super 8 100d vs 64t

Filip Plesha · January 17, 2006

I have limited experience with 64T as I only know it as a nice material for a variety of applications in still photography so far. To my mind Kodachrome 40 had two things going for it which 64T doesn't and which really have to do with 64T's dated technology: A bit less grain and more importantly it had neutral to slightly warm/brownish shaddows. 64T goes blue in the shaddows which was a prominent feature of all Ektachromes of its generation. In situations where there is lots of straylight and backlighting the Ektachromes from the eighties also exhibited a strong blue cast. This is less pronounced with todays 64t than with e.g. old Ektachrome 100 from 1985 but it is still there. For old multi-zoom lenses with mediocre straylight suppression this often was and in super 8 probably still is too much to handle. As far as I can see in the pictures which have been published so far this is could be one source of disappointment but I start guessing here.

I'd say get used to it, avoid backlighting more than ever, use only lenses with good straylight suppression, compendiums and hoods if possible but I don't feel in the position to draw any valid conclusions before actually trying 64T in a format as small as Super 8 and better shut up right now.

Stefan

You are correct about the blue cast (I'd call it cyanish maybe) but you are trading one cast for another, you can't complain about a color cast because Kodachrome is full of color distortions, from shadows to highlights.

Kodachrome has a unuque color palette which is built on imperfections of its color reproduction. It is great, it is "thick" it is "punchy" its everything, but it's not natural exept in reproduction of some specific colors.

And now 64T comes in with a blue-cyan underexposure and everyone starts pointing fingers.

The blue shadows are a part of the classic Ektachrome look that , just as cyan skies or bloody reds are a part of the Kodachrome look.

Nobody said 64T is supose to look like Kodachrome, nope Kodachrome is gone without replacements, this is a compleatly new stock with a new look.

And besides 64T is a studio film, and in that environment it performs perfectly.

Edited January 17, 2006 by Filip Plesha

Stefan Kahlert · January 17, 2006

You are correct about the blue cast (I'd call it cyanish maybe) but you are trading one cast for another, you can't complain about a color cast because Kodachrome is full of color distortions, from shadows to highlights.

I'm not complaning. As I said, to me its mostly a question of getting used to and adopting ones methods to it. I'm pretty sure if 64T was all we had during the last 10 or 15 yeary it would have aquired the status of an S8 classic already. But its less than perfect and not up to todays standards in colour rendition so why not name its weak points and talk about ways to get around them? There must have been a time when people had to learn how to get the best out of K40 too, no? B)

Stefan

Filip Plesha · January 18, 2006

not up to todays standards in colour rendition

A clean linear digital look is today's standard of color rendention, so I wellcome any film that still looks like film. Let's face it, the "film look" (in a still image) is all about imperfections in color rendention, that's what makes film look different from reality.

The more CCD and film technologies get developed, the more similar they look, film loses its classic film look and video gets to look better. It's easier to confuse a good scan of a modern E6 film with digital, than it is to confuse an old Kodachrome frame or some old E4 or E3 Ektachrome frame with digital.

Same goes for movies, could you ever confuse 50's Eastmancolor for HD cinematography? Nope because it's SO obvious that it's film because it has that primitive gritty look, but you could more easily confuse vision2 films with good HD and vice versa.

I vote for films with character, with imperfections, with a genuine "film look"

Edited January 18, 2006 by Filip Plesha

Stefan Kahlert · January 18, 2006

I vote for films with character, with imperfections, with a genuine "film look"

To my mind the upside of the current situation is that K40 made room for new choices (not discussing if the downside is bigger, as has been said: get over it).

With this in mind I'm glad to see 64T as well as Wittner releasing 100D and Velvia 50 in S8. If the latter is sucessfull, who knows, maybe we also see carts filled with provia or astia but I may be to optimistic here as well.

I'm sure even such a broad range of different films will not make any die hard K40 lover happy but it's certainly a good thing if we have a choice between different kinds of "film look". Even in its day not everything was done on Eastmancolor and I doubt it was good thing for S8 as a medium that K40 was almost the only kind of character it could deliver.

Stefan

Sam Wells · January 18, 2006

A clean linear digital look is today's standard of color rendention, so I wellcome any film that still looks like film. Let's face it, the "film look" (in a still image) is all about imperfections in color rendention, that's what makes film look different from reality.

The more CCD and film technologies get developed, the more similar they look, film loses its classic film look and video gets to look better. It's easier to confuse a good scan of a modern E6 film with digital, than it is to confuse an old Kodachrome frame or some old E4 or E3 Ektachrome frame with digital.

Same goes for movies, could you ever confuse 50's Eastmancolor for HD cinematography? Nope because it's SO obvious that it's film because it has that primitive gritty look, but you could more easily confuse vision2 films with good HD and vice versa.

I vote for films with character, with imperfections, with a genuine "film look"

Sorry to backquote the whole post, but Filip you've really nailed something here. For the most part I couldn't agree more. (And for that very reason I don't like to get into these "is emulsion A better than emulsion B" or "crappy Koda40" (huh ??) debates and regret it when I do...

(I'm not sure it's *that* easy to confuse V2 with HD, but I know what you mean. In any case I'm starting to become resigned to the fact of having to 'finish' the look of film stocks digitally. Yes I understand the power of that in one way, but in another will miss - how to put this -- the flavor of a good emulsion is like the stone a sculptor cuts - overcoming some resistance is the art of it.... )

-Sam

A.Oliver · January 18, 2006

Lol, somehow I don't think Super8 users are in a position to call EPY "primitive", since they have been Kodachrome users for decades, and Kodachrome is the most primitive film out there today.

Well said, you are right. But the old primitive kodachrome is better for projection, has less grain and will fade less than 64t. Old is best. I have yet to see a better super 8 image than my bolex double super 8 can produce with primitive k25. I doubt that we'll ever see super 8 looking as good with this old filmstock. I meant that 64t is primitive compared to the more modern ektachromes, i am moaning because kodak gave the super 8 user there oldest and most grainest film. i just hope when kodak kills 16mm k40 this summer we get E100G as a replacement.

John Pytlak RIP · January 19, 2006

... i am moaning because kodak gave the super 8 user there oldest and most grainest film.

Again, a tungsten balance film close to the speed of K40 is the EKTACHROME film most people surveyed wanted for Super-8.

Filip Plesha · January 19, 2006

Well said, you are right. But the old primitive kodachrome is better for projection, has less grain and will fade less than 64t. Old is best. I have yet to see a better super 8 image than my bolex double super 8 can produce with primitive k25. I doubt that we'll ever see super 8 looking as good with this old filmstock. I meant that 64t is primitive compared to the more modern ektachromes, i am moaning because kodak gave the super 8 user there oldest and most grainest film. i just hope when kodak kills 16mm k40 this summer we get E100G as a replacement.

Well while 64T is a bit grainy for its speed, it certainly is not a grainy film in general.

It's RMS measure is 11, which is the same as E100VS

Of course, super8 requires as fine grain as possible, so this kind of grain might not be enough,

but this film does not really stick out as being very grainy in the E6 world. It's just on the lower side of "normal" while latest RMS 8 films set the higher side of "normal" today.

Matt Sandstrom · January 24, 2006

Again, a tungsten balance film close to the speed of K40 is the EKTACHROME film most people surveyed wanted for Super-8.

kodak should know better than to try and give people what they want, or think they want. that's the most sure way of failing, which has been proven over and over again in the past.

/matt

Joe Gioielli · January 24, 2006

If you enjoy Kodachrome in small format, just get a regular 8mm camera and you're all set. John Schwind says that k40 in 16mm should be around for quite awhile yet. The difference between projected super and regular is nothing you can't live with. So if you want to keep kodachrome as your stock, there's your last best option.

As for the Fuji Velvia, you can get it from Pro8mm, $45 US with processing. That is a special order price. I was told they had 3 instock I could have for $35. Bit spendy, but it is an option if you don't want to just retire your 40asa Super8 camera.

Joe