On 17 May 2005 at 22:24, Bob Maxey wrote:
> >>>Loading my Noblex 150 once more with fresh Kodachrome!....:))
> (anyone willing to bet that even within the next 5 years there will
> be a digital equivalent with the same resolution?)>>>
>
>
> More to it than resolution. Longevity is a big reason Kodachrome such a
> great film. Well, grain and sharpness, too.
Fact remains that there *are* no digi-equivalents for MF swing-lens
camera's (which, not being SLR, have vastly better lenses).
>
> >>>PS: I'd like some additional higher-ASA batch as well....that's
> exactly what I have been pestering MACO about with their IR-films
> too....:)) >>>
>
>
> Why? You lose quality as you increase speed. Kodachrome 25 is demonstrably
> sharper than Kodachrome 64. I once shot everything on Kodachrome 25 because
> there is a difference.
But I can't take a tripod with me skiing....:))
(Kodak HIE with #87C is an even larger pest, at an effective 12 ASA)
> >>>On exactly that argument I am trying to talk MACO into it....;))
> Add non-existent Chinese environmental regulations for final
> processing, and we might get somewhere....>>>
>
>
> And you are certain there are no regulation in place? Research again and
> please post proof.
Just look at what generation of automotive emissions they allow in
brand-new plants....all 10-20 years behind on US/EU.
> > I am firmly of the belief that the *reason* for the "lack of demand" for
> > Kodachrome is the lack of promotion, the lack of availability, etc. In
> > other words, it's been left out to die, so it's been dying. Give it a
> > shot in the arm, let people know that there's a *will* to keep it going,
> > and they'll line up in droves to buy it and use it. (Even more, if it's
> > also coated in 120!)
>
>
> Yet, nobody buys the stiff. Before digital, we sold lots of the stuff. We
> sold very little compared to E6 materials, however. We sold very little 120
> Kodachrome, incidentally. We always sold more print film than slide film.
But: the argument of toxic/carcinogenic waste is mooth, as long as
Kodak still makes at least 1 type/size of Kodachrome.
Same (even) if the last types *only* linger on because Kodak is bound
to some contracts with large/industrial/scientific customers.
> > Would it be necessary to come up with a different *name*? Would Yellow
> > Father raise a stink over the use of the "Kodachrome" name?
>
>
> They would be within their absolute rights to object. Again, you assume
> Kodak would allow others to make the stuff. You would need to licence the
> patents in place and that alone will cost lots of money. I just paid a fee
> for the rights to reproduce a Kodak Data Guide from 1943, so I know how they
> work and think.
I doubt any essential Kodachrome patent is younger than 20
years....after which there *is* no patent left.
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<w.j.markerink@xxxxx>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
