Kodak Film Prices

[doug]

They may have got their price right for the initial run, as they sold out fast. But I'm sure most buyers sofar are people already heavily in to film-making and are just relieved that there is something available from Kodak at last. Maybe also professionals stocking up their freezers again. What I'm concerned about is the many folks with their Dad's old cameras hanging around, who just want to experience true analogue filmshooting. They are perhaps the future film-makers. So many young people are bored by the digital way of shooting and want to feel and touch the strips of film, and smell it too
The high cost is the only deterrent. If Kodak insists on raking in all that money for iconic Ektachrome, maybe they can give us a less perfect reversal film as well, to sell much cheaper. Rather say as they've done with Colorplus 35mm compared with Ektar.

I understand yes we should be grateful that they've taken the bull by the horns and got back into iconic emulsions, and hopefully others in the future. And they need our support. I think a good way, apart from buying film for ourselves, is to donate money to kickstarter projects that use film. For example I supported 'Elston Bay' made on Vistavision 35mm.

[David M. Leugers]

The only way to keep prices down on anything, outside of government subsidizing, is to increase productivity reducing production costs and increasing sales enough to accumulate enough profit to make the endeavor worthwhile. Making film today is none of that. I can easily complain about the cost of a Super 8mm cartridge of Ektachrome film costing $40 as that is almost exactly ten times what a cartridge cost 40 years ago. How many things cost ten times today what it did in the 1970's? I think based on the lack of volume and distribution network that Kodak previously enjoyed, it is a minor miracle they even attempt to make film today. What is it with the bashing of Kodak seemingly at every turn that continues on this site? My experiences with Kodak has been nothing short of remarkable and that is due to the incredible people working at Kodak. I am thankful they are passionate about making film. Just read up on what Kodak has gone through to remake Ektachrome. (one can see the difficulty facing Ferrania)
I have saved up to buy some 16mm Ektachrome soon as it becomes available. I would love to buy some DS8mm and R8mm 100ft rolls. Yeah, the cost hurts, I get it. I remember 40 years ago having a hard time coming up with $4 per roll... I think in a way it made me a better film maker. Because film was too precious, I concentrated on learning as much as I could and getting it right. Same thing goes today. Just some perspective you may want to consider. We either support Kodak (and Orwo and Ferrania) or we lose film forever.

[Mmechanic]

You don’t necessarily have to reduce costs and prices. The 20th century proves explicitly that customers can be won by clever marketing, sometimes even aggressive publicity. Take a look at the home movie equipment industry. A Paillard-Bolex H camera was sold for more than $5,000 over all the years, inflation cleared.

The consumables, though, film raw stock, should be nice in price. Kodak should do better marketing with less promises and more facts. It’s so simple, sincerity with business seems to have gone to the happy hunting ground.

[Silverdream]

What is it with the bashing of Kodak seemingly at every turn that continues on this site?

I for one did not intend to bash Kodak, but to question their Super 8 film pricing. It seems some people have missed the point which has now made several times. That is the price of Super 8 is not proportional to it's size compared to 16mm and 35mm. It is not even close. Eg. Price of 100' 16mm color neg $45. Price of 50' 8mm color neg $30.
In fairness I will also call out the pricing of Fuji Super 8 color reversal which is even more expensive than Ektachrome. However, that's being produced by Retro 8, so it's a third party and costs would be higher, so Fuji's off the hook.
If and when Farrania makes a color reversal I doubt it will be sold at a cheap price. It will be priced according to it's quality and how it will compare to Kodak's and Fuji's offering.
When Kodak supplies 16mm Ektachrome at a cost of $60 -$80 per roll then they could offer Double Super 8 at a similar price. Unfortunately they are unlikely to offer Double Super 8 as it would be snapped up by those that would reload their own cartridges to save money and then not have to buy Kodak's expensive preloaded cartridges.
My hope is that once Kodak gets their Ektachrome production process settled they can offer their customers a new lower price. As I said before, the more film they sell the more profits they could make.

[Silverdream]

If Kodak insists on raking in all that money for iconic Ektachrome, maybe they can give us a less perfect reversal film as well, to sell much cheaper.

And I thought I was speaking dangerously. We will be black listed by Big Yellow.
You raise a good idea though. Second class film for the rich and first class film for the mega rich.
There are still so many good Super 8 cameras around that need feeding. Kodak and others have an opportunity to make good money by pricing their product to encourage this.
The last Super 8 100D sold for $35 where I am. Now it costs $66. A period of 5 years. That's a big jump when inflation is only 2% per year. Now that they have been able to sell at the new price there will be little appatite to sell at a lower price, and if demand drops then they may say no one wants it any more and cancel the production.

[Will2]

...the price of Super 8 is not proportional to it's size compared to 16mm and 35mm. It is not even close. Eg. Price of 100' 16mm color neg $45. Price of 50' 8mm color neg $30.

That seems to imply that the bulk of the cost is material but with film it's not at all. Plastic is crazy cheap even with oil prices today so just because Super 8 is half the width of 16mm it doesn't mean it's half as expensive to produce.

I would bet that a 50 foot Ektachrome Super 8 cartridge costs only 10-15% less than a 100 foot roll of 16mm Vision 3 for Kodak to produce.

The material costs on the film itself are a tiny part of the expense. All the research and time to resurrect Ektachrome was huge.

Maybe if we bug them enough they'll break down the costs involved and it will make more sense.

[David M. Leugers]

Years ago when Kodak sold 16mm 50ft magazine film in most of their emulsions, it cost almost as much for one 50ft magazine as it did for a 100ft roll of the same film. As I recall, there was a deposit on the metal magazine also. If you wanted to shoot 50ft magazine film, then you had to pay the price. Kinda like the S-8mm cartridge situation. Roll film should always be cheaper to manufacture and sell than film in a cartridge. Anyone remember the problems with the cartridges about 15 years ago? The dies used to make the plastic parts for the cartridge were worn out. S-8mm cartridge film almost died. All it would have taken was for the decision by management not to reinvest a large sum of money into a disappearing market for the product. The 16mm magazine film died that kind of death. It became way to expensive to keep producing for the little profit it might return. A few years ago I had an enlightening conversation with Tuscan who make plastic film reels. They are a small business trying to hang on in a declining market. They were changing over their 8mm/S-8mm reels and cans to an archival plastic formula. They ran a run with their new dies to make the 400ft reels, but they were defective. They would need to remake the dies... $50,000 cost.
The cost of the reels are not just the cost of the plastic that goes into making the reels. Same as with S-8mm film cartridges. It has been a few years since Ektachrome was available for around $35 as I recall. The increase to $40, while not good news, is much better than I personally expected.

[Tommy]

Back in the 70s, 50' super 8 film/processing was 1/3 the cost of same emulsion in 100" 16mm. Just some food for thought.

[Tommy]

Back in the 70s, 50' super 8 film/processing was 1/3 the cost of same emulsion in 100' 16mm with processing. Just some food for thought.

[Silverdream]

Amazed at all the excuses some people are coming up with to justify Super 8's high prices.
The Ektachrome film has gone from AUS$35 to AUS$66 in 5 years.
I'm not sure what the US price was 5 years ago but it wasn't US$35. It was probably around US$25.
If cartridge cost was a problem then Kodak wouldn't be selling them for $3.00 and their buying cost would be less.
I'm happy to reload my own cartridges if that means we can buy Super 8 in roll form at a reasonable price.

[Silverdream]

To address the claim that the film component is only a small part of the total cost I would like to present to you Exhibit B. That is the price difference between 16mm and 35mm.
Example;
16mm 400' Vision 3 200T Negative US$176.88
35mm 400' Vision 3 200T Negative US$316.56
The other types of emulsions have a similar price difference.
As can be seen the 35mm stock is almost twice the price of the 16mm stock, proving that it is the film component that is the main cost of the total price.
I understand that people may feel the need to support Kodak's Super 8 pricing in thanks that they continue to produce movie film, however I see it a different way. By encouraging them to reduce the Super 8 film prices, it will extend the life of this film format.
I am sorry to have posted so many comments on this topic as I would like to see as many others join in to the discussion so I will shut up for a while. Maybe Kodak is reading this forum so make it count and have your say.

[doug]

Time for me to shut up too. Of course super-8 was always the simple-to-load format and some of the cost will be for that convenience. Though I don't think many new film-makers mind the little extra time loading a regular-8 camera, which is usually more flexible with speeds and so on. So in 2018 the 'foolproof' loading facility of super-8 shouldn't be priced much extra. It was after all a way of getting people to ditch their regular-8 cameras and buy the super-8 ones. But now all are antiques and many earlier 8mm cameras are still going strong.
I do think there's room for another super-8 emulsion, as I said previously, not as refined as Ektachrome, but a lot cheaper. The processing at eg. gaugefilm is reasonable for super-8. It's time for Ferrania to act ;)

On a less favourable note, wonder if some of the initial Ektachrome run has been bought up by professional Ebayers hoping to make a few bucks later.

[camera8mm]

Kodak must be selling the ektachrome in higher quantities to the film stores.
If they put Kodak movie film in department stores or chains, their sales might improve and the price might drop.
Most people might think the film is not not produced any more.

[Mmechanic]

As Doug says Super-8 is no more the “super” experience. I am a child of the cold war and still have a feel for the explosive mixture of that right-and-wrong, all-embracing, and fatuous mindset of the sixties. It was easy to suggest men landing on Moon because everybody was in tune. It was simple to offer 50 feet of 8mm film in a cartridge, whatever that looked. An astronaut, we were told, could put a Super-8 cart in a camera with thick gloves. Logical but also idiotic because we aren’t astronauts with thick gloves on. In winter, yeah, yet most filmers pull their gloves off for loading the camera. A matter of seconds

Today economics triumph over politics. We have all become cool reckoners. $40 for some Ektachrome or € 60? Man, I do prefer that stock in 16 or 35. I get more picture quality from wider film. As soon as Kodak sells Ektachrome in bulk length 35 again I pull out my Bell & Howell Eyemo. I’ll find a lab where one strikes an internegative off the original (through-the-base optical job). One image generation less. I can measure light and expose relatively precisely. Hate automatic cameras. Kodak should quit to prescribe the use of products or offer something really new such as films on half-thick polyester base so that one can load double lengths. Just saying

[David M. Leugers]

Ok, I think you are right Silverdream. I think we should all quit shooting S-8mm. Tell Kodak to stuff it, we will only buy S-8mm film if it is in rolls that we can reload into cartridges (and keep making those cartridges and selling them so cheap) By your logic it seems that any R8mm film stock on a 25ft roll should sell for 1/4 the price of a 100ft roll of 16mm of the same film. Of course, that has never been the case with any film stock from any manufacturer in my life time. Go figure. I do agree that the price of shooting Super 8mm cartridge film is the least cost effective way to shoot 8mm film. Today there are no Photobug film developing or Kodak mailers to greatly reduce the cost of developing S8mm film, same as there are no department stores, drug stores or grocery stores etc. carrying S8mm film to reduce the cost. Ah, the 1970's... even then the best I could do was buy Kodachrome S-8mm cartridges for around $3.50 and the developing mailer or Photobug cost was around $2 for a total cost just under $6. I could and did buy 16mm Kodachrome with processing included from Superior Bulk Film in Chicago for $13 a roll. It is just perspective. Right now Ferrania, Orwo, and Fomapan does not make any films available in S8mm cartridges. Kodak is the only one. They must be nuts. One thing I do know and history has proven this out = you either use it or lose it.