>
> >
> > Hey, Bob, you dropped your phone!
> >
> >
> > Let us know comparative results, please!
> >
> > Also, I'm very keen to learn of John's experience with the 120
> > format scanner.
> >

On 9/23/11, bob_karambelas <bob_karambelas@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yeah... and digital archiving is pretty trivial, really. It's hard for
> individuals to ensure their great-grandchildren will find their pictures,
> but every major media outlet has digital archives of one sort or another.
>
> Seems reassuring that we'll have slide film beyond the next year or two.
> But the next recession will thin out the options further, I suspect.
>
> What I wonder is... isn't slide film somewhat different than cinema print
> film? Doesn't it still require a separate production run, at least for the
> coating?
>
>
> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bill G wrote:
> Which number do you think will have
>> precedent in controlling whether the big film makers will continue to
>> produce film on a
>> cost effective basis?
>>
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>
>
>


--
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

On 9/24/2011 7:45 AM, JR wrote:

 

Motion picture film is negative all the way through: acquistion,
interpositive, internegative, work prints, answer prints, release
prints. They do not use any reversal film (slide film is reversal).
Basically, when printing, two negatives make a positive. So,
although a release print may look like a positive transparency, it is
really a negative, printed from the previous generation negative. At
one time, there was a CRL stage, which was indeed a reversal film.
But that part of the chain was dropped many years ago.

Typically a 90 minute feature consists of five reels. Years ago,
short subjects, news, and a cartoon were added, making six reels.
These were shipped as two containers, each three reels. Now that
only features are shipped, they have two size containers, with three
reels in one and two in the other. Not as balanced when you are
carrying them. Trailers, ads, etc. are now shipped separately from
other locations, not from the feature distributor.

Shipping costs are the main reason that distributors (not the studios)
like digital. You could probably ship at least a couple dozen or more
(depending on packaging) features on hard drives in the same size and
weight as one film feature. Of course the studios recognize the
importance of the distributor to the delivery of their product.

The studios are bottom line oriented. They could care less if the
product was delivered on film, hard drives, by satellite, whatever.

JR

On 9/23/11, bob_karambelas <bob_karambelas@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yeah... and digital archiving is pretty trivial, really. It's hard for
> individuals to ensure their great-grandchildren will find their pictures,
> but every major media outlet has digital archives of one sort or another.
>
> Seems reassuring that we'll have slide film beyond the next year or two.
> But the next recession will thin out the options further, I suspect.
>
> What I wonder is... isn't slide film somewhat different than cinema print
> film? Doesn't it still require a separate production run, at least for the
> coating?
>
>
> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bill G wrote:
> Which number do you think will have
>> precedent in controlling whether the big film makers will continue to
>> produce film on a
>> cost effective basis?
>>
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>
>
>

--
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

On Sep 24, 2011, at 5:13 AM, Bill G wrote:

>
> Bob, if you want the BEST scans, a drum scanner or modern flat bed,
> such as Screen Cezzanne, are much better than the Imacon, assuming
> you are trying to extract all the detail from the film in the
> smallest possible file size...
>
> b
>
>
> On 9/23/2011 12:15 PM, Bob Venezia wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Ron,
>>
>> You did look at the full shot to see how large the goat is in
>> relation to the entire frame, right? I think we're talking about an
>> area of the film that's about 1/4 inch high.
>>
>> I'd be a little nervous sending this shot in the mail but if you
>> really think you could do better i'd entertain it. In the end i
>> don't think there's any way you could top the imacon, though.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Sep 23, 2011, at 10:17 AM, "studio3_d" <ron@studio3d.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I also have an Epson V750, and I can't believe the scan would be
>>> as soft as what you show. I would love to try a scan here of that
>>> old mountain goat, just for yucks.
>>>
>>> ron labbe
>>> studio 3D
>>>
>>> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bob Venezia wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Ha ha ha. Yes, I was falling asleep writing this last night and
>>> > thought I'd finish in the morning. Quite surprised to see it got
>>> sent!
>>> >
>>> > The imacon scan is a couple levels sharper, without sharpening
>>> > applied. My scan also had no sharpening applied in the scan.
>>> >
>>> > I've just uploaded a couple of photos to show the difference. One
>>> > shows an area of detail for side-by-side comparison and the other
>>> > gives you an idea of the size of the area of detail.
>>> >
>>> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/photos/album/2102477673/pic/list
>>> >
>>> > There's a local outfit that rents time on their Imacon scanner
>>> for $60/
>>> > hour, and I think I'll be spending some of my nickels there.
>>> >
>>> > cheers,
>>> > Bob
>>> >
>>> > On Sep 22, 2011, at 8:26 AM, Boris Starosta wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > Hey, Bob, you dropped your phone!
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Let us know comparative results, please!
>>> > >
>>> > > Also, I'm very keen to learn of John's experience with the 120
>>> > > format scanner.
>>> > >
>>>
>>>
>
>
>

On 9/24/2011 9:56 AM, Bob Venezia wrote:

Hi Bill,  That sounds awesome, Bill. Do you know someplace where I can rent a   drum scanner for about $60/hour? :^)  Bob  On Sep 24, 2011, at 5:13 AM, Bill G wrote:  

 Bob, if you want the BEST scans, a drum scanner or modern flat bed,   such as Screen Cezzanne, are much better than the Imacon, assuming   you are trying to extract all the detail from the film in the   smallest possible file size...  b   On 9/23/2011 12:15 PM, Bob Venezia wrote:  

 Hi Ron,  You did look at the full shot to see how large the goat is in   relation to the entire frame, right? I think we're talking about an   area of the film that's about 1/4 inch high.  I'd be a little nervous sending this shot in the mail but if you   really think you could do better i'd entertain it. In the end i   don't think there's any way you could top the imacon, though.  Bob  Sent from my iPhone  On Sep 23, 2011, at 10:17 AM, "studio3_d"  wrote:  

 I also have an Epson V750, and I can't believe the scan would be   as soft as what you show. I would love to try a scan here of that   old mountain goat, just for yucks.  ron labbe studio 3D  --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bob Venezia  wrote: 

 Ha ha ha. Yes, I was falling asleep writing this last night and thought I'd finish in the morning. Quite surprised to see it got   

sent! 

 The imacon scan is a couple levels sharper, without sharpening applied. My scan also had no sharpening applied in the scan.  I've just uploaded a couple of photos to show the difference. One shows an area of detail for side-by-side comparison and the other gives you an idea of the size of the area of detail.  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/photos/album/2102477673/pic/list  There's a local outfit that rents time on their Imacon scanner   

for $60/ 

hour, and I think I'll be spending some of my nickels there.  cheers, Bob  On Sep 22, 2011, at 8:26 AM, Boris Starosta wrote:  

 Hey, Bob, you dropped your phone!   Let us know comparative results, please!  Also, I'm very keen to learn of John's experience with the 120 format scanner.  

   ------------------------------------  Yahoo! Groups Links  <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/  <*> Your email settings:     Individual Email | Traditional  <*> To change settings online go to:     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/join     (Yahoo! ID required)  <*> To change settings via email:     MF3D-group-digest@yahoogroups.com      MF3D-group-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com  <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:     MF3D-group-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com  <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/   

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bob Venezia wrote:
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> You did look at the full shot to see how large the goat is in relation to the entire frame, right? I think we're talking about an area of the film that's about 1/4 inch high.
>
> I'd be a little nervous sending this shot in the mail but if you really think you could do better i'd entertain it. In the end i don't think there's any way you could top the imacon, though.
>
> Bob
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 23, 2011, at 10:17 AM, "studio3_d" wrote:
>
> > I also have an Epson V750, and I can't believe the scan would be as soft as what you show. I would love to try a scan here of that old mountain goat, just for yucks.
> >
> > ron labbe
> > studio 3D
> >
> > --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bob Venezia wrote:
> > >
> > > Ha ha ha. Yes, I was falling asleep writing this last night and
> > > thought I'd finish in the morning. Quite surprised to see it got sent!
> > >
> > > The imacon scan is a couple levels sharper, without sharpening
> > > applied. My scan also had no sharpening applied in the scan.
> > >
> > > I've just uploaded a couple of photos to show the difference. One
> > > shows an area of detail for side-by-side comparison and the other
> > > gives you an idea of the size of the area of detail.
> > >
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MF3D-group/photos/album/2102477673/pic/list
> > >
> > > There's a local outfit that rents time on their Imacon scanner for $60/
> > > hour, and I think I'll be spending some of my nickels there.
> > >
> > > cheers,
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > On Sep 22, 2011, at 8:26 AM, Boris Starosta wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hey, Bob, you dropped your phone!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Let us know comparative results, please!
> > > >
> > > > Also, I'm very keen to learn of John's experience with the 120
> > > > format scanner.
> > > >
> >
> >
>

On Sep 24, 2011, at 10:34 AM, studio3_d wrote:

> I understand your reluctance to send original film via mail! I was
> just looking at the difference between the Epson and Imacon. I hoped
> I could get somewhere in between... willing to try if you're "game".
>
> ron
>
> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bob Venezia wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ron,
> >
> > You did look at the full shot to see how large the goat is in
> relation to the entire frame, right? I think we're talking about an
> area of the film that's about 1/4 inch high.
> >
> > I'd be a little nervous sending this shot in the mail but if you
> really think you could do better i'd entertain it. In the end i
> don't think there's any way you could top the imacon, though.
> >
> > Bob

>> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bob Venezia wrote:

>>> There's a local outfit that rents time on their Imacon scanner for $60/
>>> hour, and I think I'll be spending some of my nickels there.

On Sep 24, 2011, at 12:46 PM, John Thurston wrote:

>
> >> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bob Venezia wrote:
> - snip -
> >>> There's a local outfit that rents time on their Imacon scanner
> for $60/
> >>> hour, and I think I'll be spending some of my nickels there.
>
> I'm assuming they have it connected to a workstation and you
> rent the use of the workstation along with the scanner. Do
> you know what applications are available for use with their
> Imacon?
>
> In a situation like this, using vuescan to perform the
> scanning has a lot to recommend it. Vuescan can perform a
> "raw" scan of the image and produce a .dng file. David Lee
> turned me on to this function when we chatted in Colorado. I
> didn't believe it would work as well as it does, but based on
> his experience and conviction, I knew I had to give it an
> honest effort to make it work.
>
> You set physical characteristics of your scan at the time you
> make the .dng (how many bits to capture, how many channels,
> focus, multi-sampling, resolution downsampling...) You can
> then take that .dng file home, pump it back into vuescan, and
> fiddle with the scanner-output all you like. At that point,
> you can play with exposure levels, color space, infrared,
> grey-scale, etc.
>
> _______________________________________
> John Thurston
> Juneau, Alaska
> http://stereo.thurstons.us

On Sep 24, 2011, at 12:46 PM, John Thurston wrote:

> >> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bob Venezia wrote:
> - snip -
> >>> There's a local outfit that rents time on their Imacon scanner
> for $60/
> >>> hour, and I think I'll be spending some of my nickels there.
>
> I'm assuming they have it connected to a workstation and you
> rent the use of the workstation along with the scanner. Do
> you know what applications are available for use with their
> Imacon?
>
> In a situation like this, using vuescan to perform the
> scanning has a lot to recommend it. Vuescan can perform a
> "raw" scan of the image and produce a .dng file. David Lee
> turned me on to this function when we chatted in Colorado. I
> didn't believe it would work as well as it does, but based on
> his experience and conviction, I knew I had to give it an
> honest effort to make it work.
>
> You set physical characteristics of your scan at the time you
> make the .dng (how many bits to capture, how many channels,
> focus, multi-sampling, resolution downsampling...) You can
> then take that .dng file home, pump it back into vuescan, and
> fiddle with the scanner-output all you like. At that point,
> you can play with exposure levels, color space, infrared,
> grey-scale, etc.
>
> _______________________________________
> John Thurston
> Juneau, Alaska
> http://stereo.thurstons.us

On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Bill G <bglick@rconnects.com> wrote:

 

JR, I am not in the cinema field...... but did spend a lot of time testing cine film 5 years ago.
I thought the big two made positive cinema film, because I have sampled a few varieties, both Kodak and Fuji.    i.e. a cine film writer which wrote direct to film.   No intermediate used.....

But based on what you wrote, I am thinking they printed direct to neg film in a reverse manner?   hmmmm...  the final film was sharper than any neg film I have ever seen...?

Bill

  

I


  

On 9/24/2011 7:45 AM, JR wrote:

 

Motion picture film is negative all the way through: acquistion,
interpositive, internegative, work prints, answer prints, release
prints. They do not use any reversal film (slide film is reversal).
Basically, when printing, two negatives make a positive. So,
although a release print may look like a positive transparency, it is
really a negative, printed from the previous generation negative. At
one time, there was a CRL stage, which was indeed a reversal film.
But that part of the chain was dropped many years ago.

Typically a 90 minute feature consists of five reels. Years ago,
short subjects, news, and a cartoon were added, making six reels.
These were shipped as two containers, each three reels. Now that
only features are shipped, they have two size containers, with three
reels in one and two in the other. Not as balanced when you are
carrying them. Trailers, ads, etc. are now shipped separately from
other locations, not from the feature distributor.

Shipping costs are the main reason that distributors (not the studios)
like digital. You could probably ship at least a couple dozen or more
(depending on packaging) features on hard drives in the same size and
weight as one film feature. Of course the studios recognize the
importance of the distributor to the delivery of their product.

The studios are bottom line oriented. They could care less if the
product was delivered on film, hard drives, by satellite, whatever.

JR

On 9/23/11, bob_karambelas <bob_karambelas@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yeah... and digital archiving is pretty trivial, really. It's hard for
> individuals to ensure their great-grandchildren will find their pictures,
> but every major media outlet has digital archives of one sort or another.
>
> Seems reassuring that we'll have slide film beyond the next year or two.
> But the next recession will thin out the options further, I suspect.
>
> What I wonder is... isn't slide film somewhat different than cinema print
> film? Doesn't it still require a separate production run, at least for the
> coating?
>
>
> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bill G wrote:
> Which number do you think will have
>> precedent in controlling whether the big film makers will continue to
>> produce film on a
>> cost effective basis?
>>
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>
>
>

--
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

--
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

On 9/25/2011 8:05 AM, JR wrote:

 

I recall seeing some articles from back when reversal transparency film was first introduced that expressed a concern that it would not be as sharp as negative, due to emulsion swelling during the much longer processing time (reversal takes two developers and stop/fix baths as compared to one for negative film), as well as the (very minute) difference in thickness, the reversal being thicker due to more emulsion layers.   This proved not to be the case in practice.    For equal sensitivities, there is no difference in the resolution of negative and reversal films.   

There used to be a negative emulsion called "slide print film" for making transparencies (slides) from either ordinary negarive still camera film or from motion picture negative stock.   It was essentially the same as negative camera film, except that it did not have the orange-colored filter layer.   The results were not visibly different from what you would get with a reversal chromogenic film like Ektachrome.   Some people claimed that they were sharper than Ektachromes, but I shot both and they could not pick out which were from negative and which were reversal.

When you stop to think about it, when you contact print negative-to-negative, in terms of image this is no different than "printing" a negative-to-negative on a film like Ektachrome in your camera.  During processing of the "chrome", you bleach out the "negative" silver halide image emulsion from the original camera exposure, and are left with the "dye layer" image which is now a negative-of-a-negative, which of course appears as a positive.  Exactly the same as if you printed a negative to another negative to create the positive.

JR

On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Bill G <bglick@rconnects.com> wrote:

 

JR, I am not in the cinema field...... but did spend a lot of time testing cine film 5 years ago.
I thought the big two made positive cinema film, because I have sampled a few varieties, both Kodak and Fuji.    i.e. a cine film writer which wrote direct to film.   No intermediate used.....

But based on what you wrote, I am thinking they printed direct to neg film in a reverse manner?   hmmmm...  the final film was sharper than any neg film I have ever seen...?

Bill

  

I


  

On 9/24/2011 7:45 AM, JR wrote:

 

Motion picture film is negative all the way through: acquistion,
interpositive, internegative, work prints, answer prints, release
prints. They do not use any reversal film (slide film is reversal).
Basically, when printing, two negatives make a positive. So,
although a release print may look like a positive transparency, it is
really a negative, printed from the previous generation negative. At
one time, there was a CRL stage, which was indeed a reversal film.
But that part of the chain was dropped many years ago.

Typically a 90 minute feature consists of five reels. Years ago,
short subjects, news, and a cartoon were added, making six reels.
These were shipped as two containers, each three reels. Now that
only features are shipped, they have two size containers, with three
reels in one and two in the other. Not as balanced when you are
carrying them. Trailers, ads, etc. are now shipped separately from
other locations, not from the feature distributor.

Shipping costs are the main reason that distributors (not the studios)
like digital. You could probably ship at least a couple dozen or more
(depending on packaging) features on hard drives in the same size and
weight as one film feature. Of course the studios recognize the
importance of the distributor to the delivery of their product.

The studios are bottom line oriented. They could care less if the
product was delivered on film, hard drives, by satellite, whatever.

JR

On 9/23/11, bob_karambelas <bob_karambelas@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yeah... and digital archiving is pretty trivial, really. It's hard for
> individuals to ensure their great-grandchildren will find their pictures,
> but every major media outlet has digital archives of one sort or another.
>
> Seems reassuring that we'll have slide film beyond the next year or two.
> But the next recession will thin out the options further, I suspect.
>
> What I wonder is... isn't slide film somewhat different than cinema print
> film? Doesn't it still require a separate production run, at least for the
> coating?
>
>
> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bill G wrote:
> Which number do you think will have
>> precedent in controlling whether the big film makers will continue to
>> produce film on a
>> cost effective basis?
>>
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>
>
>

--
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

--
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

 

When I worked at IMAX  (80s and early 90s) we only used reversal film stocks. I didn't even know that there was such a thing as a negative cine film stock at that time. Of course we were testing cameras and lenses, not shooting movies.

                                  Yes, this makes sense,  I just went and re-checked the 65mm cine film I ran test on, it was reversal film.... so for Imax, it appears nothing has changed..... not sure about 35mm though... maybe JR will comment....

My issue, however, is not with release prints (which will very soon be gone), but with archival storage. I doubt that the motion picture industry will simply abandon their expensively produced movies. As it is now, they are spending huge amounts of money to recover and restore classic films, because they know there is a huge market for these things for conversion to DVDs and Blue-ray. Digital archiving is an oxymoron. For archival, film is still king.

                                         There will come a tipping point, where the remaining film maker(s) will force the studios for min. orders to keep plants open.....  if at some point in the time, if the only use for cine film is for archiving, the studios will have to take on min. annual orders to keep the plants open, which are prob. capable of producing 10000x more film than required for archiving purposes.....  my bet is, the studios, or other technology companies like Technicolor will have convinced the studios of other forms of archiving at that point in time.... or the studios make a massive purchase and deep freeze them as a safety measure, knowing an archiving alternative will be available.   Time will tell on this one.... should be interesting...


Bill

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Bill G <bglick@rconnects.com> wrote:

 

thx for response JR, very interesting info........

There is many evolutions of film over time, so variables can change through time... you have worked in cine a lot, I spent nearly all my time with photographic films, while only dabbled with cine films.    For photographic films, my testing demonstrated that Velvia chrome film is is much sharper than the sharpest Fuji neg film...  Fuji data supports my testing, this is from Fuji pdf files on their two sharpest films, Velvia (chrome) vs. 160C (neg)....

160C Neg film  -      Test-Object Contrast: 1.6:1 ........... 63 lines/mm
Velvia Chrome film - Test-Object Contrast: 1.6:1 ........... 80 lines/mm

This is a 27% increase in resolution capacity of chrome... there is other factor as well, which prob. are not included in these values.... which in my comparison studies takes chrome film closer to 50% higher resolving (grain size, bleeding, etc)

your thoughts on this?

Bill








On 9/25/2011 8:05 AM, JR wrote:

 

I recall seeing some articles from back when reversal transparency film was first introduced that expressed a concern that it would not be as sharp as negative, due to emulsion swelling during the much longer processing time (reversal takes two developers and stop/fix baths as compared to one for negative film), as well as the (very minute) difference in thickness, the reversal being thicker due to more emulsion layers.   This proved not to be the case in practice.    For equal sensitivities, there is no difference in the resolution of negative and reversal films.   

There used to be a negative emulsion called "slide print film" for making transparencies (slides) from either ordinary negarive still camera film or from motion picture negative stock.   It was essentially the same as negative camera film, except that it did not have the orange-colored filter layer.   The results were not visibly different from what you would get with a reversal chromogenic film like Ektachrome.   Some people claimed that they were sharper than Ektachromes, but I shot both and they could not pick out which were from negative and which were reversal.

When you stop to think about it, when you contact print negative-to-negative, in terms of image this is no different than "printing" a negative-to-negative on a film like Ektachrome in your camera.  During processing of the "chrome", you bleach out the "negative" silver halide image emulsion from the original camera exposure, and are left with the "dye layer" image which is now a negative-of-a-negative, which of course appears as a positive.  Exactly the same as if you printed a negative to another negative to create the positive.

JR

On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Bill G <bglick@rconnects.com> wrote:

 

JR, I am not in the cinema field...... but did spend a lot of time testing cine film 5 years ago.
I thought the big two made positive cinema film, because I have sampled a few varieties, both Kodak and Fuji.    i.e. a cine film writer which wrote direct to film.   No intermediate used.....

But based on what you wrote, I am thinking they printed direct to neg film in a reverse manner?   hmmmm...  the final film was sharper than any neg film I have ever seen...?

Bill

  

I


  

On 9/24/2011 7:45 AM, JR wrote:

 

Motion picture film is negative all the way through: acquistion,
interpositive, internegative, work prints, answer prints, release
prints. They do not use any reversal film (slide film is reversal).
Basically, when printing, two negatives make a positive. So,
although a release print may look like a positive transparency, it is
really a negative, printed from the previous generation negative. At
one time, there was a CRL stage, which was indeed a reversal film.
But that part of the chain was dropped many years ago.

Typically a 90 minute feature consists of five reels. Years ago,
short subjects, news, and a cartoon were added, making six reels.
These were shipped as two containers, each three reels. Now that
only features are shipped, they have two size containers, with three
reels in one and two in the other. Not as balanced when you are
carrying them. Trailers, ads, etc. are now shipped separately from
other locations, not from the feature distributor.

Shipping costs are the main reason that distributors (not the studios)
like digital. You could probably ship at least a couple dozen or more
(depending on packaging) features on hard drives in the same size and
weight as one film feature. Of course the studios recognize the
importance of the distributor to the delivery of their product.

The studios are bottom line oriented. They could care less if the
product was delivered on film, hard drives, by satellite, whatever.

JR

On 9/23/11, bob_karambelas <bob_karambelas@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yeah... and digital archiving is pretty trivial, really. It's hard for
> individuals to ensure their great-grandchildren will find their pictures,
> but every major media outlet has digital archives of one sort or another.
>
> Seems reassuring that we'll have slide film beyond the next year or two.
> But the next recession will thin out the options further, I suspect.
>
> What I wonder is... isn't slide film somewhat different than cinema print
> film? Doesn't it still require a separate production run, at least for the
> coating?
>
>
> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bill G wrote:
> Which number do you think will have
>> precedent in controlling whether the big film makers will continue to
>> produce film on a
>> cost effective basis?
>>
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>
>
>

--
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

--
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

--
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bob Venezia wrote:
>
> Okay Ron, I'm game. I just wanted to be sure you understood that the
> goat's head, from top of scalp to bottom of beard, is about 5/64s of
> an inch.
>
> But I'm curious to see if you can squeeze more out of the V-750 than
> I've been able to get. I haven't tweaked the height adjustment on the
> film holder since I first got it, so I should maybe do that before I
> send it off.
>
> What scanner software are you running? I have Silverfast Studio AI. I
> have not opted for the most recent upgrade. The rules for the contest
> are "no sharpening." That's pretty much it for the rules.
>
> Let the games begin!
>
> Bob
>
> On Sep 24, 2011, at 10:34 AM, studio3_d wrote:
>
> > I understand your reluctance to send original film via mail! I was
> > just looking at the difference between the Epson and Imacon. I hoped
> > I could get somewhere in between... willing to try if you're "game".
> >
> > ron
> >
> > --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bob Venezia wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Ron,
> > >
> > > You did look at the full shot to see how large the goat is in
> > relation to the entire frame, right? I think we're talking about an
> > area of the film that's about 1/4 inch high.
> > >
> > > I'd be a little nervous sending this shot in the mail but if you
> > really think you could do better i'd entertain it. In the end i
> > don't think there's any way you could top the imacon, though.
> > >
> > > Bob
>

 

I'm really enjoying this discussion, as I'm learning so much new information about the film I love...

JR's reporting on the use of negative films throughout the cinematic processing and distribution makes sense. I never knew that and find it fascinating. But doesn't that mean that the fortunes of cine film distribution and archiving will have little impact on the economics of _reversal_ slide film production? If slide films are in fact not being used in the cine industry, what is keeping them alive now? Who is presently still using slide films in any quantity??

John, I don't understand your claim that shooting slide film in a camera is functionally no different from shooting a negative film and then making a contact print on another negative film. In proposing this equivalence, you point out the fact that chrome film has a silver halide layer which is bleached out in processing, leaving behind the dye layer.

But even so, this does not make reversal film exposing and processing the same as negative exposing and processing and then contact printing to another negative film, and processing that separately. Are you suggesting that the silver halide image in the chrome film is somehow processed/developed "in-camera" during the initial exposure, and then that this is somehow followed by the dye layer being exposed through a silver halide image at the same time??

Years ago, when I first started shooting stereo, I obtained one of those cine negative films that you would then mail in to obtain positive dupe slides - all at a very economical cost (Portland? Seattle? films). I was just starting to make my 2x2x2 stereo slide sets for sale to collectors, and I wanted to be ready in case there was a lot of demand for copies (ha!). I found the image quality on the positive dupes to be terrible - washed out contrast, dull and shifted color, and visibly reduced detail. Maybe those positives were optically printed (as opposed to contact printed). But then again, I don't think they were made any differently from the way a cinematic print would have been made... my impression was that the service piggy-backed their film onto left-over time on cine processing equipment. ... or old worn-out equipment?

I'd love it if you could shed more light on these questions, even if at this point the information might be somewhat irrelevant to our situation in re. chrome reversal films.

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "borisstarosta" wrote:

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Bill G <bglick@rconnects.com> wrote:

 

Boris.... regardless of whether positive or negative film, the film making process is the same, with acetate base with different ingredients on the acetate.... the point being, cine film is keeping the plants running, as a single reel is 2000 ft of film... JR mentioned approx 5 reels per movie, or 10k ft per single movie, x 30k theaters = 300,000,000 ft for a single movie x how many movies released per year?    300M feet equals 100M rolls of 35mm photographic film.... x min. 50 - 100 releases per year.   That should put usage in perspective and demonstrate how cinema film is our life raft....  hence why I mentioned,  we are at the mercy of cinema theaters converting to all digital.... 

The studios are the beneficiaries of digital savings, as they do NOT have to pay approx. $300k per movie release for film duping....this was the value given to me from a rep who does the duping work.    Its this savings the studios are willing to share with the theaters to help convert to digital.... hence why the conversion alliance was formed by the studios.... as they all have the same common goal....  not good for us  :-(

In the end, the big studios will dictate everything.....the theaters and film manufacturers are all at their mercy ..... just like we are....  
deep chest freezers are cheap  :-)   and they hold a LOT of film....

b

 

I'm really enjoying this discussion, as I'm learning so much new information about the film I love...

JR's reporting on the use of negative films throughout the cinematic processing and distribution makes sense. I never knew that and find it fascinating. But doesn't that mean that the fortunes of cine film distribution and archiving will have little impact on the economics of _reversal_ slide film production? If slide films are in fact not being used in the cine industry, what is keeping them alive now? Who is presently still using slide films in any quantity??

John, I don't understand your claim that shooting slide film in a camera is functionally no different from shooting a negative film and then making a contact print on another negative film. In proposing this equivalence, you point out the fact that chrome film has a silver halide layer which is bleached out in processing, leaving behind the dye layer.

But even so, this does not make reversal film exposing and processing the same as negative exposing and processing and then contact printing to another negative film, and processing that separately. Are you suggesting that the silver halide image in the chrome film is somehow processed/developed "in-camera" during the initial exposure, and then that this is somehow followed by the dye layer being exposed through a silver halide image at the same time??

Years ago, when I first started shooting stereo, I obtained one of those cine negative films that you would then mail in to obtain positive dupe slides - all at a very economical cost (Portland? Seattle? films). I was just starting to make my 2x2x2 stereo slide sets for sale to collectors, and I wanted to be ready in case there was a lot of demand for copies (ha!). I found the image quality on the positive dupes to be terrible - washed out contrast, dull and shifted color, and visibly reduced detail. Maybe those positives were optically printed (as opposed to contact printed). But then again, I don't think they were made any differently from the way a cinematic print would have been made... my impression was that the service piggy-backed their film onto left-over time on cine processing equipment. ... or old worn-out equipment?

I'd love it if you could shed more light on these questions, even if at this point the information might be somewhat irrelevant to our situation in re. chrome reversal films.

--
A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems -- Alfréd Rényi

 

Bill, I understand now that without a need for Cine films for distribution, all film factories would shut down for lack of anything much to do...  but even making particular types of film - e.g. reversal slide film - must have some economies of scale involved.   Otherwise we wouldn't have witnessed the disappearance recently of Kodachrome, all 220 format films, and currently the disappearance of several E-6 emulsions, etc.  

                        OK, this is a very valid point....  some emulsions will be discontinued long before film is history.   We saw this happen in Large Format film, where demand was so low, it did not warrant a run.   I see on the some forums, groups get together and put together a min. $25k order to force Fuji to make a run, often these are planned 6 months in advance.   No simple task.   My guess is, before the roll film is discontinued, we will have advance notice, time to stock up....  

This discussion at present is of interest because we'd all like a good estimate of how much more time we have for the few remaining reversal slide (E-6) emulsions in 120 format.  For the longer view, it would be of interest to see what alternatives exist to E-6 process (e.g. Dr. 5), and how long those might remain.

                             There will always be e-6 processing, as a low cost Jobo processor does as good of a job with single use chemicals as any big lab...although a bit more labor intensive....  many basement operations will be around for as long as film is around...  e-6 chemicals are not unique. 

Right now, it's a mystery to me why slide films are still being made.  Slide films were shot by the thousands of rolls per year per professional (times thousands of professionals) in the commercial stills photography / product illustration / advertising / fashion / etc. industries.  No one in those industries shoots slides anymore.  Even art photographers have mostly gotten out of slide film, if they ever even used it (I don't think very many did), myself included.  So my question is: if only 0.01% of the historical users of slide film still use slide film, why is it still being made at all?  What use of reversal slide film am I missing?

                                  You are soooo right.... from what I was told at a trade show....at least for Fuji, they are making photographic film as a courtesy for now, mainly for their own Japanese markets, where more people supposedly still shoot film.   They even have some emulsions sold in Japan, but no where else in the world.   However, as you suggest, every dog has its day, and sooner or later, a bean counter will take a good hard look at this part of the business and prob. make a suggestion to pull the plug.... 2 years?  5 years?  10 years?   I think its anyone guess...  if one of the big 2 quit, it will allow the other one to survive longer....

I had thought it was Cine uses when we all started talking on this thread, but JR has dispelled that notion.

                        .... all cine and photographic film, whether neg or positive is made in the same plants.... very similar process...

Can a film factory economically switch from it's typical negative film production to reversal slide film for just one day out of the year??

                            this is exactly the problem, and why certain formats or emulsions are eliminated... their is a min. run these plants require to change-over to make a certain size or film type, and thats where this gets tricky.    And its why I bet we will slowly see some emulsions dropped.    I was amazed that even in sheet film, Fuji and Kodak stopped making certain sizes, as I guess its too costly to change over the cutting systems for such low volume...all color sheet film is the same thickness regardless of size.  


Bill

cheers,

Boris

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Bill G <bglick@rconnects.com> wrote:

 

Boris.... regardless of whether positive or negative film, the film making process is the same, with acetate base with different ingredients on the acetate.... the point being, cine film is keeping the plants running, as a single reel is 2000 ft of film... JR mentioned approx 5 reels per movie, or 10k ft per single movie, x 30k theaters = 300,000,000 ft for a single movie x how many movies released per year?    300M feet equals 100M rolls of 35mm photographic film.... x min. 50 - 100 releases per year.   That should put usage in perspective and demonstrate how cinema film is our life raft....  hence why I mentioned,  we are at the mercy of cinema theaters converting to all digital.... 

The studios are the beneficiaries of digital savings, as they do NOT have to pay approx. $300k per movie release for film duping....this was the value given to me from a rep who does the duping work.    Its this savings the studios are willing to share with the theaters to help convert to digital.... hence why the conversion alliance was formed by the studios.... as they all have the same common goal....  not good for us  :-(

In the end, the big studios will dictate everything.....the theaters and film manufacturers are all at their mercy ..... just like we are....  
deep chest freezers are cheap  :-)   and they hold a LOT of film....

b

 

I'm really enjoying this discussion, as I'm learning so much new information about the film I love...

JR's reporting on the use of negative films throughout the cinematic processing and distribution makes sense. I never knew that and find it fascinating. But doesn't that mean that the fortunes of cine film distribution and archiving will have little impact on the economics of _reversal_ slide film production? If slide films are in fact not being used in the cine industry, what is keeping them alive now? Who is presently still using slide films in any quantity??

John, I don't understand your claim that shooting slide film in a camera is functionally no different from shooting a negative film and then making a contact print on another negative film. In proposing this equivalence, you point out the fact that chrome film has a silver halide layer which is bleached out in processing, leaving behind the dye layer.

But even so, this does not make reversal film exposing and processing the same as negative exposing and processing and then contact printing to another negative film, and processing that separately. Are you suggesting that the silver halide image in the chrome film is somehow processed/developed "in-camera" during the initial exposure, and then that this is somehow followed by the dye layer being exposed through a silver halide image at the same time??

Years ago, when I first started shooting stereo, I obtained one of those cine negative films that you would then mail in to obtain positive dupe slides - all at a very economical cost (Portland? Seattle? films). I was just starting to make my 2x2x2 stereo slide sets for sale to collectors, and I wanted to be ready in case there was a lot of demand for copies (ha!). I found the image quality on the positive dupes to be terrible - washed out contrast, dull and shifted color, and visibly reduced detail. Maybe those positives were optically printed (as opposed to contact printed). But then again, I don't think they were made any differently from the way a cinematic print would have been made... my impression was that the service piggy-backed their film onto left-over time on cine processing equipment. ... or old worn-out equipment?

I'd love it if you could shed more light on these questions, even if at this point the information might be somewhat irrelevant to our situation in re. chrome reversal films.

--
A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems -- Alfréd Rényi

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bill G wrote:

> There will come a tipping point, where the
> remaining film maker(s) will force the studios for min. orders to keep plants open.....
> if at some point in the time, if the only use for cine film is for archiving, the studios
> will have to take on min. annual orders to keep the plants open, which are prob. capable
> of producing 10000x more film than required for archiving purposes..... my bet is, the
> studios, or other technology companies like Technicolor will have convinced the studios of
> other forms of archiving at that point in time.... or the studios make a massive purchase
> and deep freeze them as a safety measure, knowing an archiving alternative will be
> available. Time will tell on this one.... should be interesting...
>
>
> Bill

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Bill G <bglick@rconnects.com> wrote:

                            ...this is exactly the problem, and why certain formats or emulsions are eliminated... their is a min. run these plants require to change-over to make a certain size or film type, and thats where this gets tricky.    And its why I bet we will slowly see some emulsions dropped.    I was amazed that even in sheet film, Fuji and Kodak stopped making certain sizes, as I guess its too costly to change over the cutting systems for such low volume...all color sheet film is the same thickness regardless of size.  
 
Bill

And, the problem is even more complex than that.   A one-day production at any one time would likely not be practical for another reason.  

Film manufacture and distribution (for any market, cine, still, whatever) must be spread over a reasonable amount of time (usually a minimum of three months, a year being preferable).   The reason is that after an emulsion is coated, it must "ripen".  

You may notice the expiration date for some films.   This is not a specific "cut-off" date when the film will suddenly die.  Rather, all raw unprocessed film starts to change (speed, color balance, etc.) on the day it is manufactured, and this change continues until it is no longer usable.  

The "expiration date" is based on a number that the manufacturer determines (from experience) is such that the user will no longer accept the amount of change.   

In fact, you would not want to use a film on the day it was manufactured, as the results would be quite different from what you would expect or want.   The greatest amount of change occurs at the beginning, and gradually tapers off (less-and-less-change) as the film ages.   Therefore, the manufacturer specifies certain characteristics for a certain time period during which the film will be "within tolerance" of their stated advertised characteristics.  

Film is never shipped on the day it is made.   Rather, it is allowed to "ripen" for a specified period of time.   For example, Kodak film is shipped to the Orient before it is distributed in the U.S. (they have a shipping calendar), and Fuji Film is shipped to the U.S. before it is shipped to distributors in Japan.   If it is shipped by air, this difference may be only a day or two, otherwise longer.   Surface shipments have greater differences (they are shipped closer to the manufacture date).    Other countries in-between are also proportioned according to expected shipping time.

After a particular film is coated, the ripening time (before it is shipped from the factory) also varies by film type, and even emulsion batch (samples are drawn and tested at regular intervals).    Each emulsion has a specific emulsion number that can be traced back to the factory coating date.   That is why professionals usually buy "bricks" with the same emulsion number, so as to insure as much consistency as possible.    When you buy several rolls of a particular type of film, you actually can specify that they all have the same emulsion number from the dealer.   Most dealers honor this. 

Some dealers (usually smaller ones, now nearly non-existent) choose to store film at ambient temperatures and humidity "on the shelf"; other dealers (the big boys whom you usually buy from now) will freeze it.   Film manufacturers also base their shipping dates on this fact, and will ship to the distributor or dealer depending on this information as well.   See, it is far from simple.   

JR

cheers,

Boris

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Bill G <bglick@rconnects.com> wrote:

 

Boris.... regardless of whether positive or negative film, the film making process is the same, with acetate base with different ingredients on the acetate.... the point being, cine film is keeping the plants running, as a single reel is 2000 ft of film... JR mentioned approx 5 reels per movie, or 10k ft per single movie, x 30k theaters = 300,000,000 ft for a single movie x how many movies released per year?    300M feet equals 100M rolls of 35mm photographic film.... x min. 50 - 100 releases per year.   That should put usage in perspective and demonstrate how cinema film is our life raft....  hence why I mentioned,  we are at the mercy of cinema theaters converting to all digital.... 

The studios are the beneficiaries of digital savings, as they do NOT have to pay approx. $300k per movie release for film duping....this was the value given to me from a rep who does the duping work.    Its this savings the studios are willing to share with the theaters to help convert to digital.... hence why the conversion alliance was formed by the studios.... as they all have the same common goal....  not good for us  :-(

In the end, the big studios will dictate everything.....the theaters and film manufacturers are all at their mercy ..... just like we are....  
deep chest freezers are cheap  :-)   and they hold a LOT of film....

b

 

I'm really enjoying this discussion, as I'm learning so much new information about the film I love...

JR's reporting on the use of negative films throughout the cinematic processing and distribution makes sense. I never knew that and find it fascinating. But doesn't that mean that the fortunes of cine film distribution and archiving will have little impact on the economics of _reversal_ slide film production? If slide films are in fact not being used in the cine industry, what is keeping them alive now? Who is presently still using slide films in any quantity??

John, I don't understand your claim that shooting slide film in a camera is functionally no different from shooting a negative film and then making a contact print on another negative film. In proposing this equivalence, you point out the fact that chrome film has a silver halide layer which is bleached out in processing, leaving behind the dye layer.

But even so, this does not make reversal film exposing and processing the same as negative exposing and processing and then contact printing to another negative film, and processing that separately. Are you suggesting that the silver halide image in the chrome film is somehow processed/developed "in-camera" during the initial exposure, and then that this is somehow followed by the dye layer being exposed through a silver halide image at the same time??

Years ago, when I first started shooting stereo, I obtained one of those cine negative films that you would then mail in to obtain positive dupe slides - all at a very economical cost (Portland? Seattle? films). I was just starting to make my 2x2x2 stereo slide sets for sale to collectors, and I wanted to be ready in case there was a lot of demand for copies (ha!). I found the image quality on the positive dupes to be terrible - washed out contrast, dull and shifted color, and visibly reduced detail. Maybe those positives were optically printed (as opposed to contact printed). But then again, I don't think they were made any differently from the way a cinematic print would have been made... my impression was that the service piggy-backed their film onto left-over time on cine processing equipment. ... or old worn-out equipment?

I'd love it if you could shed more light on these questions, even if at this point the information might be somewhat irrelevant to our situation in re. chrome reversal films.

--
A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems -- Alfréd Rényi

--
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "bob_karambelas" wrote:
>

 

And for those who hadn't been following... Kodak itself is at death's door.

http://247wallst.com/2011/09/24/kodak-its-credibility-gone-now-had-viability-trouble/

Pretty amazing. But there's hardly anything left of the company, and it'll probably be sold off in pieces over the next couple of years, either before or after a Chapter 11 filing.

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "bob_karambelas" wrote:
>

 

Seems to me that we'll hit a period when most US and perhaps European theaters have converted to digital... but theaters in less wealthy areas won't be able to afford conversion for quite some time. At some point (perhaps already), Hollywood might be subsidizing film production just to get distribution in foreign markets. That's probably the last big incentive to keep it in production, more than archiving.

                         Bob, its stories like this one below, that leads me to believe transition to digital / 3d will happen faster than anticipated as technology on the projection end is moving at warp speed....

• After watching a demo of RED's laser projector I've been struggling to find a way to describe it. Comparing it to traditional professional systems is completely inadequate. I have never witnessed 3D that was as bright or brighter as the best 2D projections until now. It generated the best color, best dynamic range and best images I have ever seen in 3D or even 2D. When I learned we were watching at 1/4 of its total resolution I was speechless.";
• “so clean and so vibrant the only thing I can compare it to is Cibachrome. That’s it, a giant moving Cibachrome!” ;
• “I have NEVER seen better projection – from any projector – at any price point. I can’t stop thinking about it. It was beyond stunning” ...

Check yourself the last posts on Jim Jannard (CEO and founder of RED) RED user forum.

The RED projector will have 4K resolution, be able to illuminate larger screens, work in daylight conditions and uses passive glasses as lasers are emitting natively polarized light. Price of course not known but expected around 30 K$ to 50 K$ for the cinema projector. Availability may be faster than you think: less than 12 months is the unofficial answer.

 

I guess we can only pray that somebody with deep pockets, and a love of the film hobby, will buy their film division.

                        This is like someone buying typewriter technology after the advent of word processors / pc's....   but in this case, it would take reallllly deep pockets....   capitalism can be cruel....

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bill G wrote:
>
>
> Perfect timing Bob...sad, but timely information, thx for posting.... sheeeesh
>
> Boris, get the deep chest freezer, NOW! :-)

> >I guess we can only pray that somebody with deep pockets, and a
> >love of the film hobby, will buy their film division.
>
> This is like someone buying typewriter
> technology after the advent of word processors / pc's.... but in
> this case, it would take reallllly deep pockets.... capitalism can
> be cruel....

>
> And for those who hadn't been following... Kodak itself is at death's door.
>
> http://247wallst.com/2011/09/24/kodak-its-credibility-gone-now-had-viability-trouble/
>
> Pretty amazing. But there's hardly anything left of the company,
> and it'll probably be sold off in pieces over the next couple of
> years, either before or after a Chapter 11 filing.

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:49 PM, coronet3d <coronet3d@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, JR wrote:
>larger sizes of Kodachrome were for still use only

I have read that back during Kodachrome's heyday, that some cinema releases were shot and projected using Kodachrome. I believe this was back during the time when Kodak was processing Kodachrome sheet film. I'd have to research it further to find out which titles were shot on Kodachrome.
Steve

--
stereoscope3d@gmail.com

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Brian Reynolds wrote:

> I would take that article with a mine full of salt. The tone and
> style of that article is at best alarmist. The author is pretty loose
> with mixing fact and opinion without clear distinction. There are no
> references as to where he's getting his numbers.
>
> The beer article at that site (which in classic link bait style is
> split across three page views) is better written, researched, and
> cited.
>
> --
> Brian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship.
> reynolds@... | You push some buttons and see
> http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what happens." -- Zapp Brannigan
> NAR# 54438 |
>

>
> I just chose that one article from many similar ones for ease of linking. Kodak stock
> was down 25% on the news to a 38-year low, that's all the analysis you need. The
> situation is that they need to get cash flow positive this winter, or they won't make it
> another year. They plan to sell some patents, but that's a one-time thing, and any money
> raised would be invested in the printer business.
>

>
>
> I've seen many companies in this situation, rarely do they survive intact.
>
> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com , Brian Reynolds
> wrote:
>
> > I would take that article with a mine full of salt. The tone and
> > style of that article is at best alarmist. The author is pretty loose
> > with mixing fact and opinion without clear distinction. There are no
> > references as to where he's getting his numbers.
> >
> > The beer article at that site (which in classic link bait style is
> > split across three page views) is better written, researched, and
> > cited.
> >
> > --
> > Brian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship.
> > reynolds@... | You push some buttons and see
> > http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ <http://www.panix.com/%7Ereynolds/> | what happens."
> -- Zapp Brannigan
> > NAR# 54438 |
> >
>
>

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bill G wrote:

On 9/28/2011 11:18 AM, bob_karambelas wrote:
>
>
>
> Well, I don't see Kodak shutting down or selling the film business, unless they hit
> bankruptcy. That's just my feeling, but divesting film wouldn't save the company... if
> they can run it at break-even, then they'll keep it, just to protect the brand name.
> It's not like they're making money at anything else.
>
> Silver prices finally broke recently, so that should improve film profitability in the
> near future.
>
> BTW... there was a report earlier this summer that Kodak's patent portfolio could fetch
> as much as five times the company's market value, which gave the stock quite a pop.
>
> If forced to predict, I'd say Kodak will have cash problems by spring/summer 2012, and
> go into reorg. At that point, Lucky might pick up some film assets at bargain prices.
> But the patent portfolio is worth more than all of Kodak's operations.
>
> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com , Bill G
> wrote:
>
>

> On 9/28/2011 5:45 AM, bob_karambelas wrote:
> >
> > I just chose that one article from many similar ones for ease of
> > linking. Kodak stock was down 25% on the news to a 38-year low,
> > that's all the analysis you need. The situation is that they need
> > to get cash flow positive this winter, or they won't make it
> > another year. They plan to sell some patents, but that's a
> > one-time thing, and any money raised would be invested in the
> > printer business.
>
> Bob, fully agreed, stock price is often the ultimate indicator, as
> trained investors have a good feel for the direction of a
> company....

> you correctly point out how slim the margins are in film.... I feel
> Kodak can move in one of two directions.... raise prices, or sell
> the film division before closing it. (in due time of course)

> Since I doubt anyone would pay a fair price for it, I would assume
> the next move is to raise film prices....

> if Fuji does not follow, it might be the "beginning of the end" for
> Kodak films. I still think a company like LUCKY films would buy the
> assets, even if its pennies on the dollar, maybe a stock swap.

> Anyway, I think if one of the two giants survive, film will be
> around much longer as the failed firms sales volume will move to the
> survivor

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bill G wrote:
>
> Interesting info Bob, thx for sharing....
> what is the big score in the patents, printer technology?
> b
>
>

> --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bill G wrote:
> >
> > Interesting info Bob, thx for sharing.... what is the big score
> > in the patents, printer technology?
>
> Apparently, the patents they're trying to sell relate to "digital
> imaging." Not sure what, but they were early pioneers, I imagine
> they have quite a portfolio.

On 28-Sep-11, at 4:45 PM, Brian Reynolds wrote:

 

Bill G wrote:

If Kodak were to sell their film division I don't think the buyer
would close it. There is a market for Kodak films. Kodak's problem
is that their production lines are geared towards a much larger
market.

> Since I doubt anyone would pay a fair price for it, I would assume
> the next move is to raise film prices....

They've already done so, and I wouldn't be surprised it they did
again.

> if Fuji does not follow, it might be the "beginning of the end" for
> Kodak films. I still think a company like LUCKY films would buy the
> assets, even if its pennies on the dollar, maybe a stock swap.


Brian Reynolds | "The market can stay irrational
reynolds@panix.com | longer than you can stay solvent."
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | -- John Maynard Keynes
NAR# 54438 |

> Boris Starosta wrote:
> >Bill, I understand now that without a need for Cine films for
> >distribution, all film factories would shut down for lack of
> >anything much to do...

> >but even making particular types of film - e.g. reversal slide film
> >- must have some economies of scale involved. Otherwise we
> >wouldn't have witnessed the disappearance recently of Kodachrome,
> >all 220 format films, and currently the disappearance of several
> >E-6 emulsions, etc.
>
> OK, this is a very valid point.... some emulsions will be
> discontinued long before film is history. We saw this happen in
> Large Format film, where demand was so low, it did not warrant a
> run. I see on the some forums, groups get together and put together
> a min. $25k order to force Fuji to make a run, often these are
> planned 6 months in advance. No simple task.

> My guess is, before the roll film is discontinued, we will have
> advance notice, time to stock up....

> >This discussion at present is of interest because we'd all like a
> >good estimate of how much more time we have for the few remaining
> >reversal slide (E-6) emulsions in 120 format. For the longer
> >view, it would be of interest to see what alternatives exist to
> >E-6 process (e.g. Dr. 5), and how long those might remain.
>
> There will always be e-6 processing, as a low cost Jobo processor
> does as good of a job with single use chemicals as any big
> lab...although a bit more labor intensive.... many basement
> operations will be around for as long as film is around... e-6
> chemicals are not unique.

> >Can a film factory economically switch from it's typical negative
> >film production to reversal slide film for just one day out of the
> >year??
>
> this is exactly the problem, and why certain formats or emulsions
> are eliminated... their is a min. run these plants require to
> change-over to make a certain size or film type, and thats where
> this gets tricky. And its why I bet we will slowly see some
> emulsions dropped. I was amazed that even in sheet film, Fuji and
> Kodak stopped making certain sizes, as I guess its too costly to
> change over the cutting systems for such low volume...all color
> sheet film is the same thickness regardless of size.

> One of the problems with this situation is that there is no
> information available about what emulsion/size combinations are in
> danger. If it was known, maybe people wouldn't be complacent about
> putting off their film orders and sales could go up. On the onther
> hand people might flee a low selling film and hasten its demise.

> On 9/28/2011 8:46 PM, Brian Reynolds wrote:
>
> > One of the problems with this situation is that there is no
> > information available about what emulsion/size combinations are in
> > danger. If it was known, maybe people wouldn't be complacent about
> > putting off their film orders and sales could go up. On the onther
> > hand people might flee a low selling film and hasten its demise.
>
> Thereby aggregating the users on fewer emulsions and making
> the remaining SKUs more viable.

>
> One of the problems with this situation is that there is no
> information available about what emulsion/size combinations are in
> danger. If it was known, maybe people wouldn't be complacent about
> putting off their film orders and sales could go up.
>
>

>
>

> Brian Reynolds wrote:
> > One of the problems with this situation is that there is no
> > information available about what emulsion/size combinations are in
> > danger. If it was known, maybe people wouldn't be complacent about
> > putting off their film orders and sales could go up.
> >
> We can only hope, that the BIGS handle a size or emulsion close-out
> like they did with Kodachrome..... yeah, I know, special processing
> chemicals, blah blah blah.... I get it,.... sometimes I don't write
> all this out, as I assume most of us on this list know many of these
> details.....

> anyway, if these companies cared about their customers, they can
> give advance notice....

> Agreed on the min. order to make a run, I mentioned this several
> times in previous posts....and I have seen the same thing you have,
> sometimes it takes a long time to fill a special order....Kieth
> Canham better continue spear-heading this, otherwise, it can fall
> apart, he is an ideal candidate, as he has EVERYTHING at stake, both
> the cameras and the film......

>
> In the US corporations have a legal fiscal duty to maximize
> shareholder profit, not maximize customer satisfaction.
>

> Keith Canham will do fine whether or not the Kodak orders work out.
>

>

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "bob_karambelas" wrote:

On 9/30/2011 12:59 PM, bob_karambelas wrote:

 

Uh oh....

"Kodak plunges 60% on bankruptcy fears"

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/kodak-plunges-60-on-bankruptcy-fears-2011-09-30

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "bob_karambelas" wrote:

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bill G wrote:
>
> Well Bob, your analysis was "spot on"....
> you might have a future on Wall Street....
>
> Now, why did I not "short" Kodak after you posted your analysis?
> ahhh yeah, I read Brians post, darn it! just kiddin... hee hee...
>
> Anyway, its these shock-waves that often force Board decisions ahead of their time....
>
> funny the timing of this thread, and this news.... well, funny is not the right word,
> maybe ironic...
>
> b
>
>
>
> On 9/30/2011 12:59 PM, bob_karambelas wrote:
> >
> > Uh oh....
> >
> > "Kodak plunges 60% on bankruptcy fears"
> >
> > http://www.marketwatch.com/story/kodak-plunges-60-on-bankruptcy-fears-2011-09-30
> >
> > --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com ,
> > "bob_karambelas" wrote:
> >
> >
>

On 9/30/2011 2:43 PM, bob_karambelas wrote:

 

Knowing that a company is in trouble and trading for a profit are two entirely different skills, and I don't have the constitution for the latter.

                            You do realize, I was jokin....?     

anyway, these things happen to companies on the decline, stock values are very volatile when your largest % of sales comes from a rapidly declining customer base..

b

Anyway, after closing, management said they had no intention to file bankruptcy, and the stock is up substantially.

Really, anything could come out of this, and I still don't expect a bankruptcy before next year. But it's worth keeping an eye on, because it's a perilous situation.

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bill G wrote:
>
> Well Bob, your analysis was "spot on"....
> you might have a future on Wall Street....
>
> Now, why did I not "short" Kodak after you posted your analysis?
> ahhh yeah, I read Brians post, darn it! just kiddin... hee hee...
>
> Anyway, its these shock-waves that often force Board decisions ahead of their time....
>
> funny the timing of this thread, and this news.... well, funny is not the right word,
> maybe ironic...
>
> b
>
>
>
> On 9/30/2011 12:59 PM, bob_karambelas wrote:
> >
> > Uh oh....
> >
> > "Kodak plunges 60% on bankruptcy fears"
> >
> > http://www.marketwatch.com/story/kodak-plunges-60-on-bankruptcy-fears-2011-09-30
> >
> > --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com ,
> > "bob_karambelas" wrote:
> >
> >
>

Kodak shares plunge as bankruptcy fears escalate

Kodak stock falls more than 50 pct amid bankruptcy speculation that company says is unfounded

• tweet13
• Email
• Print

• Companies:

  • Eastman Kodak Company Common St
  • Lazard LTD. Lazard, LTD. Class

Related Quotes

Symbol	Price	Change
EK	0.78	-0.91
LAZ	21.10	-1.30

Follow these stocks

{"s" : "ek,laz","k" : "a00,a50,b00,b60,c10,g00,h00,l10,p20,t10,v00","o" : "","j" : ""}

Michael Liedtke, AP Business Writer, On Friday September 30, 2011, 6:18 pm EDT

Investors dumped Eastman Kodak's stock Friday amid fears that the photography pioneer is headed toward bankruptcy.

After its stock lost more than half its value in a volatile day of trading, Kodak tried to paint a rosier picture. "Kodak is committed to meeting all of its obligations and has no intention of filing for bankruptcy," the company said in a statement. The reassurance lifted Kodak shares in extended trading, but the rebound wasn't enough to undo the damage sustained in a brutal week for a hallowed name in U.S. business.

The Wall Street Journal rattled Kodak's already jittery shareholders with a Friday report that the company has hired Jones Day, a law firm that dispenses advice on bankruptcies and other restructuring alternatives.

Kodak confirmed the Jones Day hiring in its statement, describing the firm as one of several advisers helping its management turn around the Rochester, N.Y., company after losing nearly $1.8 billion since 2007. "It is not unusual for a company in transformation to explore all options and to engage a variety of outside advisers," Kodak said.

Friday's news followed a Kodak disclosure earlier this week that the company was borrowing $160 million from a $400 million line of credit.

The daisy chain of events convinced some investors that Kodak is running out of cash as it scrambles to adapt to the age of digital imagery.

Eastman Kodak Co. shares plunged 91 cents, or 54 percent, to close at 78 cents per share. The stock regained 35 cents in extended trading after management defused the bankruptcy speculation. The shares stood at $2.38 at the beginning of the week.

The selling was so intense during Friday's regular session that the shares temporarily stopped trading under the New York Stock Exchange's automated controls. At one point, Kodak's stock sagged to a new low of just 54 cents.

After 131 years in business, Kodak finds itself on shaky ground largely because of the shift to digital cameras. That change, coupled with tougher foreign competition, has undercut sales of the film that made Kodak famous.

To survive, the company has been mining its patent portfolio for additional cash. Since 2008, Kodak has pocketed nearly $2 billion in royalties and licensing fees. In July, Kodak hired investment bankers Lazard Ltd. to sell about 1,100 digital-imaging patents.

The question now is whether those measures will be enough to keep Kodak afloat. The company had $957 million in cash as of June 30, down from $1.6 billion at the start of the year.

----- Original Message -----

From: Bill G

To: MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 6:12 PM

Subject: Re: [MF3D-group] Re: Kodak drops 1/3 in value

 

On 9/30/2011 2:43 PM, bob_karambelas wrote:

 

Knowing that a company is in trouble and trading for a profit are two entirely different skills, and I don't have the constitution for the latter.

                            You do realize, I was jokin....?     

anyway, these things happen to companies on the decline, stock values are very volatile when your largest % of sales comes from a rapidly declining customer base..

b

Anyway, after closing, management said they had no intention to file bankruptcy, and the stock is up substantially.

Really, anything could come out of this, and I still don't expect a bankruptcy before next year. But it's worth keeping an eye on, because it's a perilous situation.

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, Bill G wrote:
>
> Well Bob, your analysis was "spot on"....
> you might have a future on Wall Street....
>
> Now, why did I not "short" Kodak after you posted your analysis?
> ahhh yeah, I read Brians post, darn it! just kiddin... hee hee...
>
> Anyway, its these shock-waves that often force Board decisions ahead of their time....
>
> funny the timing of this thread, and this news.... well, funny is not the right word,
> maybe ironic...
>
> b
>
>
>
> On 9/30/2011 12:59 PM, bob_karambelas wrote:
> >
> > Uh oh....
> >
> > "Kodak plunges 60% on bankruptcy fears"
> >
> > http://www.marketwatch.com/story/kodak-plunges-60-on-bankruptcy-fears-2011-09-30
> >
> > --- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com ,
> > "bob_karambelas" wrote:
> >
> >
>

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1410 / Virus Database: 1520/3929 - Release Date: 09/30/11

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "bob_karambelas" wrote:
>
> If you enjoy learning about film, I highly recommend Robert Shanebrook's book, "Making Kodak Film". http://www.makingkodakfilm.com/