8mm Forum: Pro8mm now beta testing new 100D color reversal film

This is topic Pro8mm now beta testing new 100D color reversal film in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=010794

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on June 27, 2016, 01:00 PM:

I'm assuming I received a notification because I recently purchased one of their remaining stock of Kodak 100D reversal cartridges. There's a limited supply.

The new stuff is Provia 8 by Fuji. Pro8mm is collaborating with Retro-8 of Japan.

The cost is $80 a cartridge which includes processing. That's $15 more than what I paid for their Kodak 100D and $35 more than what they charge for 200D reversal. Hopefully that price will come down if they start getting regular stock.

Posted by Alexander Vandeputte (Member # 1803) on June 27, 2016, 03:25 PM:

Unfortunately the price for reversal stock is not likely to come down, since no one makes it anymore. What is being sold are left overs reconfected from 35mm slide film...
Ferrania in Italy remain our only hope for reviving reversal film stock, but until that day there is only overpiced (and possibly outdated) reversal stock available...

Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on June 28, 2016, 01:18 PM:

What makes you think Kodak won't bring back color reversal in the future?

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on June 28, 2016, 01:30 PM:

Raleigh, I guess if Kodak intended to bring colour stock back in the market in a forseable future, the company would have announced it.

Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on June 28, 2016, 01:31 PM:

Not nessecarily. Their Super 8 revival project has only just begun.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on June 28, 2016, 01:34 PM:

I hope you're right.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on June 28, 2016, 07:01 PM:

I still live in hope that Kodak might bring it back. They have impressive orders for their new camera and if a reasonable proportion then start asking for reversal stock, that should be an incentive, especially as they would do much of the processing.

Posted by William Olson (Member # 2083) on June 28, 2016, 07:48 PM:

To think...back in the 70's, I could buy a Kodachrome 40 cartridge for $4 and get it processed for $2. Did I mention it was Kodachrome? I miss Kodachrome. It was the best!

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on June 28, 2016, 07:53 PM:

Kodak seems to be trying to straddle both worlds. Their current Super 8 filmstock and camera features appear to be aimed at people capturing on film but ultimately outputting in digital. Their color negative stock is more forgiving than reversal and scans better (according to them).

Based on that I'd guess that they don't have any intentions to make any more color reversal film but I hope I'm wrong.

Personally I want to be able to project the film but also have quality digital scans. I'll admit that of the two, digital scans are more important just because of the ease of sharing them. I realize that I may be a minority here in that regard.

Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on June 29, 2016, 08:56 AM:

It makes no sense as Kodak still makes B/W reversal film. Stil, if Kodak won't make color reversal, then give me the ability to have S8 prints made from their S8 negative stock. Though honestly, I'd like both.

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on June 29, 2016, 06:03 PM:

For a company who are supposedly marketing a brand new camera range, the lack of any decent camera film cartridges regarding reversal film stock is beyond remarkable!

We need reversal stock of 100D or K40 standard.
Beyond this, for the remaining protectionist out there,
We need a reversal stock mag sound cartridge to keep the filming fraternity contented and buoyant for the future.

It's old technology, but it worked...just like vinyl worked and still does!!

There...that can't be all too difficult now can it? After all, it was all perfected once, decades ago!!

People who crave analogue, want it just as was. Simples!!

Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on June 30, 2016, 04:28 AM:

I read (from a Derann magazine) that Kodak stopped producing pre-strip print stock due to the amount of film damaged in the process making it not economic. I bet they'd use that excuse for not producing sound cartridges now.

Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on June 30, 2016, 08:40 AM:

How hard would it be to record sound on Super 8 as optical analog, or optical digital? Of course, for the either, Kodak would have to also build new projectors.

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on June 30, 2016, 01:36 PM:

Looking at their new camera's features it's pretty easy to see what Kodak's future intentions are and unfortunately it's not making sound cartridges.

The new camera has crystal sync and records sound digitally so the audio and video can be later married digitally.

I'm sure it would also be possible to sync the audio with a projector if you wanted to go that route but there'd have to be a way to for the projector and the audio playback device to stay in sync. I don't think it would work with just any projector but I've seen it discussed here before.

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on June 30, 2016, 05:20 PM:

No it would not Tom. Equally, because Kodak's only foresight with this project is to somehow convince our analogue obsessed (for the time being) public, that marrying the best of both technologies, digital and analogue, is the way forward, I fear there will equally be no thought given to bringing to market any new reversal stock.

Basically using this stuff traditionally with a cine projector, is not in their plans or thoughts.

I cannot see the new generation of film makers being convinced for any particular length of time, that converting a cine film then back to digital to view it at considerable expense for a 3 minute take, is the way forward myself.
Maybe the odd music video photographer etc will enjoy this facility for the unique characteristics that only film can bring to the table, maybe the odd bespoke Wedding photographer may think likewise, but en masse?

I don't think so somehow, not for any real length of time anyhow.

Give traditional users an option for reversal stock, you may not have a huge market, but it would purchase the product regularly and for many years to come, I feel.

In fact kodak, it should never have been discontinued in the first instance if you valued your loyal customers. [Confused]

[ June 30, 2016, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Andrew Woodcock ]

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on June 30, 2016, 07:29 PM:

I suspect the traditional market for reversal film was drying up and they determined that they couldn't make it at a profit any more. I don't think that's going to change. After all, the traditional market was home movies and Super 8 is not likely to see any sort of revival for that purpose.

I was at a Target today (local big box discount department store) and on a whim I thought I'd see if they still sold 35mm film. They didn't as far as I could tell but they do sell polaroid instant cameras and film. The film is much smaller than it use to be. Anyway, I think that is very telling.

We've become accustomed to being able to see the pictures immediately. The idea of paying for film, paying again to have it processed, and then waiting to see how many actually turned out doesn't make a lot of sense in this era. So instant film hangs on while traditional film has become a specialty item.

I also fear that any major Super 8 resurgence will be temporary but my hope is that it will at least remain a small but healthy niche.

Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on June 30, 2016, 08:10 PM:

I just love the Eeyore style pessimism and negativity from everyone, including even people who actually LIKE Super 8, that I encounter all over the place. Even when good things are happening. It's amazing. No, Super 8 won't be the wide choice for home movies again. The general public just isn't that smart really. Look at the idiots who abandoned Super 8 for VHS camcorders. Those tapes today look like shit, and most people don't have a VHS VCR to play them on anymore. Or they accidentally erased them. Records and film are NOT going anywhere. LP's should have died already in that case. Society has ben going through a highly overrated Digital mania, that I think is slowly subsiding. In the end, things will balance out a bit more, as people with brains say "hey, wait a minute" and don't follow the digital lemming trail, whether it be sound or still or moving images. Digital won't go away, but the heated obsession over it will cool, as people out there regain their bearings.

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on June 30, 2016, 09:31 PM:

Anyhow, Super 8mm for the masses, that's all I can conclude from the crazy world of today!!

[ July 01, 2016, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: Andrew Woodcock ]

Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on July 01, 2016, 02:45 AM:

Maybe it was just a little too early in the morning for you.

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on July 01, 2016, 05:59 AM:

[Big Grin]

Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on July 01, 2016, 08:06 AM:

I see you've thought a little bit better...

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on July 01, 2016, 03:23 PM:

Maybe somebody can help me with the chronology a little bit. I'm in my early 50's. My family's home movies were all standard 8mm taken by my father who died in 1972. I know Super 8 was pretty well established by that time but apparently my father was not inclined to upgrade.

While in college in 1985, my roommate and I thought would be fun to film a bunch of our friends so we each borrowed our parents' cameras which we thought were quite ancient (the cameras, not our parents). I remember being mildly surprised that I could get film so easily. Yet, in 1985 video cameras we extraordinarily expensive and it seems to me that a majority of people must have still been using Super 8 for home movies. In fact I'm starting to question my own memory a little. Was it Standard 8 that I thought was outdated? Silent 8? or just movie film in general? I'm not sure I really knew the difference between 8mm and Super 8 at the time.

I don't expect you all to know what I was thinking 30 years ago, but I'm wondering if any of you have a good sense for when video really started to take over.

Also, did sound capable Super 8 ever have a big market? I've heard that it was never more than about 10% of the total volume of Super 8 film sold.

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on July 01, 2016, 03:59 PM:

I started to shoot Super-8 in 1978 as a teenager. There really weren't "camcorders" per se, but video cameras which required you to sling your battery equipped VCR over your shoulder on a strap. These never really caught on, it's when they made a real all-in-one camcorder a few years later things changed a lot more quickly.

A lot of people still shot film. The following year the photography club at my high school made a film, and we never even considered video.

At the time you could still buy cameras and projectors in many department stores. (In the photo department, not "home electronics": that's where the TVs and stereos were!) Kodachrome and Ektachrome film was in every drug store and supermarket. It was only once you wanted something slightly funky like black and white film did you have to go to a real camera shop.

By 1985 the slide towards video would have been well under way. A lot of the gear we use today was already out of production. Right around then, I was out to dinner with my Aunt and Uncle and he told me I wouldn't be able to buy film at all within a year. (Wouldn't he be surprised!)

Super-8 in general was an unusual item: I saw an estimate once that stated it was something like 3% of the amateur photography market. Sound was rarer still. I knew maybe five families that had home movies: none of them had sound. The first time I ever saw a S8 sound projector it was mine because I decided to make the leap.

-this was 2002.

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on July 01, 2016, 04:27 PM:

Thanks Steve, that helps clarify some things. I guess I'd just assumed that most middle class families by the 70's and 80's made home movies but maybe not.

Canon has a camera history page on their site. Their last Super 8 cameras were introduced in 1982 or 1983. It says right there that video had already taken hold but the only video cameras they were selling at the time were those separate camera/recorder combos. I can't imagine that many people would have seen those as even affordable. Maybe they're just referring to the higher end market.

It's possible too that video wasn't all that unaffordable in comparison if you wanted sound. With sound film, you needed a sound capable camera and a sound capable projector. With video, you could just use your TV.

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on July 01, 2016, 04:49 PM:

Yes Raleigh, you're right. It made perfect sense when I read it through again sorry. [Wink]

Tom, I don't believe class came into it with regard to who shot with film vs who didn't.

We were a very ordinary working class family but I used film from an early age as did many others I know and knew at the time back then of similar status to our own.

It was more to do with interest than anything else. Cine has always been a minority hobby when compared to many other hobbies. Those that were interested enough back then, would still find a way to buy films and a camera similarly as a smoker will always find the money for tobacco.

Those early huge cameras and separate recorders taking full sized VHS cassettes that Steve speaks about, were never really that popular here in the UK.
As they were present at the very beginning of the video age, they really were aimed at the wealthy end of the market of movie makers.
By the time camcorders came about, be it 8mm, hi 8 or VHS-C, just about everybody had one or someone in the family had one to borrow one from for a family wedding etc etc.
Even people who previously had no interest whatsoever in moviemaking suddenly took a interest.

Early car phones were a similar luxury item to those huge video cameras and recorders in the early 80s here.
They cost more than average car, weighed more than the average car back then and were a true symbol of someone who believed they were flying the flag high for Thatchers yuppie Britain back then [Smile]

)

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on July 01, 2016, 05:11 PM:

Raleigh: Ironically my older brother spent hour upon hour transferring my parents' home movies to VHS 15 or 20 years ago. Actually it was probably video 8 or Hi 8 but he sent myself and my other two brothers each 1 VHS tape that represented a 3rd of the total.

To do this he had brought all the film back to his home in the tropics where it's been ever since. Probably the worst type of climate to keep them in though where he lives it doesn't often get all that hot. Still, it wouldn't surprise me if the film outlived the video copies. Anyway we're now looking at options for making better copies.

As far as the longevity of VHS tape goes, you can increase their lifetime by quite a bit if you store them in a cold environment in low humidity. They can last 60 years or more. I have old mini-DV and video 8 tapes in our spare fridge in the basement. The other nice thing about keeping them in a fridge is that they are more likely to survive a fire.

The sadder question is how long is long enough? I don't relish the thought of the videos I took of my kids some day getting auctioned off on eBay. I suspect my kids don't really care about my parents' home movies. Nobody in them is recognizable to them. Maybe one day they will care, but what about their grandkids?

The films have long outlasted the person who took them, though he did die young.

In a related note, for some reason we ended up in possession of at least a few of my wife's dad's family home movies. Her dad is in poor health and I suspect within 10 years he and his remaining siblings will be gone. In other words, anybody who would be in those movies will no longer be alive. My wife is an only child and doesn't have fond memories of her Dad's side of the family.

Who will care about these movies? I seem to care more than my wife does.

Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on July 01, 2016, 05:19 PM:

My father shot Super 8mm home movies up until 1988. In 1990 he bought an RCA VHS camcorder (which had been on the market for some time - by then the 1/4 inch or "Video8" format was taking over). He used that VHS once or twice and never again. And the tapes? He has no idea where they are. A VHS VCR I bought for my parents (to go along with their DVD player) in the early 2000's is on a shelf in the Garage. However, all the Super 8mm home movies, as well as the Super 8mm projector were stored in a box, easily found, and the projector still works perfectly. The films, the oldest taken around 1962 (the only movie on Regular 8, all the rest in the collection are Super 8) look great. Clear picture, no color fade, not even many scratches.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on July 01, 2016, 05:23 PM:

I remember that when video started to replace film in the general public, you didn't see cameras anymore in public places, nor cine, nor video (I was often alone to shoot somewhere). People had re-sold their cine projector to buy a video player so didn't shoot film anymore (it is to remind that video material, included the tapes weren't that cheap, so people probably didn't want to spend too much on "media") and hadn't yet bought a video camera.

Posted by Sonny Young (Member # 124) on July 01, 2016, 11:30 PM:

quote:
Society has been going through a highly overrated Digital mania, that I think is slowly subsiding.

Raleigh, I've been following your comments across different threads and I'm compelled to say that you are truly out of touch with what's going on in the world of filmmaking. It's one thing to love and project physical film, as we all do here, but you really must educate yourself on the current technology before making sweeping statements like this.

I've been a filmmaker and film teacher for over 30 years in both 16mm and 35mm (which I dearly love) and was in the midst of the digital revolution as it moved from garbage video to the amazing digital formats we have today. Contemporary digital cameras are not only inexpensive, but provide mind boggling HD definition. Look up the RedOne and the ridiculously inexpensive BlackMagic. These cameras record in lossless RAW with with a staggering 13 stop exposure range (you can add all the grain you want if that makes you happy). Up to 4K horizontal lines of resolution with all kinds of frame rates. They accept film camera lenses from Arriflex and even the old Bolex and Schneider lens, which are amazing. They record sound, of course. There is no film or tape, but rather postage stamp cards that can be popped in your reader for editing, which is whole other amazing technology.

Kodak has been pulling stunts like this new super 8 camera for years, trying to convince people that analog film is better--more beautiful, pleasing to the eye, higher definition, etc. They have no choice, they are in the film business, and quite frankly, missed the digital boat when they had the chance. They come to our schools with all this hogwash, yet discontinue film stocks one after another because they don't sell. They survived bankruptcy a few years ago only because they sold off a bunch of failed ventures and intellectual property. No one is going to spend $80 for three minutes worth of soundless footage except some crazy artists and baby boomers that have fond memories of making movies back in the'70s.

I don't want to debate you on this, like that analog vs digital thread with Tom. This hobby is about nostalgia and its a bit of an isolation bubble. The current world of filmmaking and distribution is very different. There are some filmmakers on this forum and I'm sure they know what I'm talking about.

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on July 02, 2016, 03:09 AM:

Sonny, you are spot on there on every single point!
Regarding the last paragraph you speak of, I said more or less the exact same words yesterday over on another forum except I used £50 as the amount rather than $80.

With nothing other than negative stock available, therefore then only to be used as a finished project digitally, I personally, have no interest whatsoever in the project and believe me, no one loves Super 8mm as a format any more than I do!
It would take reversal stock and a new projector for syncing the digital sound before my interest would be full on.
I doubt Kodak, even for second, have ever considered traditional users of film here with this latest project.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on July 02, 2016, 04:21 AM:

Sonny, when I was a kid, we all believed that in the future people would use min planes instead of cars and that our meals would be made of pills. Forty years later, bicycles have invades European cities and organic food is widely available in supermarkets. When records and records players were pushed out of the shops by cds and cds players, who would have believe that vinyls would come back on a large scale ? Not me. But it happened. I'm not saying that film will have a huge "revival". I just don't know. People and markets can be unpredictable.

Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on July 02, 2016, 05:57 AM:

Sonny, the point is, I don't like digital video and think it is garbage. I know about the Red One, and I don't care. They can push it up to 124K, I don't like it, and think it is inferior to real film for many different reasons. It's still video and it's not film. It's not all about just picture quality.

No I am not out of touch. IMO digital video looks like shit. It's very harsh,cold, and plasticky looking, and it's completely soulless. The funny thing is, it's all about money. It's supposedly "cheaper" and yet it's actually nothing more than a MONEY PIT, in the long run. A never ending cycle of upgrade after upgrade, and back up after back up after back up. Yet the Bolex H16 made in 1965 retains it's value and is still just as functional today, as it was then. The same cannot be said for a digital video camera bought 10-15 years ago, they are already out of date.

Digital video has it's uses, but as I said before, I prefer my CINEMA to be FILM.

Don't make sweeping statements about what I do or do not know, as you don't know me. Who do you think you are?

Just so you know, I have a dgree in Cinema History, Theory, and Criticism from the USC School of Cinematic Arts in Los Angeles (known as the School of Cinema-Television when I was there), widely considered to be the best school for the study of cinema in the world. Do I know it all? No. Not even. But I'm not coming from a place of pure ignorance either. All my student films were REAL films, shot on film. I didn't make student videos, like most do today.

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on July 02, 2016, 10:32 AM:

Dominique, I ride a bike to work rather than a car. It is cheaper, healthier for me and the environment, and sometimes even quicker.

I could see film making a comeback if there was a general rebellion against all things digital. And actually I think that's a possibility unless society somehow comes to terms with declining incomes due to jobs lost to automation. The argument has been in the past the greater automation has lead to a shift in the labor market, but ultimately more new jobs being created than lost. I'm not sure that trend will continue.

Another possibility is that there is a push back against the explosion of battery operated devices and the potential environmental impacts. Super 8 cameras were mostly battery driven but they could work largely without one. The meter might still require batteries but those can last a long time.

Lastly, if you could convince a substantial number of people that the consumption of digital media has negative health impacts while analog media does not.

Vinyl has made a comeback but I don't know if that's a short or long term trend. Apparently about half the people buying LPs don't even listen to them. They buy the album to own something physical or they just like they way the looks, but they listen to the music digitally. 7% of LP buyers don't even own a turntable. The most popular album sold on LP last year was from Adele and was almost guaranteed to have been recorded digitally. Those LPs are coming from a digital source.

Anyway, buried in there might be the most compelling reason for Kodak (or anyone) to sell reversal film. Digital looks good (to most people), is easy to share and convenient to watch, but it's ephemeral. To me the ideal product would be projectable and archivable, but also shareable in a high quality format. Ultimately, I'd like to have the film, but I also want a high quality scan that I can easily view and share.

And I want it to be affordable. [Big Grin]

So there's where you should be aiming Kodak !

BBC Article on the return of vinyl

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on July 02, 2016, 10:48 AM:

Tom, almost everybody has a cellphone now. But, despite all the predictions, a lot of people still keep a home line. More than that, these last years (at least in Belgium), people who had cancelled their home line took it back. You never know...About the fact that some people buy vinyls and don't listen to them, that's just like many other things. EBay is full of objects "never (or little) used".

Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on July 02, 2016, 11:15 AM:

That's what I mean -

There has been this period of "throw out everything," "digital is better": Books, records, motion picture film, still photography film. But now you see people saying "Hey, wait a minute, not so fast" It's happened in other areas of life too. Once upon a time the "great big beautiful tomorrow" (to quote Walt Disney's "Carousel of Progress") was cars, cars and more cars, suburbia, freeways, and the death of the traditional, crowded, dense, walking city. Look at the nightmares created by Le Corbusier. The man wanted to level Paris, or Robert Moses who wanted to ram expressways through the heart of Manhattan. There were plans to do the same to San Francisco (But today, SF has even torn down the 480 and half of the 101). Now we see people moving back into the cities, using public transportation, dense development around transportation lines and hubs. Cities are thriving again after the Mid-20th Century fiasco of suburbanization and abandonememt of inner cities.

The "New" can be seductive and intoxicating, until people realize it isn't really all that.

Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on July 02, 2016, 01:29 PM:

Have to agree with Sonny and Andrew on this one.

Wow, after reading this thread, it might be best to step back and take a deep breath, Raleigh -- life is too short to get worked up and make broad, sweeping statements about formats that are different just to fit your narrative. (I can tell you, this week I screened Star Wars: The Force Awakens in my home theatre for some visiting friends, and it certainly didn't look like "crap" or "shit," even with my critical, professional eye. However, while I'm a long-time film collector, I have plenty of film prints that do look and sound like "crap" or "shit" in comparison.)

Posted by Raleigh M. Christopher (Member # 5209) on July 02, 2016, 01:54 PM:

Don't even bother to address me Mr. Hourigan. You're the absolute worst here about getting it. This isn't a discussion about Blu-Ray discs and home theatre. You continually fail to comprehend that. I have nothing more to say to you.

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on July 02, 2016, 04:30 PM:

I guess the question is whether film is like bikes vs cars, paper books vs ebooks, and city vs suburban living or is it like carburetors vs electronic fuel injection, - just a technology largely replaced by a different technology.

I don't see this as digital vs everything else. I can easily see paper books continuing to be popular while film becomes a very small niche of movie making. A paper book is sharable, portable, won't break, cheap, and doesn't to be charged or plugged in. You don't need a device at all. You can gift an e-book but it's not the same as giving someone a nice hard cover. I think that is part of the appeal of an LP too. It's something substantial.

E-books have their advantages as well so I can see them co-existing with books for quite a while.

Posted by Jason Smith (Member # 5055) on July 02, 2016, 04:39 PM:

It seems like everyone on here has a love for 8mm film here in some form or fashion. I'm more interested in getting back to the original post which was on the 100D color reversal film.

Retro 8 Enterprises posted the message below on Facebook

JULY SPECIAL "FREE SHIPPING" !!
You can now choose either "Free Shipping" or "Free Processing (Developing) ".
Free Shipping is available to world wide with post office airmail. (No tracking).
Shipping by courier, such as DHL with tracking number will be extra.

If you were not planning on buying the 100D reversal film from Pro8mm and if you live overseas this might be a great option depending on where you live.

The Japanese yen is slighter weaker than the dollar right now, so if you buy a roll of the 100D reversal film and use the free shipping offer, a roll would cost $66.

I've seen a few requests to Retro 8 that they unbundle the processing costs. I think they addressed that issue with this free shipping offer. The film still isn't cheap though.
If you can process your own film, and if you don"t live in the USA this might be the best deal you can get.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on July 02, 2016, 04:47 PM:

Great new, Jason. However, it is not convenient at all to order via e-mail. They should have put an "automatic" order system on their site.

Posted by Jason Smith (Member # 5055) on July 02, 2016, 05:47 PM:

Dominique, I agree with you. It would be nice if they had some type of order form or automated checkout system. Since they don"t have one though, there are many ways you can submit an order apparently. You can send them a Facebook message, contact them through skype(SKYPE name: retroenterprises), call the shop, or email them.

Retro Enterprises Home Page

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on July 02, 2016, 06:11 PM:

I founded that on their page : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDaTBjf_-Dc&feature=youtu.be :-)

Posted by Jason Smith (Member # 5055) on July 02, 2016, 06:25 PM:

Dominique, it seems like lately they have been helping out with a lot of commercials and tv shows.

Here's a video that was broadcast on TV here in Japan that shows you what their shop looks like. I had a chance to go there earlier this year.
https://vimeo.com/166792139

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on July 02, 2016, 06:43 PM:

Nice link, Jason. They have old tv sets that looks in good condition. I have no idea what they are talking about as it is all in Japanese but the place seems Worthing a visit. You have been lucky.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on August 30, 2016, 01:49 PM:

Has anyone out of Japan tried to order from them ? I sent an e-mail in July (to benefit from the free shipping) but never got any answer.

Posted by Jason Smith (Member # 5055) on August 30, 2016, 07:49 PM:

Hi Dominique,

Perhaps they didn't see your email. I ordered some film from them in February of this year by email and got a swift response although I did correspond with them in Japanese.

If they didn't respond to your email, try contacting them through Skype(SKYPE name: retroenterprises)

I heard that they also take orders over Facebook if you send them a private message.

According to their website, they are out of stock of their new Provie 100D. http://www.retro8.com/english/englishindex.html

If all else fails, you could try calling their shop.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on August 31, 2016, 06:17 AM:

Thank you, Jason. It seems, indeed, that their filmstock has had a success, which is a good new for the film market :-)

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2