Ektachrome 100D

[William Fischer]

Ektachrome 100D is advertised as having "intensely saturated color," and some 16mm tests I've seen bear that out. Other tests, however, look very unremarkable color-wise. I'm using this particular stock for a short student film, and we've done fairly well with it, but I was wondering if anyone had advice for getting the most out of its advertised color potential.

[John Salim]

Ektachrome 100D is a great looking film when projected, and does have a close 'Kodachrome look' to it.

 

You could try under exposing it by a third of a stop to give slightly more saturated colour, but don't under expose too much more otherwise you'll have a noticably dark film !

 

I'm advising on projected film not scanned film.

 

John S :rolleyes:

[David Cunningham]

If you are having the film scanned, you are likely bumping up against a colorist who is scaling back the colors and trying to make them look more natural.

 

In reality, color saturation in the DI world is not film dependent. You could easily shoot daylight negative film, such as Vision3 50D or 250D, and gain all the latitude and other advantages. Then, have the colorist color time adjust to be more saturated.

 

If you want the most accurate Ektachrome 100D scan, including the saturated colors, be sure to tell your scan/telecine house to color correct based on the actual film. Tell them you want an accurate scan of the data on the film rather than a "corrected" scan.

 

Compare you scan to the projected image. I bet the actual projected image will be far more saturated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ektachrome 100D is a great looking film when projected, and does have a close 'Kodachrome look' to it.

 

You could try under exposing it by a third of a stop to give slightly more saturated colour, but don't under expose too much more otherwise you'll have a noticably dark film !

 

I'm advising on projected film not scanned film.

 

John S :rolleyes:

Edited October 23, 2012 by David Cunningham

[David Cunningham]

Here is a good example of the importance of the colorist and how he/she can make any film "saturated" too look like Kodakchrome.

 

Here is a Pro8mm scan that intentionally took this Vision3 50D negative and pushed the colors during color correction:

 

 

 

 

Then, here is the same film scanned at another house where the colorist went for a more natural, although slightly washed out, approach.

 

 

 

This colorist thing is the prime example of why I still like to shoot reversal when possible. It's much easier to tell the colorist what you want your scan to look like when you say "make it look like the actual film". When talking about negative, clearly there is no "what it actually looks like".

[Bill DiPietra]

Here is a good example of the importance of the colorist and how he/she can make any film "saturated" too look like Kodakchrome.

 

Here is a Pro8mm scan that intentionally took this Vision3 50D negative and pushed the colors during color correction:

 

 

 

 

Then, here is the same film scanned at another house where the colorist went for a more natural, although slightly washed out, approach.

 

 

 

This colorist thing is the prime example of why I still like to shoot reversal when possible. It's much easier to tell the colorist what you want your scan to look like when you say "make it look like the actual film". When talking about negative, clearly there is no "what it actually looks like".

 

Yes but, while the first video is much nicer than the second, there is a significant loss of detail in the shadow areas due to the vivid palette. Normally, I like a nice contrasty look, but this appears "pushed" to me. I've always found reversal a bit problematic simply due to the lack of latitude.

 

How did you expose this when you shot it?

[David Cunningham]

Yes but, while the first video is much nicer than the second, there is a significant loss of detail in the shadow areas due to the vivid palette. Normally, I like a nice contrasty look, but this appears "pushed" to me. I've always found reversal a bit problematic simply due to the lack of latitude.

 

How did you expose this when you shot it?

 

 

 

This wasn't my work. Check the links and you will see more details about it, as well as all my comments... most notably my complaint about the loss of shadow highlights. :)

 

Dave

[David Cunningham]

Yes but, while the first video is much nicer than the second, there is a significant loss of detail in the shadow areas due to the vivid palette. Normally, I like a nice contrasty look, but this appears "pushed" to me. I've always found reversal a bit problematic simply due to the lack of latitude.

 

How did you expose this when you shot it?

 

 

Also note that reversal will always, as you indicated, have less latitude and highlight detail in the first place. So, pushing the colors in the scan (leading to loss of highlight detail) basically just makes it look like under exposed reversal, even though it appears that the original negative was slightly over exposed... probably at least 2 stops in many places. It's a very interesting comparison of scan techniques.

[Bill DiPietra]

This wasn't my work. Check the links and you will see more details about it, as well as all my comments... most notably my complaint about the loss of shadow highlights. :)

 

Dave

 

 

Oops! Sorry 'bout that! :P

[William Fischer]

Ektachrome 100D is a great looking film when projected, and does have a close 'Kodachrome look' to it.

 

You could try under exposing it by a third of a stop to give slightly more saturated colour, but don't under expose too much more otherwise you'll have a noticably dark film !

 

I'm advising on projected film not scanned film.

 

John S :rolleyes:

I'm getting a 1080p scan of the film; what would going down a third of a stop do to the look in that event?

[David Cunningham]

I'm getting a 1080p scan of the film; what would going down a third of a stop do to the look in that event?

 

 

Assuming your concern is more about bright highlights than shadow highlights you will likely increase your color saturation a hair ( hardly noticeable ) and darken (make more contrasty) your shadows/overall image. You really won't notice a negative effect on your image until you get closer to 1/2 or any real loss of primary subject detail (that you metered on) until 1 full stop.

 

At least... that's my experience.

 

A good colorist will be able to bring your highlight details up to where you want them as long as you are less than a 2/3 stop under exposure, and maybe even more. The DI process really changes the whole game. But, in an unsupervised transfer, you really can't be sure what you are going to get. You could go with DPX log files, but then you would have to color grade and do highlight masks on your own. That gets complicated and time consuming.

[William Fischer]

Thanks for all the feedback; David, I followed your advice on our notes to the scan house, and the film looks pretty damn good.

 

On a slightly different topic; Kodak's own website gives Ektachrome a 3-Star rating for "Well-lit Studio (T)" conditions. The majority of our film is set to be shot in a studio lit with HMIs. Does anyone have any experience using Ektachrome under these or similar conditions?

[David Cunningham]

Thanks for all the feedback; David, I followed your advice on our notes to the scan house, and the film looks pretty damn good.

 

On a slightly different topic; Kodak's own website gives Ektachrome a 3-Star rating for "Well-lit Studio (T)" conditions. The majority of our film is set to be shot in a studio lit with HMIs. Does anyone have any experience using Ektachrome under these or similar conditions?

 

 

Do you have a link to the scan? I'd love to see it. Who did the scan?

 

I have no experience with 100D in anything other than natural light (looks great) or indoors with old-school incandescent bulbs which turned out CRAZY yellow/orange. I'm very curious to see what people's experience is with 100D and HMIs since their color temp can vary with age. It shouldn't matter much with an HD or 2K transfer since it can be color correct for after. Be sure to shoot a color chart if you aren't going to supervise the transfer/color correction.

[William Fischer]

 

The second link is a scan pushed one stop brighter, which was thrown in free of charge. Both are 1080p scans done by Debenham Media Group, with the film developed at AlphaCine. When we compared it to the raw film inspected by eye, there wasn't any major difference aside from the sky being less hot on the film.

 

Everything was shot on a Bolex fitted with a large Canon zoom lens (don't know the exact specs for it; I'm the director on this, not the DP), with a .6 ND on everything up until we hit golden hour. The footage will eventually be cropped to match S16 footage; our regular camera had blown a fuse for this shoot.

[David Cunningham]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr6QXNZmul4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUTXUzilH0Y

 

The second link is a scan pushed one stop brighter, which was thrown in free of charge. Both are 1080p scans done by Debenham Media Group, with the film developed at AlphaCine. When we compared it to the raw film inspected by eye, there wasn't any major difference aside from the sky being less hot on the film.

 

Everything was shot on a Bolex fitted with a large Canon zoom lens (don't know the exact specs for it; I'm the director on this, not the DP), with a .6 ND on everything up until we hit golden hour. The footage will eventually be cropped to match S16 footage; our regular camera had blown a fuse for this shoot.

 

 

Nice shots in there. I definitely like the Neutral scan much better for almost all shots. The silhouette shots were really cool.

 

I do, however, kinda feel like some of the definition is being lost somewhere. I have never heard of Debenham Media Group. I looked them up, but can't seem to find what equipment they use. They are way more expensive, but I'd love to see this film re-scanned on the Scannity at Cinelicious.

 

My only other note is that it seems a bit "jittery". That's one of the things that makes my question what hardware is being used by Debenham Media Group. I can't tell if the jitter is an incorrectly pin-registered scan or the camera itself. I've found my Bolex to be almost rock solid in the jitter department. So, just curious on your thoughts on that.

 

Can't wait to see the finished film!

[William Fischer]

You might know them by their consumer division, MyMovieTransfer:

 

http://www.mymovietransfer.com/?gclid=CLDO5rm0grQCFSemPAod32QAhg

 

The Bolex we were using is school equipment; they've seen a lot of years and all of them have a bit of jitter. Right after we were done shooting, they were sent off for repairs.

 

Cinelicious is completely out of our price range. We're looking in to whether or not we can afford to go with Nolo in Chicago, but for now, MMT is our best option for the budget we have.

[David Cunningham]

Ah yes, I know them. They use an upgraded/updated Y-Front system much like Cinelab. It looks like they do good work, especially for test shots, etc.

 

Nolo is fantastic. I have not personally used them but I have loved every scan I have seen come out their door. The arriscan is by far a better scanner than the y-front. In fact, it's a scanner, not telecine like the y-front. You will likely notice a remarkable difference. However, I have heard rumors that the arriscan is not as well suited for reversal/print as negative. Just a thought and question to ask them before you invest in their services.

 

It's good to know the jitter was the camera, not the service.

 

Keep posting more shots and have fun!

[Will Montgomery]

However, I have heard rumors that the arriscan is not as well suited for reversal/print as negative.

All scanners and telecine machines do better with negative. Scanning reversal on any traditional telecine including a Spirit requires slight refocusing and adjusting which is a pain for operators.

 

Reversal is amazing for projection and I suggest anyone shooting 16mm try it sometime so they can see the amazing color and sharpness of Ektachrome projected (I love Kodachrome in 16mm even more.) But for scanning you are always better off with negative as there are several more stops of latitude when scanning.

[David Cunningham]

Reversal CAN be scanned correctly, it just definitely needs to be a scanner and not a telecine. You need the HDR/multi flash system to get the full detail and color. I'm sending some off to be scanned by the Lasergraphics Director this week. I'm really hoping it looks good.

[William Fischer]

All scanners and telecine machines do better with negative. Scanning reversal on any traditional telecine including a Spirit requires slight refocusing and adjusting which is a pain for operators.

 

Reversal is amazing for projection and I suggest anyone shooting 16mm try it sometime so they can see the amazing color and sharpness of Ektachrome projected (I love Kodachrome in 16mm even more.) But for scanning you are always better off with negative as there are several more stops of latitude when scanning.

We have projected tests that we couldn't afford to scan, and I am amazed by the colour. I really wish I had the budget to get the finished edit printed and projected, but there's only so much a college kid can afford.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Im not so sure the Debenham jitter was in camera. I used them several years back and had serious jitter on a short film I had transferred with them. I thought it was my camera too (Elmo 1012S-XL) until I realized that the projected print looked better. I wonder about their equipment.

 

I liked the colorists job but if they have jitter issues, they need to address that. I am tempted to have my footage scanned at a different house to see if it was the footage or them. I would be careful of them though until this issue is figured out with certainty.

[William Fischer]

With today's announcement about Ektachrome, I'm naturally concerned about still getting the film developed. We're scheduled to finish shooting in mid-February, and Alpha Cine have assured me that they'll still have the chemicals for color reversal then. Any reason not to trust that assurance?

[David Cunningham]

The chemicals in general should continue to be available since Fuji continues to produce E6 still films. I'd be more concerned about the special equipment for reversal motion picture film processing being shut down. I think the future of reversal motion picture film lies with spectra film and video. They sell cut and re-perfed still Velvia 50D in Super 8 format. It looks like it's the only future motion picture reversal:

 

http://www.spectrafilmandvideo.com/Film.html

 

So, as long as they continue to carry/produce those, they'll have to process them.

[William Fischer]

Been a while...

 

My DP was able to come in to the money for a Nolo scan, but our editor is concerned about her ability to work with DPX log files, and frankly, so am I. To begin with, as students with limited server space at the school and harddrive space at home, keeping and backing up anything the size of DPX isn't possible. My DP's plan is to import the DPX files to Color, then export them as ProRes422 for our editor to use in Adobe Premiere CS6.

 

I am not any kind of computer or post-production expert, but this seems like busywork for one and potentially a big risk if his plan doesn't work or takes too long. Our film is being developed as I type, and our schedule requires us to arrange it to be shipped from AlphaCine directly to wherever we scan the film. We also need our picture locked by a certain date and our sound locked by a certain date, and any delay can screw up the schedules of our fellow students. I was quite happy with the MMT results we got last time. I recognize its imperfections, but those are part of why I like it. The film we’re making is a fairy tale, and our goal was to produce hand-crafted, organic cinema to tie the story in to its folkloric roots. We didn’t just shoot on film; we built sets, painted flats, hung backdrops, are building a model, used camera filters for color effects, and did traditional matte painting. Obviously I wouldn’t accept total crap, but the MMT scan not being quite so sharp and smooth lends it a charm that I'm very fond of. And as a practical matter (I am producer as well as director), the MMT scan was covered by a grant we recieved from the school. My DP insists that he'll need the clarity of the Nolo scan in order to properly correct the film, but even on a less-than-decent scan by AlphaCine, we've gotten good colour information, and the Ektachrome has shown much more detail in dark areas than any of our faculty members told us was possible. I'm really quite nervous about this, so any advice would be appreciated.

[David Cunningham]

You probably should talk with someone at Nolo about your concerns. I have heard that the Arriscan, like that at Nolo, is one of the best scanners on the market... for negative. I've also heard it suffers some with getting the full dark highlight details from 100D or reversal in general for that matter.

 

I've recently had very good luck with Metropost in NYC with their "Director" with "positive" film. It uses a double-flash (HDR) concept to get the full exposure range. You might want to give them a try. I know the Arriscan is capable of that too, but I think Nolo charges more for that as it take more time.

 

With little time to spare and none for "testing", you might be best to go with what you know at MMT.

 

You might also want to get in contact with Paul Korver at Cinelicious. They definitely know what they are doing over there and their Scanity is renowned for being one of the best telecine style "scanners".

 

I have some test E100D in with Lasergraphics right now. They are scanning Super 8 E100D at 2K on their ScanSation as a test for me. I really hope it will come out good as I have yet to be satisfied with ANY reversal scans/telecine I've had done.

 

If you can find the time, I also would recommend Pro8mm if you want 1080p Prores 422. They frequently get a bad rap on this forum, but if you talk with them and request that Phil directly work on your transfer (and talk directly to him) I feel confident you will be satisfied with the result. Their scanner is still telecine (not real scanner), but it uses CRT which, in my experience thus far, behaves better with reversal than CCD line and area sensors. Up to this point, of all places I've had E100D scanned, Pro8mm's still looks the best to me.

[William Fischer]

Well, we ended up with Nolo, and it ended up being two days worth of work to convert it from DPX to ProRes 444. While I do miss some of the rough edges (so to speak) of the MMT scan, Nolo did a very nice job for us. Here is a sample representing about half our total footage:

 

 

We shot on an Eclair ACL with various lenses in a studio, mostly with HMIs (sometimes with Roscoe Theatre gels applied), and some Tungsten. The shots out in the woods were done with bare daylight with various ND filters and a red Roscoe Theatre gel as a color filter.

Edited March 2, 2013 by William Fischer