WAY OUT THERE CONSPIRACY THEORY

[Alex]

From the Kodak webpage...

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.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/super8/tip.shtml

"If the film appears to "jump" or "******r":
It is the lack of sufficient lubrication on the film that often causes unsteady projection. If the film is not lubricated, some projectors can damage the film perforations. (Kodak film is automatically lubricated during processing by Kodak.) Once the perforations are damaged, lubrication will not solve the problem of unsteadiness. Such damaged areas must then be either spliced out or duplicated. Lubrication also helps prevent drying and warping of film. For protection and long life, film should periodically be cleaned and lubricated."

Does Dwaynes lubricate their kodachrome film before high speed winding onto reels after processing?

[Alex]

Martin Baumgarten responds...(well, not really, but he has additonal info, he claims Kodak stopped lubricating Kodachrome 40 back in 1984)

http://lavender.fortunecity.com/lave...brication.html

[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 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>


<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

Sorry Spock, but you are guessing and passing bad info.
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

---------------------------------------------

Cameraguy, I find the tone of your last post somewhat hostile, and, illogical.

You ignored the very next sentence in the same post, which listed the following link.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/super8/tip.shtml

You then ignored the quote I took from the Kodak site...

"If the film appears to "jump" or "******r":
It is the lack of sufficient lubrication on the film that often causes unsteady projection. If the film is not lubricated, some projectors can damage the film perforations. (Kodak film is automatically lubricated during processing by Kodak.)"

And instead jumped to the Dwayne's quote that followed.

Perhaps you only read the beginning and end of my post, and in the process ignored the middle. Anyone who reads the thread would see that there are varying viewpoints on the topic.

Kodak, on their own website, states they lubricate their film. I was of the opinion they did, found a link to support that position, then found a link to a Martin Baumgartner article that states Kodak stopped lubricating their films in 1984.

Sounds like a controversy to me, which is the name of this topic post. Two opposite stories, both in print, one by Kodak, the other by Martin Baumgartner.

[Alex]

The link you provided did not mention the 1984 part. The one I found seemed to be newer, otherwise I would not have posted it.

As for Kodak, they should be called on this and either start lubricating their films, or delete it from their webpage.

[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:

Kodak, on their own website, states they lubricate their film. I was of the opinion they did, found a link to support that position, then found a link to a Martin Baumgartner article that states Kodak stopped lubricating their films in 1984.

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

Maybe you don't read the previous posts clearly. I posted a link on Dec 16th at 8:54 PM that links to the film lubrification aritcle by Martin B which you must have ignored then later posted a different link to the same thing claiming you found it. Congrats. [img]graemlins/cake.gif[/img]

Also, you mean you are going to take something on Kodaks website as end all fact? really.... wow. Those tips were likely written in the 70's and just reprinted with the comment about 8mm film added on. They don't even know they what they sell have the time when you call them.

Martin B's word is about as factual as it will ever get in the Super 8 world. Take it or leave it.

[Greg Crawford]

It's interesting to see the direction this posting has gone.

The film I had shot was never projected and transferred via Rank.

Today's Super 8 film surface has a duller look than the 16 mm Kodachrome I shot in the 1960's.
I still believe that KODAK is trying to discourage the use of KODACHROME.

It seems like a real hardship waiting for a month to see your DAILIES or RUSH ...THEY ARE NOT RUSHES, THEY'RE S-L-O-W-S!

I'm still waiting to receive film sent to KODAK, before thanksgiving week.

[Alex]

I think the super-8 word at kodak is they tolerate it for now.

If it doesn't lose money, they tolerate it. What Kodak fails to see is the opportunity to increase revenue for the Super-8 format by developing an affordable film strip scanner using "proprietary" Kodak scanners and "proprietary" digital storage that is meant to last a lifetime. (is that possible?)

Kodak sees no after-market profit on ANY roll of super-8 film that they sell. And that is a big problem. Kodak knows on some level that Super-8 helps keep film awareness up, but the Super-8 cartridge does not create any aftermarket profit for Kodak, BUT IT COULD!

I think Super-8 could generate additional revenue of a significant amount for Kodak if transferring/scanning the film to video was more affordable and didn't need a complex set-up.

Kodak could actually sell the scanning units, and even the hard-drives and software.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 18, 2003 03:44 AM: Message edited by: Super-8mm in the DigitalAge ]</font>