Marrakech shoot on Ektachrome 100D - bizarre results!

[Stephen Gordon]

Shot a travelogue recently in Marrakech using my trusty Canon 514 XL and Ektachrome 100D. Processed and scanned (2K) by the always reliable Gauge Film but I am at a complete loss to explain the results a short example of which I've linked below. They show the footage both without and with a LUT.

Only Clip 3 looks 'normal' with a LUT. That was shot in a cafe. Everything else was shot outdoors. Clip 4 was around mid-day hence the use of ND filter on the camera. So why is there an orange cast on all of these shots? It's almost as though the cyan dye layer (red sensitive according to Dominic Case's excellent 'Motion Picture Film Processing' book) became 'overloaded' with those spectral wavelengths. Is that even possible?

We've all see loads of film shot in Africa (possibly not on Ektachrome) but nothing that looks like this AFAIK. 

I have been able to dial back the orange cast with some grading but as you know reversal has very minimal tolerance for this and the result is horribly noisy. BTW - the film when projected suffers from the same problems so I'm still scratching my head and very keen to hear from the experts on this forum..!

File exported from Lightworks as H.264, 2K, 10-bit.

 

[Joerg Polzfusz]

Looks like the Wratten85 got enabled (which is not a good idea as the E100D isn’t Tungsten balanced). Now you will have to find out whether the filter got enabled by mistake or due to a defect in the camera.

(The only other reason for such a redness would be the film getting loaded so that the emulsion is on the wrong side - see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redscale. But this only happens when you are loading bulkware into cartridges on your own. Of course, there might have also been problems with the film becoming too hot… but I doubt that the result would look like this. )

[Mark Dunn]

The 100D cartridge should be unnotched so the 85 filter should have been disengaged when you inserted it. I don't know what could make it stay in place.

[Stephen Gordon]

Thanks Joerg and Mark for those comments. I can confirm that the 85 filter switch on the camera is working correctly and that the filter was disengaged while the cartridge was being exposed. And yes it was hot (low thirties) but as you say unlikely that heat was the problem. There's been a lot of comments to my same post on the FB S8 group - the latest one suggesting airport X-ray machines. The unexposed cartridge was scanned once leaving the UK and after being exposed, another three times coming back through Agadir airport. But a lot of people say that scanners used for cabin luggage do not affect film of this ASA...

[Mark Dunn]

My understanding is that X-ray exposure is much more localised than that. Does the film actually look like that? Just to eliminate a scanning problem.

What does the lab say about the fault?

[Stephen Gordon]

Thanks - yes the projected film looks pretty much like the scan. I'm in the process of talking to the lab...

[Mark Dunn]

The footage also looks undercranked- is that intentional, or is your camera running slow?

If I didn't know better I'd suggest it was shot at 18 and scanned at 24.

Edited June 30 by Mark Dunn

[Ben Marshall]

Is the negative outside of the capture area (ie. between the sprockets) fogged?

[Joerg Polzfusz]

7 hours ago, Mark Dunn said:

The 100D cartridge should be unnotched so the 85 filter should have been disengaged when you inserted it. I don't know what could make it stay in place.

There’s a mechanical connection between switch and filter. So there might be something stuck or broken. And I don’t know whether this Canon is one of those cameras that was designed to match the E160G (that was notched like the E100D).

There are two ways to check this (with batteries inside and the camera switched on):

1) Go into a dark room, put a lit torch inside the film chamber. Then project the image onto something white (wall/sheet of paper/screen). When switching the filter switch to „sun“, the image should become orange compared to „bulb“.

2) Outside the dark room: Watch the light meter‘s needle when using the filter switch (with the camera in a tripod or a table). The Wratten85 eats up a lot of light. So at „sun“, the iris should be opened 2/3 f-stops wider than at „bulb“.

Note: Your camera might have a sensor whether a cartridge is inserted or not. You might have to press it down during the tests.

Edited June 30 by Joerg Polzfusz

[Tyler Purcell]

Yea I do think it's the filter as well, it's also underexposed, which is why you have splotches of no data. 

[Joerg Polzfusz]

Sorry, forgot to mention: In test 1, the camera has to run, otherwise the shutter will block all light. 

[Stephen Gordon]

Thanks for your comments everyone: I can now confirm that the problem was definitely not the lab or processing. The 85 filter was engaged by mistake. 

[Mark Dunn]

28 minutes ago, Stephen Gordon said:

Thanks for your comments everyone: I can now confirm that the problem was definitely not the lab or processing. The 85 filter was engaged by mistake. 

Have you worked out how it happened? As I said the cartridge should have disengaged the filter automatically.

What about the apparent undercranking?

[Stephen Gordon]

Thanks Mark - to be clear does the current Ektachrome 100D cartridge disengage the 85 filter on every Super 8 camera which has a filter? If so it's a mystery why this did not happen. I didn't alter the cartridge in any way. But the film looks exactly as you'd expect from shooting daylight film with an 85 filter - complete shift to orange (and Marrakech already has a colour palette skewed in that direction).

As to your second question: yes, shot at 18fps and scanned at 25fps. I didn't apply the usual 70% speed reduction before I quickly cut these sample clips together and exported them.

[Mark Dunn]

8 minutes ago, Stephen Gordon said:

Thanks Mark - to be clear does the current Ektachrome 100D cartridge disengage the 85 filter on every Super 8 camera which has a filter? If so it's a mystery why this did not happen. I didn't alter the cartridge in any way. But the film looks exactly as you'd expect from shooting daylight film with an 85 filter - complete shift to orange (and Marrakech already has a colour palette skewed in that direction).

As to your second question: yes, shot at 18fps and scanned at 25fps. I didn't apply the usual 70% speed reduction before I quickly cut these sample clips together and exported them.

The filter pin is below the gate- push it in by hand while looking into the lens and you should see the filter swing out.

A tungsten-balanced cartridge has a notch in that position so the filter stays in. A 100D cartridge should be un-notched, so removing the filter. I've never seen a 100D cartridge, but all the photographs I can find show no notch. If you still have a cartridge you could check.

It's possible that your camera has a broken linkage so the filter stays in; if you've always used negative film before, the cast can be graded out so you may not have noticed. But you now know that it can't be corrected on 100D.

Edited Friday at 03:44 PM by Mark Dunn

[Stephen Gordon]

Thanks again Mark - I found the filter pin and can confirm that pushing it does indeed disengage the 85 filter. The manual switch on the side of the camera also works. I then checked by inserting another 100D cart (from the same batch as the one in the clips) and can also confirm that loading it removes the 85 filter - because there is no notch.

[Mark Dunn]

27 minutes ago, Stephen Gordon said:

Thanks again Mark - I found the filter pin and can confirm that pushing it does indeed disengage the 85 filter. The manual switch on the side of the camera also works. I then checked by inserting another 100D cart (from the same batch as the one in the clips) and can also confirm that loading it removes the 85 filter - because there is no notch.

Hmm. What made you think that the filter was definitely in? Because if it wasn't, that only leaves the stock being affected by the heat.

[Stephen Gordon]

At that point I couldn't think of any explanation apart from operator error. It seems that the no-notch system rules that out. But it wasn't until your comment that I checked to be certain. It was hot for sure (low thirties) but not ridiculously so. It's something of a puzzle currently...

[Joerg Polzfusz]

Maybe the camera was affected by the heat (so that the filter got stuck)?

Of course, there are also cameras that let you enable the Wratten85 despite having loaded a daylight balanced film. On some cameras, this is a defect, on others, this is by purpose (E160G or using the Wratten85 as orange filter for B&W).