Quick question about film duration, ektachrome 64T

[Brian Rose]

I forget, so perhaps someone could help me out: how much time can one get out of a single 50 ft Super 8 cartridge, at 18 fps? 24 fps? Also, what seems to be the opinion so far about the new ektachrome 64T?

Best,

BR

[Seth Mondragon]

Hi Brian, my understanding is that you can get about 3 minutes is you run it at 18fps and about 2 1/2 minutes at 24fps. If you haven't found it yet, check out the forum on www.filmshooting.com. It's dedicated to Super8, 8mm, and 16mm. They also have a TON of feedback on the new 64T stock....many of them have used it already. Check it out.

[John Pytlak RIP]

I forget, so perhaps someone could help me out: how much time can one get out of a single 50 ft Super 8 cartridge, at 18 fps? 24 fps? Also, what seems to be the opinion so far about the new ektachrome 64T?

Best,

BR

 

The Kodak website has a film length calculator, that calculates run time for any motion picture film format:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/...d=0.1.4.3&lc=en

[Anthony Schilling]

18fps 3:20, 24fps 2:30, I like to think of a cart in terms of 3600 pictures rather than running time.

[Alessandro Machi]

For those of us who shoot Kodachrome 40 and shoot scenes that we know will look good with little or no visible grain, Ektachrome 64 is a complete and utter disappointment as a replacement stock for Kodachrome 40. (in my opinion).

 

However, for those shooting Ektachrome 64 as a second film stock for a music video or commercial, who want a grainy feel, or for student film projects where timely processing is a must, Ektachrome 64 is an excellent stock because of same day processing possibilities and excellent color reproduction.

[Guest santo]

For those of us who shoot Kodachrome 40 and shoot scenes that we know will look good with little no visible grain, Ektachrome 64 is a complete and utter disappointment as a replacement stock for Kodachrome 40.

 

Unless you are looking at projecting your original material, you need to start shooting Vision2 200t. Beats the hell out of K40. You're a video editor, aren't you, Alex? Didn't you send your nice little short ALPHABET SONG out on video for festivals? I don't understand your complaint.

Edited October 13, 2005 by santo

[Alessandro Machi]

Unless you are looking at projecting your original material, you need to start shooting Vision2 200t. Beats the hell out of K40. You're a video editor, aren't you, Alex? Didn't you send your nice little short ALPHABET SONG out on video for festivals? I don't understand your complaint.

 

I've had a tool taken away from me, that's what my complaint is about, but it's also not a complaint, it's an observation based on what I have shot over the years with Kodachrome and what I recently shot in Ektachrome.

 

The "Goodbye Kodachrome" project I just finished editing has me upset at what I will be losing in the way of a minimal grain option in Super-8.

 

I'm open to the idea of shooting Vision 200 at 50 ASA, then pulling it one stop in processing to see if the grain is less than Kodachrome.

[Seth Mondragon]

Alex, am I gonna have to start bugging you on this forum as well to let me see The Alphabet Song? :)

[Guest santo]

I'm open to the idea of shooting Vision 200 at 50 ASA, then pulling it one stop in processing to see if the grain is less than Kodachrome.

 

In my opinion unneeded extremes from what I've experienced, but good luck with that.

[Matt Sandstrom]

i shot 13 rolls of 64t recently and i don't think it's very grainy. it looks a little grainer than kodachrome in some shots but mostly because it also looks sharper plus the extra shadow latitude brings out some grain that's hidden by the deep blacks of k40. it's certainly in the same class as kodachrome and i doubt if many people would notice the difference without a side by side. you saw what you saw, sure, but it's not what i saw so i think you should consider taking another look.

 

i've only seen the footage projected so far though. i'll get back to you with more info after we've scanned it tomorrow.

 

/matt

[Alessandro Machi]

i shot 13 rolls of 64t recently and i don't think it's very grainy. it looks a little grainer than kodachrome in some shots but mostly because it also looks sharper plus the extra shadow latitude brings out some grain that's hidden by the deep blacks of k40. it's certainly in the same class as kodachrome and i doubt if many people would notice the difference without a side by side. you saw what you saw, sure, but it's not what i saw so i think you should consider taking another look.

 

i've only seen the footage projected so far though. i'll get back to you with more info after we've scanned it tomorrow.

 

/matt

 

Mattias, when you saw the Ektachrome 64 projected, how close to the screen were you?

 

I use a very unforgiving monitor in my video editing suite. The difference in grain between the Kodachrome footage and the Ektachrome footage is stunning. However, I did notice that most of my Kodachrome shots were taken several years ago, maybe the newer Kodachrome isn't as good as older Kodachrome and that makes the difference even more noticeable?

 

Or, what I think is even more of an issue is as the color of Ektachrome 64 is balanced out in video post between warm tones and blue tones, the grain becomes more noticeable. If the warmer tones are desaturated in post, the grain level subsides. However, this doesn't seem to happen with Kodachrome, I can color correct it as I see fit and it doesn't seem to add more grain to the image.

 

I'm curious to see what your experience is like with the Ektachrome actually transferred to video.

 

 

Alex, am I gonna have to start bugging you on this forum as well to let me see The Alphabet Song? :)

 

I gotta put that on a DVD and send you a copy.

[Matt Sandstrom]

Mattias, when you saw the Ektachrome 64 projected, how close to the screen were you?

next to the projector. maybe four or five meters away projecting a two meter wide image. i did look at it up close too though, as well as from afar.

I'm curious to see what your experience is like with the Ektachrome actually transferred to video.

i'm curious too. i'm happy that 64t seems to capture the information so that you *can* color correct. the reason nothing happens with kodachrome is because there are no subtle shades. ;-)

 

/matt

[Anthony Schilling]

K-40 is not as grainless as many proclaim, as I notice when sitting right in front of the moniter with K-40. and if its low speed doesn't get enough light... grain city. I haven't projected the 64T yet, but notice a slight increase in grain, however it makes uo for it in just about all other areas.

 

I agree with Santo about 200T beating the daylights out of K-40. If they ever come out with V2 50D in S8, whoa.

[John Pytlak RIP]

The Kodak VISION2 200T Color Negative Film 7217 has very fine grain to begin with. Shooting it at EI-100 or even EI-50 will reduce the graininess by capturing more scene information on the finer-grained slow and mid speed emulsions used in the film. Pull processing can help keep the image densities in a more "normal" range for printing or transfer.

[Alessandro Machi]

K-40 is not as grainless as many proclaim, as I notice when sitting right in front of the moniter with K-40. and if its low speed doesn't get enough light... grain city. I haven't projected the 64T yet, but notice a slight increase in grain, however it makes uo for it in just about all other areas.

 

I agree with Santo about 200T beating the daylights out of K-40. If they ever come out with V2 50D in S8, whoa.

 

Kodachrome from the early 90's definitely had virtually no grain. I'm not sure if perhaps something has changed in recent years in regards to Kodachrome. Kodachrome is still good, but not quite as good as the Kodachrome I had developed and transferred to video 10-12 years ago.

[Nate Downes]

With E64T, the processing can help or hinder the graininess, to a point. I've found this with 35mm film already, stands to reason I'd find it with Super8 as well.

[Matt Sandstrom]

ok, the grain does increase in telecine. not in size obviously but it's more visible. it's a kind of blueish noise that really pops when transferred to video, while i didn't see it at all projected. is that what you saw too alex? i'm looking into a post solution to this. i think it's mainly a black balance issue. clips to come.

 

/matt

[Alessandro Machi]

ok, the grain does increase in telecine. not in size obviously but it's more visible. it's a kind of blueish noise that really pops when transferred to video, while i didn't see it at all projected. is that what you saw too alex? i'm looking into a post solution to this. i think it's mainly a black balance issue. clips to come.

 

/matt

 

Yes, but for me that is only half of the grain issue. When I make sure the reds and oranges pop, the red/ orange grains seem to clash with the blue grains, making the overall grain even more visible. DNR would definitely take away some of the grain, but I don't know at what cost to the detail.

[Matt Sandstrom]

i looked at the blue channel only and it's quite horrible. the grains are up to 10 pixels in size, while for the green and red they are around one or two pixels. blurring the blue channel quite a bit really helps and doesn't seem to affect sharpness. black balancing doesn't work though since the blue grain is pretty much uniform across the whole range.

 

/matt

[Robert Hughes]

"i looked at the blue channel only and it's quite horrible. the grains are up to 10 pixels in size, while for the green and red they are around one or two pixels"

 

Mattias, that sounds like a telecine issue. I've seen noise in the blue and red channels when trying to recover underexposed material in telecine; perhaps the video preamps are running too high gain. Have you checked the film under a loupe or microscope to see if the grains are really there?

[Alessandro Machi]

"i looked at the blue channel only and it's quite horrible. the grains are up to 10 pixels in size, while for the green and red they are around one or two pixels"

 

Mattias, that sounds like a telecine issue. I've seen noise in the blue and red channels when trying to recover underexposed material in telecine; perhaps the video preamps are running too high gain. Have you checked the film under a loupe or microscope to see if the grains are really there?

 

I tried looking at the film with a loop, and some shots looked spectacular, until they were transferred to video and came up grainy.

[A.Oliver]

Kodachrome from the early 90's definitely had virtually no grain. I'm not sure if perhaps something has changed in recent years in regards to Kodachrome. Kodachrome is still good, but not quite as good as the Kodachrome I had developed and transferred to video 10-12 years ago.

 

Was the kodachrome I you transferred daylite or tungstan balance. It makes a lot of difference if were daylite stock. I have some 16mm kodachrome I, image colour and quality easily beats modern 16mm k40. I have used 8mm, ds-8 and 16mm k25, in every case k25 daylite stock completely blows the k40 equivalent stock away. I have mentioned this before while i am forced to use k40 as there is no k25. K25 was the finer grained filmed with better colour saturation and to my eyes a lot sharper.

Colud it be you are comparing k40 with a daylite kodachrome stock.

I do agree my 1985 k40 sound footage appears to have less grain. Though recent footage thru the leicina and 7008 with 6-80 look amazingly grain free, but canon 310xl footage does look more grainy.

[Matt Sandstrom]

no, it's not that. there was no gain on the scanner and the noise doesn't look like video noise at all, just like huge film grain. it is a video issue in a way though since it didn't show projected, but not in that way. the blue channel is always grainier with tungsten stocks but my guess is that it also has more contrast and thus

the scanner doesn't see the same amount of detail. it would be interesting to see how it looks on a spirit or similar. this was done on a flashscan which just like flying spot scanners seems to have a bit of trouble with very dense film.

 

checking the film in a microscope sounds like a good idea. i'll try that.

 

/matt

Edited October 17, 2005 by mattias

[Alessandro Machi]

no, it's not that. there was no gain on the scanner and the noise doesn't look like video noise at all, just like huge film grain. it is a video issue in a way though since it didn't show projected, but not in that way. the blue channel is always grainier with tungsten stocks but my guess is that it also has more contrast and thus

the scanner doesn't see the same amount of detail. it would be interesting to see how it looks on a spirit or similar. this was done on a flashscan which just like flying spot scanners seems to have a bit of trouble with very dense film.

 

checking the film in a microscope sounds like a good idea. i'll try that.

 

/matt

 

One of the first video lighting lessons I learned about studio lighting is that what looks like a very slight amount of background blue to the naked eye actually looks like quite a lot of blue on a television monitor. That could explain why the grain is much more visible on video versus projected.

 

 

 

Was the kodachrome you transferred daylite or tungstan balance. It makes a lot of difference if were daylite stock. I have some 16mm kodachrome I, image colour and quality easily beats modern 16mm k40. I have used 8mm, ds-8 and 16mm k25, in every case k25 daylite stock completely blows the k40 equivalent stock away. I have mentioned this before while i am forced to use k40 as there is no k25. K25 was the finer grained filmed with better colour saturation and to my eyes a lot sharper.

Colud it be you are comparing k40 with a daylite kodachrome stock.

I do agree my 1985 k40 sound footage appears to have less grain. Though recent footage thru the leicina and 7008 with 6-80 look amazingly grain free, but canon 310xl footage does look more grainy.

 

I think the K-40 Super-8 that I have always used has been tungsten balanced. I wonder if the biggest issue comes down to when Kodak owned and operated the Kodachrome processing machines in the United States versus the year their machines were taken out of service and "substitute" machines were used by the company they sold the Kodachrome processing service to, (sometime in the late 80's early 90's).

 

The Kodachrome still appears to be good, so even if something about it has dropped off in quality, the Kodachrome was so good to be begin with that it still is good now.