Re: Silly little Kodak History question.

This is what I figured. The camera shop was the middle man. So with
regards to the magazines- When you brought this film in for processing
you couldn't get the magazine back even if it didn't go to Kodak? E.G.
"Adam's Camera Shop". Also if part of the price of the film was a
deposit, does this mean you got money back when the film was returned
developed and they took the mag? Just curious...

Although the written information on the case most certainly implies
there are are a lot of other laboratories to process the 16mm film other
than Kodak, pre-1961, although all of you have said there was no way
basically because of the expense of the machines. Although I would
presume by 1961 16mm color was pretty common and in demand even by the
consumer.

I'm sort of trying to figure out how strong a hold Kodak had of keeping
their films made in their labs and processed in their labs.

> The label is from the shop who sold the film. If returned there they
> would send it on to Kodak. While 8mm and 16mm movies were still
> popular Kodak maintained processing labs in Rochester and in
> Hollywood, I think also in the mid-west someplace. The ten million
> dollar cost for a processing machine mentioned in other posts may have
> applied to motion picture processing but not to still film machines.
> They were expensive but much less so, perhaps one million dollars. The
> Kodachrome process is very complicated compared to other E-6. Motion
> picture processing for any type of film is best done in continuous,
> automatic, machines.
> The reason for returning motion picture magazines is two fold: Kodak
> did not want them bulk loaded; they were expensive and were re-used.
> Currently, Alan Gordon Enterprizes, in Hollywood, supplies film in
> 16mm magazines, see: http://www.alangordon.com/s_GSAPmags.html
>
> ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@ix.netcom.com
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wed Jul 13 17:32:52 2005