from the film-is-dead-long-live-film! dept.
According to a recent article on PetaPixel, Kodak Ektachrome film will be brought back into production.
It's not every day that you hear about a classic film line being brought back from the dead, but that's what's being announced today. Kodak Ektachrome film is coming back for film photographers.
The announcement was made today at CES in Las Vegas by Kodak Alaris, the separate company owned by the Kodak Pension Plan in the UK that runs Kodak's old Personalized Imaging division.
The original Kodak Professional Ektachrome color reversal film line was killed off by Kodak back in 2012 after years of sales declines and a drop in usage by photographers. It seems that trend has reversed.
"The reintroduction of one of the most iconic films is supported by the growing popularity of analog photography and a resurgence in shooting film," Kodak Alaris says. "Resurgence in the popularity of analog photography has created demand for new and old film products alike."
[...] The new Ektachrome will be available in 35mm and will hit store shelves in the 4th quarter of 2017.
In addition this press release from Kodak Alaris indicates that it will also be released in the Super 8 Format.
(Score: 3, Funny) by RamiK on Saturday January 07 2017, @05:47PM
Promising days for the octopus squirt, dead wood & news industries.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by fishybell on Saturday January 07 2017, @06:21PM
I really shouldn't have read that comment after reading Pornhub's 2016 year-in-review article [pornhub.com].
(Score: 3, Touché) by RamiK on Saturday January 07 2017, @07:43PM
I really shouldn't have read t̵h̵a̵t̵ ̵c̵o̵m̵m̵e̵n̵t̵ ̵a̵f̵t̵e̵r̵ ̵r̵e̵a̵d̵i̵n̵g̵ Pornhub's 2016 year-in-review article.
FTFY
compiling...
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday January 07 2017, @07:39PM
I want to see Kodachrome come back so I don't have to do this [mcgrew.info] to digitize it, I can scan printed photos with my scanner at a far higher resolution than I can get from a phone's camera. I haven't found anywhere that will digitize (or even process) slides.
I have a Canon 35mm SLR and two good lenses (50mm & 120 MM) I thought I'd never use again.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by tadas on Saturday January 07 2017, @09:05PM
I haven't found anywhere that will digitize (or even process) slides.
There are still any number of places that develop E6 slides - I personally use Dwayne's, (which was the last place on Earth to process Kodachrome before the chemistry was discontinued in 2009). Most places will scan them for you as well. You can scan them yourself, too - my Epson 3170 scanner came with a slide carrier. If you "haven't found anywhere that will digitize (or even process) slides", your search did not extend to typing "slide scanning service" or "slide processing service" into the Google search box - both searches return many reasonable suggestions in the first screen.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Saturday January 07 2017, @09:09PM
A few years ago I bought an Epson V330 scanner, and it had a backlight built in with an adapter for scanning slides and film negatives. I bought it exactly for the purpose of digitising old family slides and negatives.
I can say it works really well, far better than a camera.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @02:11AM
I want to see Kodachrome come back..
you're not the only one, I've an OM4 and lenses gathering dust since the demise of Kodachrome, Ektachrome was ok for some things, but 'twasn't the same.
..so I don't have to do this [mcgrew.info] to digitize it
I'm looking for an Ohnar slide duplicator /similar device to use on my DSLR for this task (rather stupidly I gave my old one away when I got rid of over half of my old camera gear a few years back...), I've tried a couple of the typical crappy slide scanners that are polluting the market, I was given a loan of one for a couple of days, tried 10 test slides, the optics are terrible (seriously noticeable chromatic aberration at the edges), got another as a present, tried the same slides, similar story - chromatic aberration plus the added fun of the focus being 'off' from centre to edge..with no damn way of adlusting it.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday January 07 2017, @11:31PM
JPEG is nearly 25 years old, and the world hasn't stood still on image compression. We could really use an update. Unfortunately, the reason we won't is political, not technical. Might step on a bunch of patents. JPEG2000 was pretty much stillborn mainly for that reason. No one much cared whether there actually were any patent problems, just the fear that some could pop up later was enough to chill everyone away.
One of JPEG's biggest flaws is that it is too aggressive with compressing the color. Some years ago I saw a magazine article inviting readers to compare two photos of the same scenery shot, one taken with a digital camera and the other with a film camera, and try to figure out which camera took which photo. For me, it was easy. The picture with the more vivid coloring was done with film. JPEG washes the color out, makes everything grayer and duller. Now if the digital camera had a setting to store the picture uncompressed, and they'd used that, it would've been a challenge.
(Score: 2) by Jerry Smith on Sunday January 08 2017, @11:25AM
Lossless PNG should be an option, I agree. Free and open source.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday January 08 2017, @04:22PM
i guess you know about cams' raw output options and were discussing web formats? darktable and rawtherapee have many output options, btw.
Account abandoned.