Finally 100D!

[Anthony Schilling]

I know it's not news anymore, but I just heard yesterday after 5 years of hopeful anticipation. I love this stock and think it will really boost the format, the thought of fresh stock at Kodak prices has me excited to shoot S8 again. I've been getting my fix of 7285 in 16mm and DS8, but now i can get back to the shooting style of my Nizo 481 and Canon 814XLS. I didn't like the 64T very much... K40 was just hype to me, it's colors fell flat and whites came out muddy in it's last years. If you like film for it's intense colors, nothing beats 100D-

[andy oliver]

Each to his/her own. I find 100D suffers from blown out hightlights and lacks the sharpness of 64t. Its a high contrast disneychrome colour film that appears to be sharp due to its high contrast. I certainly get no fix with DS-8 100D and 16MM 100d. K40 is sharper than 100D and looks better projected, their is a bite to a k25/40 image that 100d sadly lacks, unless on BCU. I hated 64t at first, but after using 100d, prefer 64t over 100d any day. Hats off to kodak for supporting super 8 and releasing 100d, and yes i'll probably be using quite a bit of the stuff....

[Anthony Schilling]

Each to his/her own. I find 100D suffers from blown out hightlights and lacks the sharpness of 64t. Its a high contrast disneychrome colour film that appears to be sharp due to its high contrast. I certainly get no fix with DS-8 100D and 16MM 100d. K40 is sharper than 100D and looks better projected, their is a bite to a k25/40 image that 100d sadly lacks, unless on BCU. I hated 64t at first, but after using 100d, prefer 64t over 100d any day. Hats off to kodak for supporting super 8 and releasing 100d, and yes i'll probably be using quite a bit of the stuff....

I agree 100D is not as sharp as I would like, not as sharp as K40. I disagree on the contrast and the whites, unless you have only witnessed video transfers... the projected image is less contrasty than K40, with a lot more shadow detail within the rich colors. The whites are white, not dinghy like K40. I've compared a fair amount of both (I've shot a lot more k40 than 100D so far) and the Kodachrome just looks dark, contrasty, muted, and muddy in comparison. I think a lot of people are clinging to some iconic ideal of what Kodachrome was but isn't.

When compared to 64T, 100D is much finer grain, similar sharpness... cleaner and more saturated colors. I found the 64T too cold and blue with a straight 85 filter, and too orange with an 85B. 64T had a really narrow, optimal sweet spot in bright sunlight... otherwise is was way too grainy.

[andy oliver]

I'm certainly not clinging to the iconic ideal kodachrome was, and still is for me. The evidence is on a projected screen, colours, edge definition is much better on a kodachrome original over 100d. If kodachrome looks mudy and dark, then you must be doing something wrong. Agreed k40, is not the best on a grubby day, k25 was the better film for daylight compared to k40. Look at this test footage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqe4Ho6_YiY 'blown out highlights' my main gripe with 100d.

[Art Leal]

You chose a bad example to make your case..my footage. I admit its contrasty, but the blown highlights were mostly due to my homebrew telecine and clipping from the video camera I used. Although some of the area's are hot, when projected the detail is there. Perhaps a clip from a pro telecine may serve as a better example.

[andy oliver]

You chose a bad example to make your case..my footage. I admit its contrasty, but the blown highlights were mostly due to my homebrew telecine and clipping from the video camera I used. Although some of the area's are hot, when projected the detail is there. Perhaps a clip from a pro telecine may serve as a better example.

 

Your film, exactly mimic's my finding with the stock, i've 100d with blown out highlights, i doubt a pro transfer would be able to correct this?.

Art how does the actual footage look projected? are the highlights actually blown out?

 

LOL, all this negativity from me regarding 100D yet i'm loading up the bolex ds-8 with some for this weekend...

 

Andy

 

ps, hope you didn't mind me posting your link?

[Art Leal]

Hi Andy!

 

The worst of it were that some sections (sidewalk on :27, the streets at 1:23, pavement at 1:51, man's shoulder at 2:06) were just on the verge of appearing blown out when projected, but just barely. Also the darker-shadowed areas appeared much brighter, less contrasty. I might also mention that the saturation was richer off the wall, I needed to crank them down a bit after the transfer to avoid chroma noise/bleeding.

 

I'm sure a reputable telecine facility has much more flexibility.

 

PS Don't mind you linking to it at all. I made it public by posting it so I that I can get feedback from others, good or bad.

I'm with you on the negativity part...I ordered some more yesterday. But I don't view it as negativity, but a discussion...which is what makes this forum and everyone's opinions and experiences great to learn from.

[Bengt Freden]

The Kodachrome Iconic Ideal.

 

I am old enough to remember what Kodacrome IIA used to look like, before Kodachrome 40A came along in the mid 70s. Now that was a BEAUTIFUL film, with deep, deep blue skies and warm, gentle, brownish skin tones.

I was working for a very well respected advertising photographer in Stockholm in 1974-75 and I remember the hellish problems we had when the new Kodachrome 25 and 64 daylight 35mm stills fims were introduced. This photographer used to work extensively with Nikon F2's and Kodachrome II 135-36 daylight film and he was absolutely infuriated with KODAK in Stockholm over the first really bad results he got with Kodachrome 25 and 64. One week it turned out magenta and the next green in the processing. A couple of months later, after endless Wratten gel filter testing, he did a big job with lots of people and cars in a big rented film studio for two days and all the eighty or so rolls came back all GREEN from the processing. KODAK replied to his complaints that it was an amateur film - that's KODAK for you, in a nut shell. No economic compensation, just new rolls of the same rotten film.

 

The problems was pretty much the same with Kodachrome 40A, the 3400 K° tungsten film that we had to filter with W85 for normal daylight shooting. The same magenta-colored skin tones and the same problems with green hues, especially in skies and whites. Which made it almost impossible to filter correctly. I was using 81A and B a lot, to achieve the warm look of the forever gone Kodachrome II, but never got close. The processing of KII was really toxic and that's why KODAK had to change the processing formula.

THIS is my iconic Kodachrome Super 8, the film with which I am comparing all other reversal films. Shot in 1969, the Kodachrome IIA Super 8 rolls still look absolutely stunning. And so does the 35mm Kodachrome II Leica slides I have from the early 70s. THIS was the film Simon and Garfunkel was singing about.

 

All the best,

Bengt F, Stockholm, Sweden

Edited May 11, 2010 by Bengt Freden

[Marc Marti]

I hated 64t at first, but after using 100d, prefer 64t over 100d any day.

 

That's my experience too. The first time I shot E64T with a 85B filter, I hated the awful, multicolored grain but LOVED the colors.

Then I started to read all those fascinated 100D reviews and I imagined this stock with the colors of E64T but without the grain.

What a deception when I shot my first reels! A grainy film (although neutral and more contained), with average resolution and unnatural ultra-warm colours.

 

I applaud Kodak too for keeping the format alive, but I still need a colour reversal stock that makes me say "Wow!" when I get the films back from the lab...

[Anthony Schilling]

It's interesting to hear such distinctly different experiences with different stocks. I have only used the DS8 and custom loaded S8 carts of 100D so far... but spliced together with 64T many times and always a major difference in grain, like gravel and pavement in favor of 100D. The 7285 grain is basically the same as K40. The colors are close to 64T, but I just prefer the more saturated look of the 100D. I found 64T to get too grainy and muddy in anything less than bright sunlight. It was still too cold with unwanted blue casts when using the 85 filter. I found that really apparent and off putting when watching a ton of 64T in an S8 class I worked in last year.

 

When it comes to Kodachrome, I agree the footage from the early 70's Kodachrome II had great colors... but that's been over since 74. The latest K40A looked great 8 years ago, but at that time it's only competition was the crummy video of the day, and more muted Ektachrome 7240. Since working with Velvia 50, E100D, and even 64T... K40 really lost its edge.

[Patrick Cooper]

I'm not exactly over the moon that Kodak is offiically releasing 100D as it's main colour reversal stock. I have tried 100D sometime ago in my Eumig Nautica. Colours were bold and saturated but I was quite surprised and disappointed about the lack of real shapness. This same camera had given me some beautifully sharp images in the past with K40. Unless perhaps something has occurred more recently in this camera's lens...like fungus development. I was surprised too with the visible grain in 100D. And i hate to say but 100D looked horrible underwater. The underwater footage had this really unpleasant green cast. And don't tell me that this was due to colour absorption and the lack of artificial lighting. I have also used K40 underwater without lights (with the daylight filter activated in the Nautica) and colours looked overall more pleasing - with the expected slight blueish cast from colour absorption

[Ian Payne]

100d in Australia next week.