Kodachrome movie film

[tbs]

In my ongoing attempt to make myself the number one Kodachrome geek in the

world, I was doing a little checking on that font of all truth and accuracy,

Wikipedia. In the Kodachrome entry, paragraph one, there is a mention of

Kodachrome being produced as a 35mm movie film, along with the well-known

8mm and 16mm formats. Is this true? Did this ever happen? I've never heard that

anywhere else.

[randmcnatt]

I believe it was once available as a commercial motion picture film on special order only.

[Mike Gammill]

Here is a link to the history of Eastman Kodak motion picture films.

http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Products/Chronology_Of_Film/index.htm

[hillary_charles]

Kodachrome was indeed used in 35mm motion picture form. In 1939, when Technicolor was looking for a process that could work without their bulky 3-strip camera, they used 35mm Kodachrome in regular movie cameras. It was a low-contrast version they called "Monopack." . B&W color separations were then made from the Kodachrome footage in order for prints to be made by Technicolor's dye transfer process.

 

Several films in the early 1940's had sequences shot this way, and in 1943, "Lassie Come Home" was shot entirely (as far as I can tell) on 35mm (Monopack) Kodachrome. Prints were an extra generation away from what the 3-strip camera produced, so print quality from Monopack looked grainy in comparison.

[fredrik_sandstrom]

It should be noted also that an agreement between Eastman Kodak and Technicolor corporation actually prevented Kodak from marketing a 35mm motion picture film, AND prevented Technicolor from competing in the smaller gauges (16mm and 8mm). The 35mm motion picture Kodachrome was made by Kodak <em>especially</em> for Technicolor and was called <b>Technicolor Monopack</b> and of course only marketed by Technicolor. That's why you don't often find it mentioned among Kodachrome films. The Wikipedia entry should be clarified.

 

<p>Technicolor Monopack (as well as the bulky 3-strip camera) became obsolete by the early 1950s when color negative film became good enough and Technicolor imibibition matrices could be made from an Eastmancolor negative.

[randrew1]

Way back in the late 70's when K-14 was young I saw a demonstration of K-64 in 35 mm movie format compared to a print of Eastman Color negative. The Kodachrome was sharper and finer grain and had more saturated colors. (Motion picture directors prefer more subtle colors.) The Kodachrome also had very poor uniformity. This was never a problem with still film, but when you put it in motion, the streaks became apparent. When the 120 format was being considered, streakiness became an issue. The larger format was more sensitive. There was a lot of work to get the developer agitation improved to get better uniformity.

 

I'm not sure, but I think Dwaynes has a high agitation process that would have very good uniformity. If someone could talk Kodak into supplying Kodachrome in long rolls, it could be shot in a 35mm motion picture camera. Dwaynes would have no trouble processing it.

 

I'm not sure how the EI 50 daylight motion picture film would compare with K-64. I never saw that comparison.

[fredrik_sandstrom]

Ron wrote:

 

> If someone could talk Kodak into supplying Kodachrome in long rolls, it could be shot in a 35mm motion picture camera.

 

Wittner Kinotechnik in Germany market and sell Velvia 50 as 16mm, 8mm, and 9.5mm(!) movie film. It is cut down from long unperforated 35mm rolls supplied by Fuji. I have suggested that they make a similar product of Kodachrome 64, and they told me that Kodak won't supply long rolls in that manner.

[Mike Gammill]

I shouldv'e read the Wikipedia article before posting a link. Anyway, from what I've read, shooting motion pictures on negative stock offers the advantage of correcting color,contrast, exposure, etc when making a print of the film. Since multiple prints must be made of motion pictures for distribution I would think that this is the best approach. For the home movie enthusiast you would want a single step such as Kodachrome (8mm or 16mm).

[craig_shearman1]

Wasn't 35mm Kodachrome marketed as Kodachrome Commercial in the 50s, similar to the Ektachrome Commercial 16mm that was popular in the 60s and 70s? This would have been a lower-contrast version of Kodachrome intended to compensate for the contrast buildup that happens in printing, similar to what was described as Technicolor Monopak above. yes, what Mike says is correct -- Hollywood features are shot pretty much exclusively on negative stock.

[robert_johnson15]

In my freezer, I have a (partial) roll of Kodachrome 64 Film Daylight, 35mm x 100 ft KR404, Develop before Jun 1978, E#5032-408-1, Cat 196 4733. This was bought off the for sale ad pages in the back of American Cinemaphotographer Magazine back in the late 70's. I just assumed that someone was shooting a movie on Kodachrome 64 35mm and had quite a few rolls left over. A couple of local photogs went together and bought some rolls. I used mine to load cartridges for a 250 shot Nikon back. I have maybe half of one roll left.

 

Robert Johnson me@robertejohnson.com

[Mike Gammill]

I think the 404 designation was common to bulk film packaged for still cameras. One way you might could tell: if you have any unmounted slides from this film, check for frame numbers. No need for frame numbers on motion picture stock. Also, the sprocket holes for motion picture film have corners that are slightly more rounded than still camera stock. I know that Kodak once did offer Kodachrome bulk because I've found ads for 28' rolls complete with empty cartridges. This was a popular approach duiring the late 50's and early to mid- 60's. Freestyle still had the 28' rolls as late as 1970. Hang in there, photo.netters, we will settle this debate yet. :)

[robert_johnson15]

Kodak sp 404 means 100 ft. only, Kodak standard (KS) perforated both edges, 2 in. OD plastic "U" core with 1 in. center hole with keyway, emulsion in, darkroom load/no leader or trailer, frame numbered 1 through 44.

 

If for movie camera use, I'm guessing it would be sp 417, which means Bell & Howell (BH) perforated both edges, S-83 No. 10 metal spool, emulsion in, Darkroom load -ESTAR base, Subdued light load - acetate base. It could also be sp 718 or sp 239 if the length is longer, up to 2,000 ft. I'm guessing that the 718 and 239 would also have the Kodak Keycode on the edgeprint.

 

sp 410 was the 27 1/2 ft. roll (8.4 m) that was sufficient for Five 36 exposure loadings with leaders cut out at intervals of 36 exposures and frame numbered. Sorry to say that was discontinued around 1990. I still have many of those empty cans laying around used for various sundry storage. Sorry I didn't buy cases of the FX 410 before that was discontinued! Those sp 410 rolls were handy to load Nikon and Leica metal cassettes.

 

Robert Johnson me@robertejohnson.com

[larry_bullis]

<p>Kodachrome WAS available in both 8 and super 8 formats for a long time before anyone had ever heard of Ektachrome. It was available in a 3400 Kelvin version also. I shot home movies of my kids on it in the early '70s, and my mom shot her home movies on it before that. My mom passed on two years ago, and among her stuff I found two unused Kodak processing mailers for regular 8/super 8; they are sitting on my kitchen prep table right now. I'm going to go through the early stuff in the files, when I was very young, to see whether that was Kodachrome. You know, Kodachrome was ASA 10 for a long time before they achieved the miraculous 25 and the unbelievable 64.</p>