5 Rolls of grainy Kodachrome

[John Adolfi]

Today I got back 5 rolls of Kodachrome Super8 film and all 5 were grainy. Here's what I did to achieve this result. I purchased new fresh Kodachrome film direct from Kodak last month. I kept it in a freezer till the day and thawed it out several hours before shooting. Shot on 3 seperate days. All film was shot on a sunny day exterior. I used 3 cameras, Nizo 801, Nikon R-10 and an Elmo 1012XL-S.

When shooting I used the convience of the auto exposure system to determin and shoot with each of the 3 cameras. About an f5.6 most of the time. After I ended shooting each day I boxed up each carton and placed it in the frig not the freezer and waited a week before I sent them to Dwaynes for processing.

 

The only other blimish other than the grain was a brief scene 10-15 seconds where two vertical hair thin red lines appeared like railroad tracks down the center of the frame.

 

Why is my film so grainy? It looks like ASA 160 shot indoors, that is how much grain I achieved. I do not want grain.

I need help in analyzing this. I got 5 more rolls to shoot from the same stock and this Sunday I got a script, a crew of people and donuts.

[Sam Wells]

I don't read this forum too often. So I missed your question although you reffered to it somewhere else here ?

 

Not too much information here, is your footage way underexposed ? Have you called Dwaynes and can you send them a roll to look at ?

 

Was it zapped by Xrays per chance ? (although I'd think unprocessed Kodachrome would be safe, besides unless it went on a plane as baggage or something, how would that happen ?)

 

Did you moisture seal the film that went in the fridge, and allow sufficient time after taking the film out of the freezer ? Humidity is the enemy of film. Frankly Kodachrome is so stable, there are no dye couplers, I'd just as soon leave it on the shelf as subject it to a household refrigerator.

 

-Sam

[Rachel Oliver]

Hi;

everything Sam says plus how were you viewing it? projection or video transfer? If it was from video then it's probably a lame telecine if it's direct then it could be many things, K40 is usually almost grainless!

Olly

[John Adolfi]

Well I viewed it on a Bauer T-610 projector. I gave it several hours of warming up before I filmed. I did not mosture seal the film. I just placed in back in the carton, taped it up and put it in the frig not the freezer. You think that the moisture damaged the film? How? If not what else. I'll call Dwaynes tomorrow.

[Sam Wells]

No not really. I'm puzzled. Mottling or the like. I don't see moisture causing graininess !

 

Very definitely call the lab.

 

-Sam

[Matt Pacini]

Is this the only K40 you've viewed on that projector?

I had a couple Baur projectors once, the ones that project to a built-in screen, so the unit looks kinda like an old TV set.

Is this the one you have?

Because if so, the screen itself is kinda wacky and looks grainy itself.

It has nothing to do with the film at all.

 

Get (or borrow) a regular viewer, or even use a light table & loupe to look closely to see if there's grain.

K-40 at 5.6 with good cameras should not be giving you grainy images!

I suspect the projector...

 

Matt Pacini

[Sam Wells]

Well if you're projecting it on a bright screen or even a white wall and you're like 3' away, you'll see grain for sure

 

-Sam

[Riku Naskali]

Have you viewed K40 before? I hope you are not comparing its grain to 16mm :rolleyes:

[John Adolfi]

Problem solved! Just sent 3 rolls of the same Kodachrome stock shot on the same camera to Kodak Switzerland via Walmart for $4.88 a roll plus tax. Got it back in 7 days. The film looks great, no grain and only 1 week turn around!

[Anthony Schilling]

your first was probably out of focus.. that will "appear" grainier

[John Adolfi]

Sorry friend but we are talking about 5 rolls, 3 cameras, two days different locations and good focus and some experience on and off over a 20 year period of shooting super8. It was the developing. Dwaynes has a machine for Kodachrome slides that they use for super8 as well. The machine in Switzerland is the only machine strickly used and made for s-8.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Sorry friend but we are talking about 5 rolls, 3 cameras, two days different locations and good focus and some experience on and off over a 20 year period of shooting super8.  It was the developing. Dwaynes has a machine for Kodachrome slides that they use for super8 as well. The machine in Switzerland is the only machine strickly used and made for s-8.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Glad to hear it worked out. :D As I said in my e-mail, it could also have been due to accidental x-ray inspection somewhere between you and Dwaynes. So I would give them another chance.

 

Did Scott Stevens from Kodak's NYC office call you to offer help?

[Alessandro Machi]

Glad to hear it worked out.  :D  As I said in my e-mail, it could also have been due to accidental x-ray inspection somewhere between you and Dwaynes.  So I would give them another chance.

 

Did Scott Stevens from Kodak's NYC office call you to offer help?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wouldn't there be a higher degree of x-ray risk between the U.S. and Switzerland versus the U.S. to the U.S.?

 

It's going to take someone shooting the exact same scene on two Kodachrome cartridges and sending one cartridge to Dwaynes and the other one to Switzerland and them comparing the results.

 

If the temperature of the lab's processing is off a few degrees additional grain can result.

 

Sadly, the Kodak chemist at Dwaynes decided to go into elementary school teaching a couple of years ago and apparenlty was never replaced. :unsure:

[John Pytlak RIP]

Wouldn't there be a higher degree of x-ray risk between the U.S. and Switzerland versus the U.S. to the U.S.?

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Accidental x-ray inspection can occur in anything shipped on a passenger airliner, which mail can be.

[Alessandro Machi]

Why can't Kodak hire a "chemist/consultant" to check on Dwaynes from time to time?

 

I had what looked like excessive grain on a blue sky backgrond that I had processed at Dwayes a couple of months ago. It might have been the video transfer, or a combination of both processing and transfer.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Why can't Kodak hire a "chemist/consultant" to check on Dwaynes from time to time?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Kodak always stands ready to help its laboratory customers. But they need to request it.

 

Kodak also offers a wide variety of additional fee-based services to professional motion picture labs through Kodak Motion Picture Services:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...=0.1.4.30&lc=en

[Alessandro Machi]

What I find confusing is Dwaynes had a Kodak "certified chemist" for a while. When this person left Dwaynes (and on good terms I believe), how come another Kodak "certified chemist" wasn't brought in?

[Alessandro Machi]

I just thought I'd bump this topic to see if anyone has any knew feedback about where Dwayne's is these days in terms of quality.

[Nate Downes]

I actually did the test listed above, and shot two rolls of K40, sent one to Kodak via Ritz Camera and one to Dwaynes via Ritz Camera. (sent one in the week before the switchover and one right after) Frankly, the difference was night and day, literally.

 

You see, the film I sent in was from 1988. But, when it went to Dwaynes, it came out blank, while the roll that went to Kodak came out and the beautiful face of my little boy could be seen talking into the microphone in his hand.

[Marc_Abernathy]

let me bump...

 

were both rolls of the same lot and expiry date?

 

are you saying you do not recommend dwaynes?

[Alessandro Machi]

The other question I would have is you actually shot the same sequence at the same time of day?

 

I'm intrigued that exposure issues could come into play, but how could that be?

[Robert Hughes]

That's ridiculous. You can't blame a processing lab for failing to get usable images off 20 year old film. Do an A/B test with new film for a proper comparison.