Kodak announces new Super 8 camera at CES

[Mark Dunn]

I do like 100D, but what is it's longevity? Older Ektachrome films had all sorts of problems. Of course Kodachrome was the king of archival films.

Maybe a 60s problem? I have jut scanned a good deal of Ektachrome from the late 70s and there are no colour problems. Some individual mounted slides, however, have a sort of dewy deposit which doesn't show on scans but it might affect old cine film without air circulation between layers.

[Will Montgomery]

Maybe a 60s problem? I have jut scanned a good deal of Ektachrome from the late 70s and there are no colour problems. Some individual mounted slides, however, have a sort of dewy deposit which doesn't show on scans but it might affect old cine film without air circulation between layers.

50's and 60's I believe. And I am talking 35mm slides, not movie film although I assumed it was all similar. May have been poor conditions, but Kodachrome slides from the same box/era were perfect. Ektachrome had cracks and faded to blue color.

[Mark Dunn]

The 'cracks' are probably fungus and may be down to poor storage, although my Agfa cine film from the 80s has it. It may be possible to wash it off bit one slide at a time would be very inconvenient. You'll probably have to live with it, but it may be possible to correct the colour somewhat in Photoshop.

The final stage in colour processing is a preservative which is not rinsed off. Sometimes this was omitted or not carried out properly. The preservative was formaldehyde- sometimes you can smell it, not to be confused with the vinegar smell of deteriorating acetate.

[Hunter O'Shea]

Thank you Heikki for taking your time to respond to my question! Considering I will be scanning to digital and not projecting I'll probably go with the v3. Maybe put the 100D up on Ebay for $1,000 each like everybody else ;)

 

- Hunter

[Anthony Schilling]

Thank you Heikki for taking your time to respond to my question! Considering I will be scanning to digital and not projecting I'll probably go with the v3. Maybe put the 100D up on Ebay for $1,000 each like everybody else ;)

 

- Hunter

If your scanning to digital, you can really put some spit on color negative if you want to. Seems like most people leave it more flat, but you don't have to. Flatter is kind of the look now anyway, like a battle for latitude among cameras and film stocks. I'd save the 100D for a sunny day.

[Hunter O'Shea]

Thanks Anthony. I need to find a comparison video of the two stocks scanned at the same resolution!

 

- Hunter

[Freya Black]

Kodak discontinued the last of its reversal stock a few years ago so it doesn't even make the emulsions any more. It's not coming back, unfortunately.

 

 

Last colour stock.

 

Tri-X reversal is still available just fine!

 

Freya

[Carl Looper]

Hi Hunter,

 

I think the main reasons would be exactly the ones you have mentioned: classic look, higher contrast, possibly sharper image when projected in the old fashioned way (last generation reversal films apparently have higher resolution than negative films -- however, reversal is more difficult to scan so that resolution is lost). I'd go Vision3 route unless you are certain that E100D is the look you want.

 

That link about resolution is interesting and agrees with various tests I've done with film and lenses.

 

Scanning reversal is not any more difficult than scanning negative. You don't lose any more resolution. However the films themselves might have (or do have) different resolution curves to begin with. And different grain structures. The colour obtained via negative is far better than that obtained by reversal. The reversal process introduces an uncorrectable error in colour response with respect to the original colour. With negative this doesn't occur.

 

C

Edited January 16, 2016 by Carl Looper