Nick Collingwood

Ya sadly silent on the camera front.... Wondering if they're just going to drop it completely. Which is odd considering they made a decent amount of demo videos with it and that skate team. I mean it's out of my price range anyways but still would be good to see.

To swing this topic back a bit to the title... seems like prices will be going up a bit. Ektachrome is predicted to be $40/cart. Ouch. Cheaper than Provia 100D but... when you include a scan (which I reckon most people will want given online video and sharing) it'll still be more expensive than CN or BW. I understand that it's a very niche stock and demographic but man... Kodak is pricing out their own diehard customers! Sucks...

Well it's actually closer to 35' which makes the sticker price of $42/cart even harder to swallow. (Provia $1.42/ft vs 7285 Ekta $0.80/ft) I've shot 5 carts of it and it consistently ended at ~35'... This is actually because the film stock is thicker than other films so you literally cannot fit more into a cart without overstuffing it and the cartridge jamming. I do LOVE color reversal and can somewhat afford it so I do, but it's a less than idea solution. With that said, the colors are poppin and it's very sharp. In projection it looks wild! Also on the jamming note, the other big issue with the film related to its thickness is that it definitely does not run as smoothly through the camera as other stocks. At times, the stability is so bad that I literally got overlapping frames on the top and bottom. This with a camera that has shot other stocks like V3 and E100D just fine. So that's extremely undesirable. Here's a little example below... be sure to look at the top and bottom. Granted in projection it's a little better but I've never had issues like this with any other stock I've shot. This is from the raw scan from Gamma Ray Digital who did a great job stabilizing the main frame already. Also in other news.... the first released test footage of 7294 is out! Definitely less saturated than 7285. More latitude. Colors are semi-closer to Kodachrome in a way. Apparently it's based on Ektachrome E100G.

haha 100% agreed. As I, a relatively young user of film at a mere 29, was waking up this morning and scrolled upon Kodak's post, I woke right up and was definitely thrilled! I mean I still have like 5 rolls of 2013 E100D but still. This is fantastic news. I was just projecting some Provia 100D the other night and just love love projecting color reversal. Excited for the future.

Starting October 1st for Super 8!! So excited! "Update from the Film Factory: ⠀ KODAK EKTACHROME 7294 Color Reversal Film is back! Super 8 availability starting October 1st 16mm arriving later this year ⠀ Learn more at kodak.com/go/ektachrome" https://www.instagram.com/p/BoJRytzF1fA/?taken-by=kodak_shootfilm

It gives me such pleasure to finally update my old thread with the news!! IT'S BACK BABY!!!! https://www.instagram.com/p/BoJRytzF1fA/?taken-by=kodak_shootfilm Available Oct 1 for Super 8!! Later this year for 16mm!!!

Just Adobe Premiere Pro and the Lumetri Color panel within that program. Or if you're really feeling lazy, Auto Color effect does a pretty decent job. Or you could go at it with curves. Don't forget the Lumetri Scopes. Watch a few tutorials and you'll be halfway decent in no time. Other people recommend Resolve (which is free unlike Premiere) but I just don't have enough experience with it to recommend it. It IS more of the industry standard in color correction. But I couldn't wrap my head around the workflow. Need to give it another try sometime. It handles 18fps footage well.

No. Lab these days send back scans as flat. Meant for grading yourself. You CAN pay extra for the lab to grade it or save some money and grade it yourself. That's what I do. Color negative, black and white, color reversal... anything will come back low contrast. Granted B&W and color reversal will just need a little tweak of the contrast and you'll be set whereas color negative takes a little bit more work. WHICH I will say is the cause of the current trend in new Super 8 shooters posting ungraded footage. They don't realize it NEEDS to be graded and think that's the final product. But alas, there's not much education on it so people get back their film, edit it some and then post the flat scans. It's sad because Vision3 film looks incredible graded. People don't realize that the color film they're shooting on is LITERALLY what major motion pictures is shot on and it doesn't look like that.... ugh.

There's nano lab. Looks like they do it all. Film stock sales. Processing. Scanning up to 4k.

B&H has Foma. I've shot that film in Double 8 and 16mm. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/792416-REG/Foma_411802_FOMAPAN_R100_B_W_Reversal.html Also On8Mil has some Kahl https://www.on8mil.com/product-category/8mm-film-packages/ds8_films/ And... Kahl has some Kahl https://www.kahlfilm.de/content.php?nav=19 Ya having shot a fair amount of expired Super 8 (mostly Vision2 and old Tri-X 7278), I've learned this trick. The camera gets stuck on the initial pull but once I push the film down some it works just fine once the kink has passed.

Well depending on how much control you really want, most Super 8 cameras will work fine in auto-exposure (if that's what you mean by exposure switch). Perhaps link a photo?

Ya that looks miles better. Definitely still grainy but ya... expired 500T will do that. Could probably knock it down a touch with NeatVideo if you wanted. Glad you figured it out. I'm no expert but in the future, I'd definitely recommend a ScanStation. I get great results even with expired stock.

Like Phil said, it's possible to do this but it's quite the exercise in patience mainly due to it not being crystal-synced sound. For example, I shot a musician play a full song in one take (actually I was helping with a project designed around this concept called 50 Feet of Song) using a Canon 814XL-S at 18fps. Then I took the 24fps scanned file into Premiere and interpreted the footage at 18fps so it played at realtime. Then I took the audio file from my ZOOM H4N and placed it in the timeline. Now the fun part... since Super 8 cameras don't run at real-time unless they are crystal-synced, you have to splice up and squash and stretch segments of the video (NEVER the audio since that's realtime) in order to get it to match up to the audio. It's a chore. It's call wild-sync. It's not fun haha. But it's not impossible either. I've posted the two times I've done it below. Even if you find a camera that shoots 25fps (I'd recommend the Nizo Professional), you'll still have sync issues since it's not crystal sync. That's the key. Without crystal sync you'll have to mash up your footage to match your audio. Because for maybe 5 seconds your camera is running at 25fps then for 10 seconds it's 25.5fps then for a few seconds it's 24.7fps... etc etc. It's not 100% consistent. Otherwise, you'll have to buy a very expensive crystal sync Super 8 or 16mm camera. Honestly if your 35mm camera is sound-sync which it seems like, it may just be less hassle to shoot it with that honestly but your call. Wild-synced Super 8 below.

I mean .... ya but we're all here on a film forum for a reason. We like shooting film. And new ways of optimizing quality and costs for budget filmmakers is always welcome. Plus it gets people used to shooting and handling film so if they decide to upgrade down the line to 16mm or 35mm, they know the basics already. And I'd honestly say Super 8 is way more forgiving of error than DSLR. If you miss focus in a DSLR shot, it's useless, but on Super 8, it doesn't have to be tack sharp to be usable footage.

I think you're overestimating what is necessary with today's tools. I work with 2K Super 8 scans all day on a 2012 Mac Pro and a 2013 13" MBP so neither of them cutting edge by any means and I get by just fine with Premiere and the Lumetri Color panel (and Scopes) in that program. Or many people recommend Resolve as it's free and powerful but I just don't know it. Honestly you can get halfway decent results with Auto Color in Premiere. I'd definitely say don't crush blacks just to save the picture but everything needs a little contrast added in my opinion. But ya those specks are super prominent. Too much. And honestly I've never seen grain look so good until I got 2K scans. When I was getting V3 500T telecined it looked terribly grainy and overpowering but then I got my first 2K scan of 500T and was blown away! So was my client who was expecting something much grainier haha.

Ya I think you either have an exposure or a scanning issue. That grain looks like garbage. I've scanned rolls of Vision2 500T on Super 8 sthat I shot last fall (so... well expired by the time it was shot and a smaller, therefore grainier format) and gotten less grain than this. Or rather, less peculiar grain like the white specks. I did overexpose the film about 2 stops and got a 2K scan with Perry at Gamma Ray Digital and the results were surprisingly great. I also applied the tiniest bit of noise reduction via Neat Video in Premiere but not to remove the grain, just reduce it so it wasn't quite so distracting. I know it's not your preference but clearly getting subpar all-in-one telecines to save time over getting proper scans isn't saving you time or money at all. Best to just do it right the first time rather than continuing to have issues. Also you still need to set your black levels in those shots. All of them will benefit greatly from some light color correction. Also as a matter of personal opinion, I think the B&W still linked above look too grainless. I like my film to still have SOME grain or else it feels too much like video. I'm clearly not against some grain reduction though if it's too distracting. I've attached a still of that Vision2 500T shot on Super 8 in a Nizo 156 Macro which ain't the sharpest camera ever just to give you an example of a similar film and grain. Click for full size. 1) Raw 2K scan which shows LOTS of grain but normal grain. Just extra since it's expired. Nothing like your grain. 2) color correction 3) slight grain reduction. So I think you can handle it!

I've had very good results with eBay but also I make sure they look halfway decent and hopefully have at least had battery tested. I even snagged a 814XL-S (worth like ~$500) for $50 with a corroded battery pack. Vinegar and Q-tips cleaned it right up and now I have a solid beast for cheap! I've bought probably 10 cameras off eBay and all have worked (except for the one I intentionally bought broken as a parts camera). I did have to fix one that got the mirror dislodged in shipping but it was an easy fix. I'd say if it's under $50 and a decent camera like mentioned above, definitely buy it, if it's $100... maybe! and over that... up to you.

Haha hey I've had some broken cameras sitting around for ages. If I finally was able to fix it thanks to a random thread being revived then so be it!

Ha ya splitting hairs a little. My major point being that Super 8 was originally shot and projected at 18fps (but not always.. some people did 24fps) but most telecine machines and scanners will spit out ~24fps which therefore speeds up the footage. It's up to the editors to fix that playback rate as you mentioned but in countless films, the framerate wasn't fixed so it gives it that false old timey feeling of speed up footage. Hence why people think things like The Wonder Years intro (and other old 8mm films that were played back at 24fps instead of their native framerate) is how Super 8 was actually watched haha. (i.e. speed up) But it's wrong. :) Now with scanning instead of telecine, it's much easier although not perfect to shoot at 18 although still not perfect. I like shooting at 18fps to get a bit of extra footage out of the roll but that definitely comes at the cost of more hoops to jump through in editing. Plus as Perry mentioned, scanners can change the file to say it's actually 18fps but NLE like Premiere still don't like it. Resolve is better for that but... unfortunately I don't really know resolve like I do Premiere.

Ya the final output when cropped to exclude the top and bottom of the overscan and just the frame and sprocket was 2048x1440 almost exactly. It is nice in that it kicks in the higher quality on YouTube. I think the minimum for the 2K option on Youtube is somewhere around 2000x1300 or so. Otherwise the highest quality would be 1080p. Same for Vimeo. But honestly, I work on a 1080p monitor but I just think the 2K scans themselves are remarkably better than 1080p telecine so that's why I get them. But also on a 4K monitor they look incredible! And ya there's no extra magic on that one. Just color correction via Lumetri Color in Premiere and export. I don't think I did any grain reduction at all. 50D can be incredible sharp and grain free especially when shot outdoors. Honestly your stuff isn't that far off. The R8 doesn't look absolutely tack sharp but there are some really sharp shots in there. I'd maybe check to make sure your viewfinder diopter is correct. Also when focusing, zoom allllll the way in, focus, then zoom out to the level you want. That will make sure it's 100% in focus. Also adding contrast and saturation helps make the film pop more. Many people don't realize these 2K scans need color correction and leave them flat which I think hurts the image overall. Major motion pictures are shot on this exact same film and every single one gets extensive color correction. The 500T looks pretty spot on for 500T. You could maaaaybe reduce the blue in your shadows some and that would help reduce the grain a little. And yes more light always helps. That's why there are those crazy plug in lights that were sold for S8 cameras back in the day. For weddings I often use an LED panel for the reception. And Tri-X... that also looks pretty spot on for Tri-X. I think maybe the compression could be better like I mentioned in my previous post about upping your bitrate a lot. My 3-4 min videos come out at around 1-1.5gb so they aren't small. Tri-X is definitely grainy but also very sharp in the right hands. This below was shot on a Nizo 801 Macro.

No I always get ProRes422 (so no DPX). You have to make sure your bitrate is high enough. When I export out of Premiere, I do an h.264 .mp4 file at 50mbps bitrate 2-pass VBR. Here's another wedding with those settings shot on Canon 814XL-S and on YouTube.

I've only been shooting Super 8 for a few years now but I've shot a handful of E100D, E64T and some Fuji 100D all in Super 8 and it really is remarkable seeing good color reversal projected (Agfachrome is an acquired taste but it's at least something... way too grainy for me). I'm pretty excited for E100 to return! I did start this thread after all haha. All three of those stocks are quite sharp when shot in the right camera and still great looking in a soft camera haha. I generally get it developed at Dwayne's then sent straight to Gamma Ray for a 2k scan then sent to me before any projection happens. That way I have that pristine scan and don't feel quite as bad about running it through my Elmo 1200HD which is generally considered gentle on film. I have seen a few 16mm color prints from Vision3 and I do have a hand it to... it? It looks stunning. So lifelike. I feel like I'm at the movies. But there's a certain aesthetic to Ektachrome that I love. I've only seen like 1 Kodakchrome film projected so I can't comment on that sadly. E100 in 16mm should be absolutely gorgeous! It's already so good in S8! And as far as exposure latitude, I've had good results even in bright daylight with an XL S8 camera on auto so I think it should be ok.

Great thoughts. Ya I am itching to get home today because I just got back the 2K scans from Gamma Ray for my first (successful) roll through my K3. First one I developed wrong. Shot a roll of FomaPan 100 with a musician friend and then processed it in a Lomo tank with Mono No Aware and it came out great. Saw some really sharp stills on the light table before sending it off. It's definitely a very capable camera. You're probably right about the cropping vs gate widening but it's definitely nice to have it. Like you said, I should just shoot until I feel like I really need any of that. At this point, I don't really need all that extra stuff since it's working fine but film gear/upgrades are always so tempting haha. Just getting this K3... I know 16mm's gonna be another money suck that I love aside from Super 8. haha. Do kinda want a projector now though. Love projecting my S8. (also woo 100 posts... catching up! haha)

Any memory of the cost of those things? Specifically the gate/viewfinder mods at Du-All? I also got a K3 and it's in great condition. Loop formers are removed but now itching to go wide. Saw that on eBay you can get the widened gate and the recentering mount but I've heard that installing the gate ain't the easiest thing. But maybe I'm just psyching myself out. Also intrigued by the laserbrightening but oooo wow! Just looked up the price of that and it seems a bit overkill for a K3. I've heard great things about it so I don't fault his work but $225 for a $150 camera seems a bit much haha. Tempting though!

I'll probably end up repeating some of what Ruben said but I'll say it anyways. The 1014 is a fine fine camera and you can get incredibly sharp results from it. I'd wager that it's probably working ok. You do need to adjust your diopter to match your eye which will help. That should be in the manual. But the short version is zoom ALL the way in on something as far away as possible then adjust the viewfinder diopter to the correct focus. With that said, there's definitely still a chance it's just straight up broken but based on your footage I think it's ok. Just operator error haha. Live and learn! I've burned more than a few rolls getting to know my cameras well. Pro8mm will repair that camera if it's truly broken I believe but it won't be cheap! Also you mention "everything being in focus" while you were shooting but that's not really how most S8 cameras work. This isn't an SLR with ground glass where WYSIWYG. You need to pay close attention to the split-image circle in the middle. If those two half circles aren't lined up (despite how "in focus" things seem) it'll be out of focus. That's the only true way to tell if things are in focus. Zoom in all the way, focus the split-image, then zoom to the focal length you want. But still, especially with macro, it's very easy to miss focus. I've shot tons of rolls and still miss macro focus sometimes. It sucks. I'd say I always end up being too close (as you did) so take a small step back next time maybe. A few things I see in the scan. One. I think you got a flat scan. That's fine but flat scans require a little love post-scan. You have to add some contrast and levels to the footage afterwards. See how lealar's footage actually has whites to it in the highlights? Granted you were shooting in a dimly lit room but still could use some levels so it's not all medium greys. Film LOVES light. Don't be afraid to overlight your scenes. Underexposure is terrible for film. Also Tri-X and Super 8 in general is just grainy. Got to learn to love it. But more light would help. And some S8 scans are just blurry which reduces grain but for the wrong reasons. Also as Ruben said, I'd recommend getting development done elsewhere. I do all of my stuff at CineLab and then 2K scans at Gamma Ray Digital. A proper 2K scan will minimize grain and looks MUCH sharper. Trust me it's worth it. I shot this with a Nizo 801 Macro on auto-exposure and Tri-X. You can see more on my vimeo. I list the camera, stock, processing and scanner on every film.