E-6

[Ethan]

Read all about it - Read all about it.

Kodak Ekta 135 coming back with a vengeance.

Dust off your Kodak carousel and let the games begin in earnest.

http://www.kodak.com/us/en/corp/press_center/kodak_brings_back_a_classic_with_ektachrome_film/default.htm

[Anthony]

This is good news. Digital movies are definitely inferior to film.

[pluton]

Digital movies are definitely inferior to film.

Agree, but in stills, the situation is reversed.
Plus, movies (except for very rare instances) are shot on color negative film.
[EDIT:  My rant below refers to my experience with E100 on 35mm stills.  In medium format and larger, Ektachromes were very nice.]
My memory of E100, coming after the sharp and contrasty but discontinued Kodachrome, E100 was awful...soft and grainy. But it didn't matter, since printing color wasn't financially practical.
Digital fixed that for me.  Ymmv...

[Anthony]

I agree with you about stills.

It seems that the vast majority of commercial movies are shot digitally, e.g. https://stephenfollows.com/film-vs-digital/

[pluton]

Kodak's motion picture film division was given a breath of life a couple of years ago when a group of Hollywood filmmakers got the studios to agree to buy a certain amount of 35mm motion picture film stock.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-kodak-hollywood-studios-20140731-story.html
In terms of color and tonality, there's no general reason digital cinema can't look and feel good to the audience.  There is something lost, however, in the currently available tonal capture range of digital, and the lack of mechanical imperfections.  Gate weave, flickering, and even the scratches on the print all contributed in the subliminally to a sense of 'aliveness' of projected film.
In the USA, many exhibitors  are using inadequately bright projection(cheaper projectors), which makes the presentation substandard.
In terms of the current fashion amongst the filmmakers for tinting the movies with deliberately bad color and tonality, it is best to refrain from commenting on unresisting imbecility.

[Frank Fremerey]

I love slides, although I always was a Fuji guy. Sensia 100 was my poison, shot many hundreds of these pushed from 100 base to 1600 by Fuji Düsseldorf

[Roland Vink]

I used Fuji Velvia and Provia for years, and only started using Ektachrome a few years before it was discontinued. Although I still prefer Fuji for landscapes, the Kodak film was beautiful for portraits - beautiful neutral and clear colours without the tendency to oversaturate like the Fujis. I was sorry when it disappeared, might be tempted to try it again...

[Ethan]

I used E-6 as I could not afford to shoot negative. Ektas were more practical to scan and post process than negs.

Later moved to C41 which is a pita to process and print.

Still sleeping on few old film cameras and it will be fun to shoot the new Ektas on an F6 which will probably go up in sales as well as the batteries consumption.

[MFloyd]

Good news. I was one of the first (*) to implement the E-6 process in a lab for professionals. It was a six bath continuous process in replacement of the E-4 process. It was a replenishment process i.e. baths are never replaced but products are added instead.

(*) when I was student, I worked in this lab to pay my tuition.

[MFloyd]

This is good news. Digital movies are definitely inferior to film.

Some photographers said the same about digital pictures.

[David H. Hartman]

This is good news. Digital movies are definitely inferior to film.

If memory serves me the movie industry wants to archive digital movies on film.

Dave Hartman

Will E-6 be developed in Hollywood, CA?

[Anthony]

Some photographers said the same about digital pictures.

Yes, but I do not agree with them.

[pluton]

Some photographers said the same about digital pictures.

Yes, but now, at 17-some years into professional digital, the voices of those early naysayers have been largely silenced, and their Luddite ideas crushed by the consensus of the mob. (Ha ha ha.)
On a lighter note, I recently saw a photo spread consisting of shots from disposable cameras, all taken in the late 1980's and 1990'.  The shots had a certain visual charm contributed by the simple fixed focus lens and medium speed color neg film.  I'd like that look now, without the film part.  First I'll need a meniscus lens...

[David H. Hartman]

I'm sure some will disgree but I feel there was a period where film was better than digital. That time is long passed.

Dave Hartman

What I want is Super-XX in cut film sizes.

[John Geerts]

On a lighter note, I recently saw a photo spread consisting of shots from disposable cameras, all taken in the late 1980's and 1990'.  The shots had a certain visual charm contributed by the simple fixed focus lens and medium speed color neg film.  I'd like that look now, without the film part.  First I'll need a meniscus lens...

What focal lenght? I guess 35mm was most common those days 
Some people even reuse those cameras     http://www.instructables.com/id/Reuse-a-disposable-camera-and-save-the-planet-and/