SCANS FROM S.8 KODACHROME FRAMES

[Poliestere]

Camera: an "old" Beaulieu 5008 (acquired on E-Bay).
Scanner: Canon Canoscan 5200 F: this scanner does not have adapters for S.8 frames, also this scanner is very economic, therefore the result of this scanning are rather "approximate" (the original frames are more clear and better quality).

They are scansions from frames of Super8 film shot in the most various illumination conditions; moreover, I have intentional "maltreated" the Kodachrome shooting also in extreme conditions of lighting, from the nocturnal shooting to that with the sun to the zenith. To notice that all the scansions of the S.8 frames have been made through a scanner for films economic, with an optical resolution (not interpolated) of 2.400 DPI (therefore with a resolution of c.a 96 l/mm), resolution that is clearly inferior to that offer from the Kodachrome (that he is greater of 250 l/mm).
Therefore I would have had to use an professional scanner able of 6,250 DPI for being able to capture all the details of the S.8 frames. For example, a scansion to 6.250 DPI of a S.8 frame would have given back an image of 1.050 X 1425 pixel in full quality, that it corresponds about to the resolution of the frame Kodachrome 40 Super8.

Rome, Arc of Triumph. Normal conditions of lighting (the subject is in shadow).

Rome, historical center. Extreme conditions of lighting, with the full sun (and in full summer) nearly to the zenith; the scene shooting has one very high exposure latitude.This type of lighting produces in kind images from the excessive contrast, with zones in shadow dark and lacking in details, therefore like the illuminated zones (extremely clear without detail). The Kodachrome has demonstrated to know to compensate also this type of lighting enough, supplying a detailed image is in the shadows that in the high lights.


Nocturnal shooting, particular of the wheel of a scooter. The lighting comes from an illuminator portable quartz from 100 W place to c.a 5 meters from the subject.


Nocturnal shooting. P.P. of a automatic distributor. Same luminous source of the previous shooting.






Shooting made in study completely to the dark, only source of lighting is represented from a dia projector that it projects colored lights on the model's face.


Other condition of "extreme" lighting: shooting made of night, only source of lighting a street lamp. To notice that also in shooting made in conditions of insufficient lighting, the Kodachrome has given images of good quality, with black compact and deep, and above all without the appearance in the image of the trouble of the grain, trouble that instead appears much obvious in video (both analogic and digital video) in the same conditions of lighting (and that they give therefore an image of low quality).



Shooting macro with blowup of 2:1 (framed field has double dimensions regarding the frame). Artificial lighting.


Shooting macro (the subject is a larva) with blowup more great of the previous shooting, the 1:1 (framed field is of dimensions 5,5 x 4 millimeter, practically equal to the dimensions of the Super8 frame). Artificial lighting.






An other its excellent characteristic I have "discovered" for case... Some years ago, because of long household removal, I had put all mine films S.8, of which much Kodachrome and many of other brand (above all Agfa Moviechrome), in a large box that I delivered to my sister. I was sure that my precious large box came kept in the residence of my sister, therefore in a fresh place and dry, instead my sister he preferred to put it, to mine unknown, in its very humid cellar, under the street plan... In this place my large box remained for all the winter...
Approximately 6 months after, I went to resume mine my films and with horror I discovered where they had been conserved for 6 months: in a cold atmosphere and with a humidity rate near 100% (even the walls of the large box, of cardboard, were totally humid, nearly bathed). Fearing worse, I inspected my films. Result: all the films not Kodachrome unfortunately showed a myriad of little dots white (mold) visible to nude eye (and in projection) on all the length of the film, while on the Kodachrome, all the Kodachrome, also after an accurate examination I have not noticed neither a single white dot of mold on all the length of the film...
I do not know if this particular resistance to the humidity is proper to the structure of the film or of its particular development, however this incident has demonstrated that the Kodachrome is truly an extraordinary film, is really an "superfilm": super in the quality of the images, super in their duration in the time and super in the resistance to the humidity (and the mold)...

I think therefore that it is just from irresponsibles to stop the production of this excellent film, like also is from irresponsibles to assist like passive spectators to its end, without to try to make something actively in order to save it... and in order to try to save it little enough: go to the post entitled "LIKE SAVING THE KODACHROME" that find in this forum, there are all the necessary info.

Boys we try to make it, it is to send a letter, little minuts of your time that can change the unjust fate of the Kodachrome... Make it now, is remained little time!

Bye.

Poliestere 8)

[audadvnc]

Poliestere - you've got some nice screen shots here, including the photogenic male talent - is that you?. You are using Kodachrome to good effect.

Don't concern yourself too much with its demise. With your talents you should be moving right to 16mm negative, and finding someone to pay you to do so.

[Alex]

I still don't understand why Kodak doesn't just offer the Kodachrome process "for sale", rather than just bury it.

[tlatosmd]

I still don't understand why Kodak doesn't just offer the Kodachrome process "for sale", rather than just bury it.

Someone, don't remember who, suggested they need it to make money from it sometimes later, in the future. For museological or archaeological use, I wonder?

[Poliestere]

Don't concern yourself too much with its demise. With your talents you should be moving right to 16mm negative, and finding someone to pay you to do so

.
Audadvnc, thanks.
Not, the photogenic male talent he is a South American actor with I have shot various shortmovies (many of the frames here of the post) and that currently he is participating, with to a French actress (famous in its country for of the fiction television) in an "middlemovie" entirely shot on Kodachrome.
Why I use the Kodachrome and not negative film? The negative films are optimal (know all the Vision2 family of the Kodak, from the 100 to the 500 ISO) but they have an unsurmountable defect: in normal conditions of conservation (domestic conservation to temperature ambient), the images last to maximum 15-20 years, whereupon happen a progressive fading of coloring, with consequent whitewash of the images and chromatic dominant appearance... As I cannot allow me to save my works printing them on 3 copies of separation b/n film, and as I would want to have use, also between 30 or 40 years, of mine films with intact every shading of color, here why I shooting in Kodachrome...

[marc]

Not, the photogenic male talent he is a South American actor with I have shot various shortmovies

I hope that he is not from Ecuador
He actually looks more peruvian.

[audadvnc]

[quote="PoliestereThe negative films are optimal (know all the Vision2 family of the Kodak, from the 100 to the 500 ISO) but they have an unsurmountable defect: in normal conditions of conservation (domestic conservation to temperature ambient), the images last to maximum 15-20 years, whereupon happen a progressive fading of coloring, with consequent whitewash of the images and chromatic dominant appearance... [/quote]

Earlier this year I telecine'd several thousand feet of negative from the 70's and 80's that transferred without problem. Plenty of E-4 Ektachrome too, lots of that had faded. But negative seems to hold up better than Ektachrome over time.

[John_Pytlak]

If you watch satellite or cable television, or buy DVDs of old movies, you see that many old shows filmed on Kodak color negative film still look very good, even decades after they were shot.

Recent transfers that I've been very impressed with the quality on:

The Sound of Music (1965)
The Music Man (1962)
Patton (1970)
Bonanza (TV, early 1960s)
Star Trek (TV, mid 1960s)
Hogans Heroes (new HD transfers)
Hello Dolly (1970)

Many people mistakingly assume that the fading of old color prints (made before Kodak introduced low fade print film in the early 1980's) represents film dye stability in general. I have many Super-8 EKTACHROME home movies from the 1970s that still look very good.

Always store film in a cool, dry, and vented location to slow dye fading and any vinegar syndrome. If you must store film in sealed containers (cans), use Kodak Molecular Sieves to adsorb excess moisture and any acids trapped in the container.

[VideoFred]

Bonanza (TV, early 1960s)

Yes,
Our national broadcast is offering old Bonanza episodes -and others- on video. I was amazed/suprised by the quality. Colors where very good indeed.

The original sixties Zorro looks very good, too.
I wonder if Zorro is colored by computer?

Fred.

[aj]

I noticed a Lassie episode on Flemish telesion.
Nice and sharp but the colours have a considerable greenish colorcast.

[John_Pytlak]

I noticed a Lassie episode on Flemish telesion.
Nice and sharp but the colours have a considerable greenish colorcast.

Could be a poor transfer. Do you know when that particular episode was shot?

[Patrick]

With regards to film storage, can these Kodak Molecular Sieves be left inside the film cans for good or do they need to be replaced every now and then?

[Poliestere]

Earlier this year I telecine'd several thousand feet of negative from the 70's and 80's that transferred without problem. Plenty of E-4 Ektachrome too, lots of that had faded. But negative seems to hold up better than Ektachrome over time.

Do you considers but that in the telecinema automatically they can come compensates loss of density and chromatic dominant presents on the negative... however also you confirmations that the colors of the Ektachrome film after 25-30 years forgiveness, (while those of the Kodachrome last at least the triple of the time!)

If you watch satellite or cable television, or buy DVDs of old movies, you see that many old shows filmed on Kodak color negative film still look very good, even decades after they were shot.

Recent transfers that I've been very impressed with the quality on:

The Sound of Music (1965)
The Music Man (1962)
Patton (1970)
Bonanza (TV, early 1960s)
Star Trek (TV, mid 1960s)
Hogans Heroes (new HD transfers)
Hello Dolly (1970)

Also in your example, above all when it is spoken about professional films, as of film "telecine'd" on DVD, there are many digital manipulations that allow to compensate the loss of quality of the negative, even if the final result (the film on DVD as an example) is good, at all is not said that the original negative is in those same good conditions!
When you make a telecine from film on digital support, also in field not closely professional the following things can be made: 1) chromatic dominant Correction; 2) Elimination of scratches and abrasions and dirt from the negative (through software); 3) Reduction of the effect grain of the negative; etc.

Moreover, the films from you cited perhaps they have also been restored...
The speech of the conservation in the time of the images is different: as an example, you take a Kodachrome, shoot a film, develops it, you close it in a drawer and forgets it for 60 years... After this time, "finds again" that drawer, you take the Kodachrome and examine it: you will find the same quality of image of 60 years before, without loss of density or chromatic dominant... This for me means conservation in the time of the images: without restorations, telecine with digital corrections, etc., but the film that intouched conserve it to along (very along) in the time...

Now the business policy of the Kodak me seems clear, (also diabolic): it wants to get rid of the Kodachrome but without to lose the numerous users of this extraordinary film, that then make? Launch on the market one new invertible film, but than does not have the same optimal characteristics of the KC, tries to convince (above all who today uses the KC) that between the two films not there is difference, so as to "pour off" of users of the KC towards the new film, with consequent decrease of the users of the KC.
To this point, the Kodak, because of the remarkable decrease of users of the KC (in great part provoked from she same), will be felt in must of stop the production. If from a theoretical point of view this diabolic politics could work, under the practical point of view it could cause more damage that benefit to the Kodak: exists in fact an other optimal invertible film already concurrent, that it has the same quality of image of the Kodachrome and has also a good duration in the time of the images, produced from the Fuji, the Velvia 50D (the Fuji adopts from nearly 20 years on all its films a particular chemical technology that allows to the colors of these films a advanced duration of 40% regarding the Ektachrome of the Kodak - data gains from test of accelerated aging executed in the own laboratories -). Moreover, the quality of image of the Velvia 50D is indisputably better to every film of the Ektachrome family... Must go ahead?

Therefore, when the Kodak will stops the production of the Kodachrome, it will lose its becomes attached users that will buy in mass Fuji film... Optimal politics (kill) of the Kodak.

I think that nobody of we desires to invest time, hard work and money in the realization of films that irremediably they will be lost in very little decades... With the Kodachrome this does not happen, with the Ektachrome unfortunately yes... Velvia 50 of the Fuji is placed about to half of the road, also if it is not a film with development to subtractive synthesis. (the point of force of the Kodachrome is just this: it is a film with procedure of development to subtrattive synthesis, with the copulants in the development, and not contained in the film as it happens for all the other invertible - additive synthesis - and where dyes are formed from the reaction of a copulant with the oxidation of the chromogen developer).
A council to the Kodak? Savings on the Ektachrome line (stopping the production of some not indispensable Ektachrome) and "throw again" on the market, with one new garment and taking advantage of the own characteristics of this film, the Kodachrome, even producing some also than greater sensibility, even adopting a support in polyester (who knows when its images would last, in normal conditions of conservation - domestic conservation- without more the limit of the acetic syndrome? Beyond the century?) 8O ...

Do you that think of it, John?
8)

[gurra83]

Someone is probably gone slap me for this one, but post like the one above is probably more fun to write than what it is to read.

Well maybe it was interesting but i would'nt know cause i did'nt read it.

Foregive me for my roudness :?

[gurra83]

Shit!!! Double post