Panavision and Kodachrome

January 1, 2006

I want it to look different. The genera of my film would be ?experimental drama? the experimental would refer to the look and the shooting style.

The retro I want to achieve would be contemporary era bright colors almost unrealistic simple colors (bright blues, reds, yellows, and greens) but the actual time set would be now. The script is simple but has a lot of meaning it will mostly consist of non-actors.

The entire film will be shot outside on a nice sunny blue sky day so the lighting shouldn?t be a problem. I also want to have a quick night scene where the characters are watching a vintage movie shot on Super 8 (re I would use a bright projector and a screen). How could I get the image to appear on the film?

Peace,

Alex M.

P.S. I may just keep the film on video if the budget doesn?t permit. That wouldn?t be too bad if I got a good transfer.

Filip Plesha · January 1, 2006

If you are simply after bright colors and saturation, then maybe Kodachrome is not your best choice.

If this movie version of Kodachrome is anything like k64, and I assume all versions of Kodachrome share the same "kodachrome look", then you will not get that regular out-of-the-can rainbow saturation.

Instead Kodachrome gives rich colors only on specific tones, like reds.

That's what makes it so unique. It does not give you an all-around saturation like 100D/E100VS

but rather quite a subtle reproduction of colors with some specific tones sticking out, like deep deep reds, which lean on the blue side (as oposed to the yellow side) which makes them look deep, almost purplish, like blood.

It will also give you a slightly cyan-ish atmosphere. In general the colors (exept the deep reds) are subtle, but still have some kind of depth to them, there is something "fatt" and three-dimensional about Kodachrome colors, even though they are quite desaturated compared to Ektachrome films.

A lot of contrast too.

The best way I'd describe Kodachrome is if you take a classic-looking black and white image with that silver-heavy thick look, and add subtle but beautifull colors leaning on the colder side, and then on top of that make the reds glow somehow.

Ektachrome 100D, on the other hand, if it is anything like E100VS/EBX (my number one general use slide film), and I think they are the same emulsion, saturates all colors equally, makes the skies look as saturated and deep as if you are using a polarizer, specially if you underexpose by half of stop, gives strong reds, and good greens (allthough nothing like Fuji slide films, which are all about deep greens), has a lot of contrast, and gives redish skintones, making people look "burned" a bit.

Perfect for instant supersaturation.

It is a shame that Kodak only gave one choice for E6 reversal motion picture work.

In fact, Kodak has left cinematographers without a single "regular" E6 film, because 100D is designed with extra saturation in mind.

Compared to other Ektachrome E6 films, 100D/E100VS loses a lot of subtlety and fine gradations in tones that regular Ektachrome E6 films have because of its "amplified" look. It is also quite grainy compared to E100G/GX and Fuji slide films.

Edited January 1, 2006 by Filip Plesha

Sam Wells · January 1, 2006

I see it pretty much the same way, Filip.

I might still make the argument for ECN for two reasons, one contingent on playing in telecine -- having the advantage of 50D's (45 or 01) range; second in that I think keeping the look might be much easier if this was going to 35mm print. (But I haven't seen 7285 taken through blow-up and 52/2272 IN)

But 7285 does sound like what he's describing.

-Sam

Sorry hard to know what "retro" means out of context. I remember when the 40's was "retro" then the 50's.. then I'd hear "70's retro" -- now the 80's can be retro it seems..

(I think I'll stash away at low humidity lots of EXR50D and Vision "1" -- when they all want the "Y2K Retro" Look I'll be ready to deal B)

January 2, 2006

Perhaps I should use both? Its funny there are Kodachrome people and Ektachrome people. I have never shot Ektachrome but I have shot Super 8 Kodachrome really grainy (because of the small format) but beautiful.

Let?s list the benefits of both films. (Feel free to make your own list! It would be appreciated!)

Kodachrome 40 (Type A) 7270:

Vintage technology hence genuine vintage look

Vivid reds and blues

Low speed

Low grain

Great film over many years

Accurate skin tones

Sharper then Ektachrome

The bad side of K40 7270:

Process K-14 with Dwayne?s (once a week) (no student discount?)

Only made on 100 foot daylight reels

No Keykode

Longer perforations

High contrast

Ektachrome 100D 7285:

Intensely saturated color

Vivid blues and greens

Sold in longer amounts

Accurate skin tones

Process E-6

The bad side of Ektrachrome 7285:

???

NOW the million dollar question which will fair better in transfer?

Peace and thanks!

Alex M.

Filip Plesha · January 2, 2006

This may be subjective, but I wouldn't say 100D skintones are very accurate. They can be a little "wild" on caucasians with "healthier" tan (I mean people that are not pale), specially when rated at 100ISO or higher.

I think this film does better for pale people giving them a little more "life" in the face, but in no case will it give smooth soft skintones like negative film does or like more subtle E6 films do.

I don't know if this is the case with reversal cinematography, but us slide-junkies like to underexpose E6 to get more saturation and save some highlights. In this case, when rated at about 125 ISO, this film can give redish skintones too on some people, specially under warmer shades of daylight (like sunlight, as oposed to skylight or overcast light).

To get cleaner and more neutral skintones, one should rate it at 80ISO or 64ISO (if he dares) , but at the expense of some saturation and some highlights.

Also, you mentioned "vivid blues and greens" for 7285. Greens are actually its weaker side. Not really week in general, but not really that deep. I'd describe them as "light" compared to deep "3D" greens of films like Velvia. Reds are the tones that are most saturated in this film, then come blues, and greens on the last place. Reds are not as pretty as with Kodachrome, but are sure as saturated, and compared to Kodachrome the reds are "warmer" (more yellow in them)

Edited January 2, 2006 by Filip Plesha

David Mullen ASC · January 2, 2006

Also remember that the individual color intensities of red, green, blue, whatever, can be adjusted during the telecine transfer by most color-correctors like a DaVinci. I could turn the reds in Kodachrome into gray if I wanted to... This is one reason why color neg is more practical for telecine work since it gives you more exposure information to work with, and color can be altered by the color-corrector.

Sam Wells · January 2, 2006

Also remember that the individual color intensities of red, green, blue, whatever, can be adjusted during the telecine transfer by most color-correctors like a DaVinci. I could turn the reds in Kodachrome into gray if I wanted to... This is one reason why color neg is more practical for telecine work since it gives you more exposure information to work with, and color can be altered by the color-corrector.

Yes David but reversal gives you the cross-color and skin to neutral problems without the colorist having to invent them :)

-Sam

John Pytlak RIP · January 3, 2006

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...1.4.4.6.4&lc=en

KODAK EKTACHROME 100D - 5285/7285
Technical Data

Processing Information

FAQ's

Questions and Comments about EKTACHROME 100D

Intense saturation + true 100 speed

Now you have a 100-speed color reversal motion picture film designed for daylight. Whether you're shooting ads, music videos, documentaries, television, or features, it delivers intensely saturated color, plus a neutral gray scale and accurate skin tones. All with a sharpness you won't find in any other 100-speed reversal film

Q: Why would I choose this product over a negative stock?

A: Ektachrome 100D is another tool cinematographers can use to explore their creativity. The look offered is contrasty and super-saturated right out of the camera, and promotes real vibrancy and edginess in a telecine transfer. The stock can be manipulated in several ways not possible with negatives allowing for new exploration of creative expression.

7285 might be a better choice than K-40 because of the more widely available E-6 processing, and the availability of KeyKode for post production. Also, some have used cross-processing in the ECN-2 process for a unique "look".

A.Oliver · January 4, 2006

just shoot your project on k40, the stock is doomed. Reckon this could be your last chance to shoot the most archival stable filmstock their is. (k40 will get the chop sometime this year).

Edited January 4, 2006 by k25rip

Will Montgomery · January 14, 2006

Kodachrome (yes, even k40) has a great look.

The problem I run into with it is cost. I think Dwayne's charges $32 per 100ft roll to process. Most negative labs charge $14 per roll. And that Vision2 stock is amazing when telecined properly, so it just seems easier to use in general.

I wish I had the time to edit up some Kodakchrome and project it. Now that would be fun, but realistically I know I'll only see the stock on video.