WAY OUT THERE CONSPIRACY THEORY

[Greg Crawford]

OK, I may have seen to many episode of the X files. but hear me out... could Kodak be trying to discourage film sales of Kodachrome?

Given the recent rash of "Jitters" and the S L O W turn around time of processing Kodachrome.

And yes, I know that KODAK did introduced Negative T-200, since then. This film, however is a professional product mainly used in Music Videos and TV Commercials for that Grainy Look.

Or is it the films that have left have more environmentally friendly development chemistry. namely black and white, and E-6 and C-41 or what ever the motion picture equivalent is.

[Greg Crawford]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Super8 Filmmaking in the DigitalAge:
The conspiracy I wonder about is Dwayne's photo using the proper lubrication after they have developed their kodachrome. Are they doing it the exact way that Kodak is doing it?</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please explain, since I have not used Dwayne's I'm not sure what the problem is?

Dwayne's has gotten a lot of bad comments on the other board, so I got the Kodak mailers from B & H, out of New York. ....Turn around time is less than professional... 3 to 4 weeks, I've been told.

[Alex]

The conspiracy I wonder about is Dwayne's photo using the proper lubrication after they have developed their kodachrome. Are they doing it the exact way that Kodak is doing it?

[c_77]

I didn't think anyone was lubricating the film after processing. This assumption was based on an article in the Super 8 metadirectory by Martin Baumgarten. So Kodak IS still doing it?

[Alex]

Someone who might know is Keith from Yale Film Labs. I have no actual source but I suspect there probably is some type of "coating" or lubricant that ends up on the film.

Obviously it would have to be a microscopic amount, and of course, don't try this at home.

[cameraguy]

Maybe this will put an end to this uncertainty. Someone needs to make up a Super 8 FAQ cause this is old hat

http://www.goog le.com/groups?q=lubricating+super+8+film+author:super8mm% 40aol.com&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=20010816181144.05093.00000405%40nso-fb.aol.com&rnum=4

[BolexPlusx]

I asked Yale a few months ago, and they said they do not lubricate films.

What's this about 3-4 weeks turnaround at Kodak? I've been getting mine in 2weeks(+/-), but then again I live pretty close to their mailing address in New Jersey. I hope 3-4 weeks isn't true, I want to show a film on Christmas Night, and all my titles are being processed right now. 3 weeks would be Christmas, 4 weeks would be New Year's. (Don't feel like spending Christmas day editing!!)

[cameraguy]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Super8 Filmmaking in the DigitalAge:
The conspiracy I wonder about is Dwayne's photo using the proper lubrication after they have developed their kodachrome. Are they doing it the exact way that Kodak is doing it?</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neither Kodak nor Dwaynes is lubricating the film after development. That is left up to the user.

[cameraguy]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Super8 Filmmaking in the DigitalAge:

It's logical to assume that Kodak lubricates their processed film because film "sinching" (where film is "tightened" as it is spooled up) can easily scratch film, lubrication may help alleviate this problem.

</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Spock, but you are guessing and passing bad info. I get film processed from Kodak. I lubricate it. I get the yellow dye that comes off the film which would only happen if it had not been cleaned/lubricated yet. I cleaned my parents old film from the 70's and it got almost no yellow dye on my cleaning cloths which clearly shows that Kodak use to clean them after processing. The 2 K40 dwaynes did were the same. As


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Super8 Filmmaking in the DigitalAge:

Does Dwaynes lubricate their kodachrome film before high speed winding onto reels after processing?</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do I really need to .......................................

My method of cleaning film when you first get it back from the lab (old post)

http://www.hostboard.com/cgi-bin/ult...pic&f=405&t=92

I also had a post that is now gone in the archieves where I explained the test I did with 2 rolls of K40 film. I had 2 processed by Kodak. I cleaned one of them the other I didn't. I then projected each one 30 or so times each (blowing dust from the film path before each projection). The results were as expected. The non lubricated one was scratched up fairly bad and it had so much static it was a dust magnet. The one I did lubricate was almost like new showing only couple of minor scratches the lasted no more than a few frames each. Also it was still fairly dust free thats to the anti static built into the cleaner.

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by cameraguy:
Maybe this will put an end to this uncertainty. Someone needs to make up a Super 8 FAQ cause this is old hat

http://www.google.com/groups?q=lubri...aol.com&rnum=4</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

What Kodak does in the privacy of their own lab might not be public knowledge.