Kodak Rochester May 27, 2010 Super-8 Event, you're invited.

[Alessandro Machi]

Kodak Facebook has an announcement about a super-8 gathering at Kodak Rochester

 

 

 

 

on May 27, 2010.

 

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=433270230785

[Alessandro Machi]

I was curious if anybody from this forum went.

[Art Leal]

I was curious if anybody from this forum went.

 

 

Yes, I went to the NYC event last week. It opened with a rep from Kodak on a podium with a cart of 200T, 500T, Tri-X and 100D and telling us this is what Kodak has along the lines of Super 8. When asked why no more Plus-X/Ektachrome 64, we were told that in all honesty, Kodak is a business and they just were not making enough sales. They then showed a 1 minute clip from a parade of 100D scanned by Pro8. After we were told Jem Cohen would be joining us and showcasing some of his Super 8 works, but we had to wait for him to get to us by cab since he was at a Q&A at MOMA for his new film named "Chain".

 

In the interim we had ourselves a Q&A and one of the questions regarding 200T was whether or not it should be overexposed by 2/3rds to one stop. The person asking the question was interrupted by the female rep when she asked "why are you overexposing 200T, you should be shooting it at 200 ASA"...ok, then why is the cartridge notched as 160, and is notchless at that making it 100 ASA? I was under the inpression that Kodak notched it this way to intentionally overexpose by a full stop.

 

Jem arrived and showed us a Super 8 short/documentary made using Plus-X and Tri-X and with Patti Smith as the subject. It looked very good and I enjoyed the presentation. He He also spoke to us and said the short was mainly shot using auto exposure. We had a short Q&A with him as well. He works with both video and film, but still uses Super 8 at least once a week. His current film "Chain" BTW, was made in regular 16mm with a 4:3 aspect ratio.

 

Next up was this fellow Teague from FlickerNY. He showcased 19 minutes of footage which included a lot of international entries and three of his own works. Flicker is geared for local filmmakers so I was hoping to see less "international" stuff and I could have done with seeing a bit less of his own entries.

 

In the front row were some of the folks from labs such as DuArt and PAC Lab. They were introduced as well.

 

After we were given thanks for stopping in, and were handed a roll of 100D as a gift.

 

I enjoyed Jem's films and his manner the most. David Teague came off as a bit self-promoting to me.

 

They did a good job with the refreshments...plenty of chips, nachos, veggies, dips, beers and soda's.

[Jim Carlile]

Great update.

 

That's funny about the 200T overexposure confusion. What was the general consensus at the end?

 

I'm a reversal guy, but the last time I saw a cartridge of 200T negative film it was notched just like the new Plus-X, which was the 160T/100D speed indice in a notchless cartridge. This would set camera meters for ASA 100 without the internal 85 possible.

 

This agreed with what John Pytlak said was the protocol for that film, and that Kodak deliberatey set it up for a one-stop overexposure and no reliance upon an old, internal 85 filter. If you wanted an 85 then you would put a good one over the lens.

 

Most opinion is that with negative film you want some degree of overexposure. That way you get a denser negative and have more to work with.

 

There's no ASA 200 speed indice in Super 8, so Kodak had to compromise. The workaround is to cut a filter notch in each cartridge-- that way you can get an ASA 160 reading and the ability to toggle in the camera's own 85.

 

This would probably explain why Kodak didn't notch the film at ASA 250T/160D in a notchless cartridge, which would set the meter to ASA 160 instead of 100. That would have worked well with only a 1/3 stop overexposure, but if they had done it that way instead, then cutting a filter notch for your 85 would have set the meter to ASA 250, which would cause underexposure.

 

Unfortunately, reversal film doesn't work this way. Overexposing reversal film gives you less to work with, not more, because it's a thin positive image that you end up with. Underexposure is worse, because you get a blocky positive that has even less information due to all the negative image that was bleached away after the first processing step.

 

This is one reason why pros don't use reversal any more unless they want a special look. You get contrast and saturation but no control and little room in the lab to tweak anything.