John Adolfi Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachel Oliver Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adolfi Posted October 4, 2004 Author Share Posted October 4, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 No not really. I'm puzzled. Mottling or the like. I don't see moisture causing graininess ! Very definitely call the lab. -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pacini Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riku Naskali Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Have you viewed K40 before? I hope you are not comparing its grain to 16mm :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adolfi Posted October 14, 2004 Author Share Posted October 14, 2004 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Schilling Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 your first was probably out of focus.. that will "appear" grainier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adolfi Posted October 14, 2004 Author Share Posted October 14, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted October 14, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted October 14, 2004 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted October 14, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted October 14, 2004 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted October 14, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted October 14, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted October 15, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted October 15, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted October 17, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted October 17, 2004 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted October 18, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted October 18, 2004 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted March 4, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 4, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc_Abernathy Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 let me bump... were both rolls of the same lot and expiry date? are you saying you do not recommend dwaynes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted March 29, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted March 29, 2005 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Hughes Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now