E64T and K40 comparison

[pippin]

I think Kodak are supporting S8 by introducing E64, because it is consistent with their aim of producing a reversal stock for their professional users who use S8 to get a home movie look. Most people who populate this forum are looking for more than a home movie look. If they liked K40 they will be disappointed by the move to E64. However, there is still Plus X which is outstanding (and Velvia which I haven't tried yet).

[skahde]

I have a roll of Velvia waiting to be shot. If I'm pleased with the results, I ain't touching 64T again.

Isn't the supply of Velvia 50 rather limited as production of master rolls has been discontinued?

Stefan

[Angus]

Eh? K40 making greens look brown?

Never had that. K40 produces BEAUTIFUL greens.

[tlatosmd]

Anyway, great soundtrack!

K40 colors look neutral on this comp, 64T looks all orange, brown, and red.

Eh? K40 making greens look brown?

Never had that. K40 produces BEAUTIFUL greens.

Just my thoughts and experiences Angus. It would've never inspired Paul Simon to sing it the way he did if Cinelys would be right about the greens.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Stefan--if you hunt around for one of the previous threads on Velvia 50D, I posted an e-mail from Spectra on the question of the continued supply. Short answer--about 2 years worth and after that, they'll switch to Velvia 100 or 100F or whatever exists then.

Meanwhile, I just got a test reel of Wittner E100D back from Pac Lab yesterday, and it looks pretty good. I'm looking forward to comparing it with the Velvia when it comes in.

[livio]

This seems to be the more critical topic on E64T (which I haven't tried, yet)!

What people wanted was a tungsten stock with grain as similar to K40 as possible

mmh. I think, if asked, people liked more to have a daylight stock...

Sometimes I have the feeling that, in the words of many forum members, the interest for super8 should be all on digital transfer, and that industry (read kodak) should concentrate with its products only on that,

I'd rather see Kodak focus on S8 7201 instead.

...as if only in digital transfer one could find that so often idealized 'professional' touch...
Apart the fact that I don't believe in this amateur/professional dicothomy, I think that much of the beauty of super8 is in projection, in all its imperfection, in the film as a media in itself, in its uniqueness, and maybe in its being every time different, at least because the film, in every projection, has some scratches more than in the projection before...

[T-Scan]

Apart the fact that I don't believe in this amateur/professional dicothomy, I think that much of the beauty of super8 is in projection, in all its imperfection

And the 64T is great when projected... that is its intended use after all. When exposed properly, filtered appropriatley, proceesed correctly... you will find much pleasure in projecting it. the grain is not an issue, the colors and latatude are suppurior to K40. It may look grainy on a home transfer, but K40 looks muddy and contrasty the same way... at least with 64T I can back my face from the moniter to reduce grain, K40 is still muddy and contrasy. If peoples concers are transfer quality, then they should be looking at 7201 and the other available negs. seems transfer prices are coming down and methods are getting better. And as I mentioned before, Kodak choosing 64T E6 still allows me to shoot 100D and Velvia from different vendors.

[mattias]

I think, if asked, people liked more to have a daylight stock...

you don't have to think. kodak did ask and that's not what people answered. while john pytlak is of course biased since he's here on behalf of his employer kodak his information is always accurate.

as for the greens, kodachrome does tend to expose foliage either rather brown or blue. it might be beautiful, kodachrome is a very beautiful and romantic stock for sure, but that doesn't say anything about how clean or accurate the greens are. but like i've said before some people think their political agenda is more important than the truth and the art. it's just the way things are and i don't care anymore. as long as you all shoot your own tests you'll be fine.

/matt

[BK]

Just had an opportunity to see 64T projected for real and it's not as bad as I thought it was. It is grainy and had a similar look to Fujichrome RT200 single 8, acceptable to me since I was never a big fan of K40 anyway but a huge fan of KII and K25 for it's more sharp and contrasty look.

Bill

[cineandy]

Project k25 and 64t side by side, 64 looks what it is, utter crap. Kodak should of given the super 8 user 64D, least this would show less grain than 64t and look better in daylite. Have never been a great fan of k40, especially in the 16mm format, however its miles better than 64t. Even e160 looks better than 64t!!!!!!!

[T-Scan]

Maybe someone can answer this... aside from grain, What does K40 have on 64T?

[tlatosmd]

Maybe someone can answer this... aside from grain, What does K40 have on 64T?

1.) It has 100% compatibility instead of about 25% compatibility at max with existing cameras both in speed and color temperature (the latter might be solved by now by adjusting sensitometry after user evaluations).

2.) It has a more convenient and technically instant-reliable infrastructure as for certified Kodak lab(s) (by sending 64T to Dwayne's as the most convenient and economical option, it seems like what you get is dirty multi-colored RGB grain which is much worse than simple monochrome grain).

3.) It was far more affordable for end users as long as it still was called Kodachrome40, other than under the name of Wittnerchrome40T. Which seems unreasonable as 64T is a simple E6 process emulsion, not a complicated and expensive Kodachrome emulsion that Kodak even had to pay themselves for even more complex processing.

[T-Scan]

1.) It has 100% compatibility instead of about 25% compatibility at max with existing cameras both in speed and color temperature (the latter might be solved by now by adjusting sensitometry after user evaluations).

I currently have about 8 working cameras, all handle 64T just fine.

2.) It has a more convenient and technically instant-reliable infrastructure as for certified Kodak lab(s) (by sending 64T to Dwayne's as the most convenient and economical option, it seems like what you get is dirty multi-colored RGB grain which is much worse than simple monochrome grain

Was their handling of K40 much better? not to mention there are multiple places to get high quality E6 processing, including at home.

3.) It was far more affordable for end users as long as it still was called Kodachrome40, other than under the name of Wittnerchrome40T. Which seems unreasonable as 64T is a simple E6 process emulsion, not a complicated and expensive Kodachrome emulsion that Kodak even had to pay themselves for even more complex processing.

K40 was more affordable, but irrelevant to image quality.

[tlatosmd]

1.) It has 100% compatibility instead of about 25% compatibility at max with existing cameras both in speed and color temperature (the latter might be solved by now by adjusting sensitometry after user evaluations).

I currently have about 8 working cameras, all handle 64T just fine.

It's nonetheless a severe restriction compared to K40's compatibilty, no matter your personal experiences with your individual cameras. Just because I own XL cameras that make me able to shoot K40 at night doesn't mean everyone can do so with their cameras.

2.) It has a more convenient and technically instant-reliable infrastructure as for certified Kodak lab(s) (by sending 64T to Dwayne's as the most convenient and economical option, it seems like what you get is dirty multi-colored RGB grain which is much worse than simple monochrome grain

Was their handling of K40 much better? not to mention there are multiple places to get high quality E6 processing, including at home.

Dwayne's processing never appeared to add multi-colored grain to K40. Plus any other labs than Kodak's standardized lab and Dwayne's decrease convenience and economicality which both had maintained K40's sales volume, just as its compatibility with every S8 camera in existence.

3.) It was far more affordable for end users as long as it still was called Kodachrome40, other than under the name of Wittnerchrome40T. Which seems unreasonable as 64T is a simple E6 process emulsion, not a complicated and expensive Kodachrome emulsion that Kodak even had to pay themselves for even more complex processing.

K40 was more affordable, but irrelevant to image quality.

Don't get me wrong, I like 64T's vintage colors, yet neither that nor decreased compatibility by 75% or more is my definition of professional.

64T's increased latitude might account as such, yet it's nothing you see when looking at it without a K40 comparison of the same scene nor have been a professional at the set.

You don't make movies to impress professionals who've been at the set with you, you make films for an audience as wide as possible. That's the reason why you usually rather take movie lights (or use other ways of providing enough light) than a faster stock if what you're aspiring is a technically professional look.

[Angus]

I currently have about 8 working cameras, all handle 64T just fine.

Then you happen to be VERY lucky.

The vast majority of super 8 cameras can not recognise and expose 64T correctly. Even high end models. Indeed the more recent cameras are less likely to be compatible than the older ones.

Was their handling of K40 much better? not to mention there are multiple places to get high quality E6 processing, including at home.

Well...Kodak don't handle 64T at all...whereas they had this fantastic system for K40 whereby you simply posted it to them in a little yellow envelope which came with the film and they forwarded it to the nearest lab...processed it...and sent it back to you....(unless you lived in the USA). no extra costs, nothing extra to buy, no labs to visit...just a couple of stamps.

With 64T you need to find a lab, post the film in your own packaging, pay for processing and so on....OK there are a couple of process-paid options from specific retailers but that is down to the retailers, not Kodak.

And in all cases....64T is costing about 75% more than K40 used to.

Yes we now have the home processing option...but there is nothing new there, one could home process Ekta 160.

As for image quality, I haven't yet used 64T in super 8 so I can't directly comment. BUT....K40 was specifically designed for small gague motion picture use. 64T was not. 64T is a tungsten slide film for 35mm slides...was never really intended for daylight filters, or motion picture use, or small format use.

K40 of course has archival properties unrivalled by any other colour film. Those of us who hope to project our films in decades to come may well find ourselves disappointed with 64T.