E64 Results

[T-Scan]

Has anyone here experienced tighter grain with a little overexposure when using the 64T?

This makes me wonder if anyone has tried cross processing 64T yet? And could grain be tightened that way? I think i'll give that a whirl on my next house transfer.

[sarmoti]

An auto exposure or auto iris was never built into any of these systems.

Yeah, the CP 16R had the servo option as you mentioned and while I was in film school one of my instructors had an Arri SR1 rigged with a servo as well that was connected to the camera's own APEC system, don't ask me if it came like that from the factory or if it was a mod but it was indeed rigged for auto exposure. I have since seen an Aaton XPR with the same feature so perhaps I'm incorrect in that it was a factory feature but without a doubt there are 16mm cameras out there with full AE.

If the photo sensor is not part of the TTL ...

Yeah, indeed the ND solution wouldn't work if the metering is TTL but it would if it's not.

Another option is to check the aperture the AE system is signaling before shooting and compensate for it by switching to manual and closing the iris by 2/3 of a stop or so.

Another crazy thought... if there was an easy way to place a tiny ND inside the camera somewhere between the film and the photo diode.

I guess just for the sake of brainstorming that pull processing the film would also work, but not practical.

I still stand by opening the camera and adjusting the potentiometer that controls the AE is the best solution and probably smart anyways because even though people claim that the build quality of these cameras is excellent, the truth is that photo sensitive diodes age and loose sensitivity, period, it's what they do.

I use my minolta autometer IVF for super 8 just as I use it for 16 & 35. If more super 8 shooters would get over their apparent fear of manual exposre and the hand held meter they might find that E64 is perhaps not that bad when properly exposed. They might even shoot a roll of two of neg. If you can afford one of the high end bauers, you can afford a light meter. The sekonic 398 has to $50.00 or less these days on ebay.

I'm with you on this one, IMHO anyone that goes through the trouble of working with film in this century does it for a good reason, I personally can't imagine shooting film on auto exposure unless it was a last resort, I don't do it with video, I don't do it with stills, heck, if my phone's camera had manual exposure I'd use it! There's nothing that bugs me more than not having control of exposure and having that damn auto iris doing acrobatics and ruining my image.

[Evan Kubota]

"If more super 8 shooters would get over their apparent fear of manual exposre and the hand held meter they might find that E64 is perhaps not that bad when properly exposed."

Who says S8 shooters have a fear of manual exposure? I have two lightmeters and always use them with 16mm, but only sometimes with S8.

Also, just because you don't use an external lightmeter doesn't mean you use full auto exposure and let it fluctuate within the shot. I could easily use my Sekonic Studio Deluxe with my R10 but the R10's built in meter is quite accurate, apparently - the results with K40 are always spot-on. I meter with the internal system and lock the aperture, sometimes with a slight intuitive compensation.

"I have since seen an Aaton XPR with the same feature so perhaps I'm incorrect in that it was a factory feature but without a doubt there are 16mm cameras out there with full AE."

Scoopic...

[marc]

Has anyone here experienced tighter grain with a little overexposure when using the 64T?

This makes me wonder if anyone has tried cross processing 64T yet? And could grain be tightened that way? I think i'll give that a whirl on my next house transfer.

As far as I know, cross processing does not enhance the abilities of a reversal emulsion. There is something unique about the negative stock that gives it the latitude that it has. While Ektachrome may have greater latitude than Kodachrome, I have no illusions about it competing on the same level as a negative emulsion.

[sarmoti]

Also, just because you don't use an external lightmeter doesn't mean you use full auto exposure and let it fluctuate within the shot.

Well, isn't that the same concept of taking a reading and setting the stop you want for a shot. I mean, if you do it that way it's just a matter of compensating for 2/3 of a stop if shooting 64T. In that case everyone's concern on this thread about cameras not recognizing 64T are null. I think it's pretty clear that what they want is full auto exposure,

and yeah the Scoopic escaped my mind, for some reason my brain just doesn't register it as a 16mm camera, must be it's form factor/feature set, it's very different from your typical 16mm camera.

[vapparn]

T-Scan wrote: "64T's an awsome film for time exposure night cinematography... I just rewatched an experimental piece I shot with it, and man I like the punch of this film.. It performs basically the same as I initially visualized, or hoped 100D would look in S8, but with tungston abilities. When I finally did test 100D in S8, the grain was finer than I expected, but it lacked the punch 64T has."

64T may be excellent for night times, but night is not what S8 users seem to shoot most of the time, not to mention time exposure. Concerts and stuff, yes, but then it is V2.

About that punch. There is a plenty of material available about E100 films: G, GX, VS and then this 100D. 100VS and 100D are quite similar and very well known for their saturated colors.

Another good thing about 64T could be cross. Older Ektas have a reputation of being good films for X. But then again, X is not as often used in cine as in stills.

[tlatosmd]

Guys, just as I told you, correct exposure is only *one* of the problems for 64T, and even that alone has the potential to drive most starters and hobbyists away. The other is those amateurish, vintage results (huge grain plus over-saturated colors result in crayola look as Super8man called it) we've seen here so far, and as I've told you, what it looks like projected doesn't mean anything nowadays compared to what it looks like on TV and computer screens.

That's why 64T is a bad choice for amateurs and pros alike.

Audadvnc, there has never been a VNF160. VNF, rated 125ASA, was introduced as a replacement for Ektachrome160, not to confuse with Ektachrome160 Type G.

As for the supposed R&D issue, up to the mid-1980s most other companies not only had 40ASA but also 160ASA E6 emulsions in S8, while 40ASA certainly always outnumbered 160ASA and was manufactured longer.

And if those reasons given for discontinuing K40 were so sound, then why was it so easy to disprove them anytime as reasons?

[mattias]

Guys, just as I told you, correct exposure is only *one* of the problems for 64T

oh, you told us? only a million times already. what should be baking your noodles is why nobody's listening. try posting some of your own results and i can guarantee you will notice a big difference.

/matt

[tlatosmd]

Yes, because it takes a lot even to make out of 64T what we've seen. Which only proves my point that 64T needs pro skills for amateur results.

[MovieStuff]

While I love K40, virtually every K40 clip or still posted here has needed some degree of color correction to make it look best. So, from a telecine standpoint, using E64T is really no different other than a slight increase in grain. However, it is pretty clear that the E64T is sharper and has lower contrast over the K40. Now, for those that like to project, perhaps the concerns are different but from where I stand, the E64T is a clear winner.

However, I do agree about the compatibility issue with S8 cameras. E64T may be listed in the "pro" section of Kodak's catalog but I seriously doubt that is because Kodak considers it a "pro" stock any more than the K40 stock it replaced and the fact is that many people shooting super 8 do expect the camera to determine exposure, just as many people shooting miniDV do. Whether this is logical or not is really beside the point. The fact is that the E64T cart will not index properly in a lot of super 8 cameras and that will lead to exposure issues for those that don't understand how to compensate. To say that they should just go buy another camera presumes that they:

A) Would know what to look for

and

B) Won't just say "screw it" and go buy a miniDV camera.

Roger

[John_Pytlak]

E64T may be listed in the "pro" section of Kodak's catalog but I seriously doubt that is because Kodak considers it a "pro" stock any more than the K40 stock it replaced and the fact is that many people shooting super 8 do expect the camera to determine exposure, just as many people shooting miniDV do.
Roger

When Kodak's consumer products division was about to drop the Super-8 product line years ago, the Entertainment Imaging division (professional motion picture) decided to continue producing Super-8 products because they supported our business. First, some professional filmmakers used Super-8 for its "look", especially in music videos and commercials. Second, many film schools used Super-8 for their beginning filmmaking courses, as it was a low cost way of introducing students to traditional filmmaking techniques. Home moviemakers and "amateurs" benefitted from continuation of the Super-8 products, but are not a significant part of the business case.

[super8man]

Home moviemakers and "amateurs" benefitted from continuation of the Super-8 products, but are not a significant part of the business case.

I vote for this quote as a keeper! This is the most telling quote I have heard in a long time. Looks like we should all just pack it in... Seriously. Just kind of makes you go "what the ...?"

Makes me realize that only people with Leicina Specials and Beaulieus are supporting Kodak with their volume purchases while the rest of us...well, who really cares about the rest of us. Perhaps we should all just start using minDV as that format seems to rely upon regular consumers like...well, me I guess.

Thanks for sharing this sentiment.

Cheers,
Mike

[John_Pytlak]

Sorry to be so blunt, but the business case for Super-8 rests on how the products support professional filmmaking. If you view yourself as a professional filmmaker you should be happy. If you are a home moviemaker or "amateur", give thanks that professional filmmakers sometimes use Super-8 in their work and schools use it for their filmmaking courses.

Kodak Entertainment Imaging continues to invest in the Super-8 format, as evidenced by the new films that have been made available during the last few years, and the investment in transferring Super-8 production back to the USA later this year. "Amateur" filmmakers reap the benefits, but just don't drive the business case. Why is that so hard to accept?

Without the business case developed by Kodak Entertainment Imaging, Super-8 would be long gone, just as the 616, 127, Instamatic 126 and Instamatic 110 still film formats are no longer made by Kodak.

[Angus]

Not sure about 616 but I can still buy 127 and 126 film if I choose from specialists...and find 110 in the supermarket!

However John is only echoing what I've been saying for a while. As far as super 8 goes Kodak cares about the pros, not us hobbyists. Kodak sees the future in terms of retaining the recent tendancy for pros to shoot super 8 segments, and in getting super 8 back into film schools.

Personally I still wonder at the logic of removing the stock that (by far) outsold all the others...and wonder if Kodak is actually wrong in assuming that the number of pros shooting super 8 outstrips us hobbyists.

We might not like it, John himself might not 100% agree, but John is expressing current Kodak thinking.

[super8man]

I agree on both counts (John and Angus) but it still seems to "appear" that boards such as this and the plethora of website seem to cater to amatuers... And it would "seem" that while the focus of Kodak may very well be towards professionals, it also "seems" to appear that the actual bread and butter sales wrt to Super 8 are actually amateurs. Sort of like economists saying that their model is based on a perfect world and not on the human world we live in each day. My two cents.

best.
m