kodachrome

October 21, 2005

Now I'll take my own advice and not reply on this issue any more. :lol:

Alessandro Machi · October 22, 2005

Santo, have you ever seen well shot Kodachrome?

I'm going back in time a bit, from the mid 80's to the early 90's....but here's a brief history of Kodchrome successes that are simply projects I either worked on or knew of....

Polish Vampire in Burbank was Broadcast on USA "up all night" back around 1990. The only reason they didn't relicense it was because when word got out that a Super-8 film was being shown on national TV, the film buyer from USA was inundated with calls from Super-8 filmmmakers who wanted them to see their Super-8 movie, in many instances, raw, still on the film reel.

Kung Fu Rascals was shot on Kodachrome 40 and has many scenes that would not be recognized as being Super-8.

I made a couple of Season's Greetings Commercials with Kodachrome 40 and licensed them to a few small television markets.

I've also sold a stock footage shot of Santa Claus on a Sleigh, also shot on Kodachrome 40.

I was disqualified from a film festival once because the judges thought I had incorporated computer animation into a "KTLA Promo" that I had shot on Kodachrome 40. (KTLA aired it once by the way).

Another film festival I entered a long while ago, one of the judges wrote "Looks to good to be done by students". That comment leads me to think that was why I received just an honorable mention because they somehow thought I had accessed mega expensive equipment and resources, when all I used was my $364 dollar Super-8 camera and created all the effects in camera, and simply did an online edit in a professional studio.

So on the one hand, if I "overachieve" with the Super-8 format by using Kodachrome 40, I actually get discredited that it was even possible to do what I did as a student by judges, or years later, I can listen to someone like you prattle on about something you clearly don't have the background to even begin discussing.

Sam Wells · October 22, 2005

If you would simply shoot a couple of rolls of Vision2 200t -- and I'm not talking about extreme 2 stop over exposure and pulling it a stop and all that stuff you're all worked up on -- but just with a modest over exposure of half a stop or whatever, you would realize that you have wasted hours of your time writing hundreds of posts trying to sell the world on a hopelessly outdated film stock.

Having shot way more than couple rolls of Vision stocks I can't agree. Kodachrome is a unique process with a unique response to light, and although I really don't shoot Super 8, I'll miss it.

I'm quite professionally experienced to know why it's problematic as commercial stock (I have taken Allesandro to task over this) but as a fine art material (not that anyone really gives a flying f**** about this) it's really a gem.

I probably need to be more worried about the possible demise of 52/7245 and it's replacement with 01 which I'm hoping won't be as dull as dishwater (unless one does enough digital intervention to make it look like a stock from 1989 :)

What concerns me here is not even so much specific emulsions as it is that all of Kodak's admittedly very advanced engineering is going toward making products optimised for television.

-Sam

A.Oliver · October 22, 2005

Alright, I've got to say it -- somebody has to say it. John Pytlak, you are wasting your time and effort responding to Alex (Alassandro). This is a man who believes emphatically that K40 super 8 would have worked perfectly as b-roll for shots in LORD OF THE RINGS and most any Hollywood production and can't understand for the life of him, no matter how many times it's spelled out, why that angle wasn't pushed by Kodak as a way to save K40. There are many, many posts -- probably hundreds for all I know -- where he tries to pursue that and other amazing things which have nothing to do with reality with regards to K40. A film stock which did a terrific job doing what it was intended to do, capturing home movie moments in the days before home video, and who's time has past just like three strip Technicolor and other motion picture stocks and processes which have now been surpassed or are no longer valid to produce any authentic viable business model or technical argument for.

There, I said it. Sorry, Alex, I like a lot of what you have to say sometimes, occasionally agreeing, you have many positive things to contribute to super 8, but this is ridiculous and embarassing. I am embarassed for you.

Totally agree with you regarding the business and technical side of the argument. K40 has had its day, kodak must be losing money on the processing. However,my opinion, so please dont rip my head off. I dont think kodachrome has been surpassed for home movies or for the enthusiastic amateur like me. I do use neg, but mainly shoot kodachrome. K40 is a crap stock that looks muddy in daylite applications compared to k25. Apart from my k40 gripe, i use it, and shot around 200 rolls this year, why because its cheap and in the deal, great archival qualities. Now take a look at kodachrome 25, once kodaks trump card now discontinued, k25 gives the new 50d a good run for its money. I will place money in 50 years time kodachrome will require less colour correcting in the t/k than any modern neg stock. So i dont think it has been surpassed yet!!!!!

Alessandro Machi · October 22, 2005

Totally agree with you regarding the business and technical side of the argument. K40 has had its day, kodak must be losing money on the processing. However,my opinion, so please dont rip my head off. I dont think kodachrome has been surpassed for home movies or for the enthusiastic amateur like me. I do use neg, but mainly shoot kodachrome. K40 is a crap stock that looks muddy in daylite applications compared to k25. Apart from my k40 gripe, i use it, and shot around 200 rolls this year, why because its cheap and in the deal, great archival qualities. Now take a look at kodachrome 25, once kodaks trump card now discontinued, k25 gives the new 50d a good run for its money. I will place money in 50 years time kodachrome will require less colour correcting in the t/k than any modern neg stock. So i dont think it has been surpassed yet!!!!!

I don't get this.

It's both contrasty and muddy?

You should be experimenting with your filtering. Do you just point and shoot and what you like, or, what will look good, because that is the art, and even the commercial art, of shooting Kodachrome 40.

I'm also curious which lab you use.

I can't believe you actually require any schooling on how to shoot Kodachrome since you've shot it for so long, but shooting with a white skycape will make the film look like crap, unless you frame out the sky. Blue skys produce the best results, then it's up to you to choose the framing of your shots based on the amount of contrast.

Anthony Schilling · October 22, 2005

It's both contrasty and muddy?

I've shot miles of the stuff, and am quite tired of K-40 to be honest. It has a narrow window of looking good... otherwise it's muddy, desaturated, contrasty, grainy ect... i can't wait to get my 64T back this week just for a change of flavor.

Alessandro Machi · October 22, 2005

I've shot miles of the stuff, and am quite tired of K-40 to be honest. It has a narrow window of looking good... otherwise it's muddy, desaturated, contrasty, grainy ect... i can't wait to get my 64T back this week just for a change of flavor.

wa, wa, wahhhhh.

And that's why you have shot "miles of it".

A.Oliver · October 22, 2005

Alessandro, i have messed with filters, also i dont squirt k40 off for the sake of art. Their is nothing wrong with the superb processing at Switzerland.

Skratch words are my excact findings with k40, k40 has a ''narrow window of looking good''

Alessandro, my comments regarding muddy looking k40 is when comparing k40 with k25.

Have you ever exposed 16mm or double super 8 k25??. I still say k40 is crap compared to k25 in a daylite shoot. I am a massive kodachrome fan, i must say i certainly dont relish the dawn of the 64t. Also i see its the begining of the end of 16mm k40.

Andy

October 23, 2005

k25rip,

Kodachrome 25 has a lot better image quality. Considering that most all K40 was shot outdoors, anyways, 25 should have been the one in the carts the whole time and then people would have a lot more to cry about in super 8.

In my opinion, the best thing that Kodak could have done for the home filmmaker who wants to project would have to been to put some of their awesome looking professional daylight balance E100g into the carts.

http://wwwuk.kodak.com/global/en/professio...e100GFilm.jhtml?

All those amateur photographers shoot pretty much everything outdoors. Vacations, events, snowboarding, bike racing, skateboarding. Tungsten balanced super 8 is pretty much wasted on that market.

If Kodak had put that stuff in the carts, very quickly any grumbling about K40 going away would have vanished when the filmmaker runs his first reel through his projector, I bet. Many times sharper, a lot better colour, with less grain.

Or they could even have tried the VS stuff and done some tests in house to see how grainy it was. The colour must be fantastic.

http://wwwuk.kodak.com/global/en/professio...00vsIndex.jhtml?

But they made the decision they did. I could be wrong? Maybe for some reason I don't know those films don't look any good in super 8?

I haven't shot 64t yet. Doubt if I ever will with the fantastic negatives around and the super job Kodak did with the black and whites. I only shot Kodachrome in recent years to test out cameras because it was the only thing kicking around the store shelves more often than not. It wasn't much good for much else unless I wanted to make films that looked like they were shot in 1978.

Edited October 23, 2005 by santo

Alessandro Machi · October 23, 2005

I don't know why, but older kodachrome 40 and presumeably other forms of Kodachrome probably look better than the newer stuff. I've also seen a recent video transfer of Super-8 film that was shot around 1968,69 that looks better than most of the current Kodachrome stuff I see.

I also agree that Kodachrome has a narrow window.

The rules to combat the narrow window are simple. Don't shoot into a white, overcast sky, do shoot when the sky is blue.

A.Oliver · October 23, 2005

Santo, with you all the way with your reply. Its ashame more people didn't cry out when k25 was discontinued. I too wish kodak put a daylite stock into the super 8 cartridge back in the 60's. To the present, have kodak a large pile of 64t they want rid of, so they gave it to us. Possibly their oldest emulsion too!!!!! I have tried kodaks circus chrome, sorry, 7285, looks great in daylite, not as sharp as k40 to my eyes, and the colors oot. Cannot find an mtf curve for 64t, but the e100g curve's show the stock aint as sharp as k40, so i wonder if the 64t has the greater resolving power, hence why kodak opted to use the stock. Amazed that kodak cannot produce a film that has greater resolving power than k25 for the slide/motion picture industry, i could be wrong and the stock exists??. All i want is a daylite balanced film with equal resolving power to k25 in the super 8 and 16mm format.

A.Oliver · October 23, 2005

I don't know why, but older kodachrome 40 and presumeably other forms of Kodachrome probably look better than the newer stuff. I've also seen a recent video transfer of Super-8 film that was shot around 1968,69 that looks better than most of the current Kodachrome stuff I see''.

Dont forget 1960s kodachrome was KII, which some say was the greatest film ever made ( kodachrome fans/users that is ), i've seen it written somewhere that the silver content was higher, would this yeild better images??. Think KII finished around 1975ish.

I have some KI,KII and K25 16mm images , i would say k25 is the coldest looking (but that could be the lens), kII greens and reds are awesome, all stocks look stunning on the sunny days. Absolute worst is the modern 16mm k40 when compared to the previous stocks. Though the k40 is the worst of the kodachrome it still is kodachrome, thus i will use it until kodak pulls the plug ( have a feeling that will be next year).

BTW, super 8 k40, big close ups, on a sunny day with a leicina special and 10mm cinegon can look amazing.

Edited October 23, 2005 by k25rip

Alessandro Machi · February 1, 2006

Alright, I've got to say it -- somebody has to say it. John Pytlak, you are wasting your time and effort responding to Alex (Alassandro). This is a man who believes emphatically that K40 super 8 would have worked perfectly as b-roll for shots in LORD OF THE RINGS and most any Hollywood production....

Taken completely out of context. What I said about Lord of the Rings was there were HUNDREDS of handheld P.O.V. battlefield shots where all one sees are blurred, dark fuzzy shapes, they are also extremely short shots lasting only 4-10 frames in which it would not surprise me if they had incorporated a couple of shots with a Super-8 Camera.

.....and can't understand for the life of him, no matter how many times it's spelled out, why that angle wasn't pushed by Kodak as a way to save K40.

This wasn't about saving K40, it was about Kodak doing more than they did to see that Super-8 could have been used more in the manner that mini-dv has been used as ideal hand held on the go format in video. but I understand that Super-8 was always the forgotten format at Kodak, it was part of the consumer division for the longest time and basically wasn't taken seriously, even after films such as "Polish Vampire in Burbank" (Broadcast 3 times on "Up All Night" USA channel) proved the format could be used for low budget filmmaking and "Kung Fu Rascals" were made.

There are many, many posts -- probably hundreds for all I know -- where he tries to pursue that and other amazing things which have nothing to do with reality with regards to K40.

Another sweeping, condemning statement. All I know is that every Super-8 film that I made in College ended up getting either getting an award, or getting broadcast. So why don't you take a step back and just talk about YOUR experiences rather than prattle on about my experiences.

A film stock which did a terrific job doing what it was intended to do, capturing home movie moments in the days before home video, and who's time has past just like three strip Technicolor and other motion picture stocks and processes which have now been surpassed or are no longer valid to produce any authentic viable business model or technical argument for.

My intrepretation of the retransferred films I am seeing from the 60's and 70's is they look IDENTICAL to an original Kodachrome print, and they look spectacular.

There, I said it. Sorry, Alex, I like a lot of what you have to say sometimes, occasionally agreeing, you have many positive things to contribute to super 8, but this is ridiculous and embarassing. I am embarassed for you.

You sound like a stalker, lol, a condescending stalker, so I'll give you credit for being a mildy unique one.

In case anyone is interested, one of my college Super-8 Films made back in the 80's is a finalist in the Rutgers Super-8 Film Festival, "It's called Decoy For Terror"...

The film festival runs February 17-19 at Rutgers College.

http://www.njfilmfest.com/

Sam Wells · February 1, 2006

I also agree that Kodachrome has a narrow window.

As does any projection contrast stock. Same for 7285, Plus-X, Tri-X reversal.

(you might get a *bit* more wiggle room with the B&W reversal stocks, but I'd suggest it's equall true that you just are not minding the roughly 5 stop window you're working in as much.

(One thing I *like* about Kodachrome is that certain underexposure will look almost monochromatic. But if what you wanted was snappy color in those areas then it's the wrong choice of material).

If you can work in that window then reversal can be quite nice, but any contemporary color neg will let you expand that window so to speak.

Look at the characteristic curves for these films on Kodak's web site.

-Sam

Clive Tobin · February 2, 2006

...Cannot find an mtf curve for 64t...

The curves for the still-picture version are posted at http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona...5.30.14.3&lc=en and the MTF should be similar although the contrast etc. will likely be different as motion picture film gets different agitation than still film.

The ideal filming combination to me would be ASA 10-25 daylight film for outdoors and ASA 160-250 tungsten film for movie lights. The latter could also be used outdoors in poor light with filter.

I don't like fast films in daylight as you either can't stop down far enough to avoid overexposure, or you lose sharpness owing to diffraction effects in the small iris opening. And ND filters are a nuisance.

John Adolfi · February 2, 2006

The ideal filming combination to me would be ASA 10-25 daylight film for outdoors and ASA 160-250 tungsten film for movie lights. The latter could also be used outdoors in poor light with filter.

I don't like fast films in daylight as you either can't stop down far enough to avoid overexposure, or you lose sharpness owing to diffraction effects in the small iris opening. And ND filters are a nuisance.

Well Fujichrome would be your answer then. I was about to go that direction but with all the bad publicity that Santos is giving to the reversal color stocks I'm beginning to second guess that decission.