Friedemann Wachsmuth

Wittner also still has E100D Cartridges. Prices went up, but not totally crazy yet: S8 Cartridge: http://wittner-kinotechnik.de/katalog/04_filmm/s8_filmm.php D8 and DS 8 100ft or 25ft: http://wittner-kinotechnik.de/katalog/04_filmm/d8_filmm.php

Not mine, but from a friend who will concentrate on DS8 from now on: Beaulieu 6008 PRO synchro quarz system with Accessories I am not so much into Beaulieu myself, but knowing Joachim I'd guarantee that there are no (bad) hidden surprises in this offer.

I don't know... so they put black and white dust traces on at the same time and call that realistic?

Try to get a R10 as long as you have a working one :) Also look internationally on ebay. Oh, and if you have a (partially) broken one, Retro-8 in Tokyo still services them and has spare parts. Servicing a 40 year old camera is a good idea anyway.

Very nice! Anyway, I bet that actually projected it does not look worse, but even more exciting. Try it out!

Use Diafine to develop your Tri-X to a Negative. It will easily squeeze 800 ASA out of it and makes super soft and tone-rich negatives. Diafine is fine grianed, sharp and lasts forever (its a very special two-bath chemistry that does not allow pushing film, but gives each stock a higher sensitivity). This should make ver transferrable results. I rate 35mm Tri-X usually up to 1200 ASA and it looks brilliant. As far as I know, the emulsion is the same as 7266. If you shoot at low light, better go 800 ASA though to compensate the low scene contrast. This is an example Print of a 35mm Tri-X Still, rated at 1200 ASA and developed in Diafine.

Kent, Unfortunately the AF 310XL-S does only distinguish between 40T and 160T stock -- different than its older sister without Autofocus, which handles more kinds of film. Your E100D would thus probably be underexposed. Read & Try my camera and cartridge testers if in doubt.

Or try the poor-man's-jobo ;-)

I have one. Its about 500 pages or so. You can buy it at http://www.oldtimercameras.com/ too. Anything particular you want to know?

That sounds interesting. May I ask why you want to alter the bleach? What do you hope to achieve? I absolutely have worked with other bleaches, but that alone did not change results too much. I might help better once I know what you are trying to get.

Stupid me. The high framerate was actually pretty obvious. :) Anyway, awesome footage. And I do like the grainy version better ;-)

Veeeeeery nice. I guess this was shot with 24fps? And would you mind posting a still of a frame without the applied noise filter?

Check it out on Vimeo: Fully featured S8 projector made out of Lego bricks. Some registration weakness in the video, but that is fixed already. Next stop: Lego Movie Camera?

John, I recently tried crossprocessing E100D and it worked: I inverted the above picture on my monitor and filmed form there. The bottom part is a scan of the E100D snippet develoepd in C-41. It turns out very grainy, contrasty and low on the green side. Sure you can "cross" process Tri-X -- e.g. as negative stock. Just don't put it into color dev, the bleach would make it clear film.

IIRC, Canon CMOS have the highest bandwidth at 5500K. The white balance settings are irrelavant for Raw photography anyway.

The projector bulb alone has a wider spectrum than my eye, right? It does emit IR for example. ..but the remaining light might still have a color that is not reproducible by an RGB model. This still implies that the CMOS's gamut can capture all colors that "Tungsten Bulb minus Film" can put out. I still doubt that. See this image: This is an unprocessed Raw File with 14 bit per color channel of a single E100D frame (exposed and developed perfectly). It is post-debayering but shows one thing for sure: The red is so red that it causes clipping. At the same time, the shadows in all three channels clip already. If you underexpose this further to show all red details, you lose even more signal in the shadows. If you over-expose to rescue the shadows, your red will clip horribly. Interestingly, this frame looks just perfect when projected. You can see a lot more detail in the shadows and full detail in every single blossom. It just comes to my mind that not only the gamut, but also the dynamic range of modern reversal film is a problem for even the best CMOS in the world. As we agree, only multiple merged exposures can help here. What? Isn't tweaking curves here a too early modification of the signal? And shouldn't "tweaking curves" happen solely by the "conversion" to gamut of the next piece in the chain? BTW, a really interesting read: http://www.gamutvision.com/docs/camera_scanner.html

Thank you so much for all this insight, Carl. I read it all carefully and learned and understood a lot. You are explaining really well! One thing remains unclear to me: How can we assure that our capturing device won't clip the film's signal? Isn't it our retina that has the widest gamut? At least, our eyes are always the final reception device (and highly subjective). I know we can't see IR but a CMOS usually does, so our retina's gamut is not always superior. But since reversal film is made for straight projection, it is designed for the human retina's gamut (different than e.g. Kodak's VNF or Vision stocks). So ideally, our digital retina equivalent should differentiate at least as much as human retina (and brain) can. This has to be assured, otherwise we would or could lose data. You know that there are shades of color that can not be represented by RGB but only by CMYK. Film uses the latter, all sensors I am aware of use a variation of RGB. How can this be solved? By multiple scans in subsets of the spectrum?

Carl, I am not a super-guru on color management, but isn't the basic idea of individual profiles for each step/device/media that they do NOT interfere or influence each other? Two things: 1.) Of course the stock needs to be developed in a defined environment. As Karl lined out, it needs to be as close to reference E6 as possible. Since processing is rather reproducible, the development will not bring massive deviation. 2.) Anything else (like projection/scanning light spectogram, CMOS gamut etc.) should not be part of that profile. Au contraire, everything else needs its own profile. I have seen ColorSync Profiles for Monitors, Scanners, Cameras, Printers and various kind of papers. Just as those profiles for papers represent what colors the paper can actually show and what not, we need profiles for the film stock. What is its Dmax, how red can its red be etc.

http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/572427/display/4763821 this Link should work.

Karl, I totally agree -- this film would certainley need to be developed as accurate and perfect as possible to E-6 compliance. I have recently tested a lot of pro labs and was blown away by the differences in the results (all test cartridges had the exact same content and where the exact same charge, exposed in the same hour). BTW, I think the ICC profile will not differ for 8 resp. 16mm as long as the master roll was the same. Actually 16mm (or even 35) stock might be much easier to handle with some of the needed measurement devices. :) ICC profiles for negative stock are an interesting idea that kinda turn my brain into a pretzel. I am currently not sure if the icc profile should represent the colors achievable after printing (and thus inverting again) or before. Probably the latter, otherwise it would need the mix of two profiles. Actually such "inversion" icc profiles should be possible. This test jpeg with an odd icc embedded (try it in different viewers) almost does this.

Well, I can help you with drafting the Plus-X color space ;) I guarantee you that your EOS will not be able to capture all of E100D's gamut without multiple exposures and some merging work. My colorimeter ran into bounds as well as my 5Dmk2 did. Your approach to "trace" the curves to get to a lookup table sounds promising, but its too mathematical for me. I'd be glad and curious though to see the icc profiles and test what they would do in a color managed workflow.

You are right, the spectral density/sensitivity charts give a hint. And they do show that Kodak is actually measuring this :) I just wonder why they do not provide ICC profiles. I know I have ICC profiles for some Fuji Photo Paper. Regarding the "scanner light" -- its not just the light but also the gamut of the CCD (or CMOS) that matters. I mean that is why color management exists -- but you need a profile for each device/part/media used in your workflow. I do have profiles for my scanner, my camera, my monitors. I do not have a profile for any film stock. I just wonder why this is not common. Digitising analogue material is happening often, so providing icc profiles for the analogue media would definitely help. Well, usually the analogue media's gamut is smaller than the digital ones, but definitely not in the case of slides and reversal film.

Chaps, working a lot with Ektachrome 100D (7285) and Velvia 50D, I am realizing all the time what an incredible color space these modern daylight reversal stocks have. When scanning them, it most often gets obvious that their gamut is way out of range of what the scanning CCD/CMOS can actually reproduce. Clipping in some channels appears all the time and very easily. Beside the challenge of reproducing frames of this stock with an appropriately wide gamut -- are there ICC profiles for Kodak/Fuji stocks available? This just so much asks for proper color management, but gamut mapping is not really possible without such profiles and a defined Rendering Intent. I haven't found anything on the Kodak website. Am I missing something? (And yes, projecting such wide colorspace film is always the best choice, but still the limited scanning abilities are [or should be considered as] an issue.)

Yevgeny, beside the things said above, the JPG-file you posted contains a non-standard ICC profile that many Browsers on most operating systems will not render probably. It might be that you are so disappointed b/c your viewer-tool does not use color management (aka interprets icc profiles). When lifting the shadows a bit and properly converting it to sRGB, even this mediocre compressed JPG files looks quite ok: As Karl outlined, nobody can say for sure, but I would say that your negative contains a lot more information than what your example suggests.

That's funny. I cross process a lot and throw almost every stock into E-6, sometimes a bit modified by experience and "rule of thumb". I alway liked the results. Just today, I developed Kodak 7250 from 1979 in E-6 and it came out surprisingly nice. Last week I threw Ekta 100D into pretty old and dead C-41 and got amazing color shifts. VNF: Original Foto vs. crossed: No Karl, my densitometer did not even saw these. Yes Karl, they look amazingly warm and artsy in projection and I do like them a lot, since I never expected them to be 1080p with AdobeRGB-Gamut. Great Technology is not required to make great film.