Poll- 100D or 64T?

[Mogzy]

Just thought I'd ask- might be of use to Kodak.

[mattias]

they already asked. everybody wanted the slowest film possible and it had to be tungsten. except for me. suit yourselves. :-)

/matt

[Mogzy]

Ah, but didn't they want the slowest speed because they thought this meant finer grain? As a daylight stock the 100D is finer grain than 64T. Besides in tungsten you really need something much faster than 64T- one of the negative stocks for instance.

[T-Scan]

The 100D would be perfect for amatures and make a lot of people happy in the grain department. If it was loaded frsh from Kodak, it would kick ass. But from what I've been able to compare so far, the 64T has some advantages like more saturation and sharpness... not to mention the 64T grain seems to be getting tighter the longer it's out... maybe its the sunny weather, but my last batch the 64T was almost indistinguishable from 100D in grain when projected.

[reflex]

they already asked. everybody wanted the slowest film possible and it had to be tungsten. except for me. suit yourselves.
/matt

I might get flamed for this, but Kodak's decision to introduce E64T actually made a great deal of sense. Here's why it was the best option to replace K-40:

1. The filter operation is exactly like K-40 (assuming you don't mind things a little blue). No need to learn something new after 40 years of filming. Kodak assumes that old dogs can't learn new tricks, of course.

2. Choosing a tungsten film ensured that people could shoot indoors and out. Shooting 100D indoors would require an 80A filter and result in an EI of 25 -- You'd have to light Aunt Thelma's living room like a 1930s soundstage just to get an image.

3. People were used to being able to film K-40 outdoors in sunshine without a stack of ND filters in front of the lens. Replacing it with a significantly faster stock would have forced them to buy potentially hard to find accessories and learn a new approach to shooting (see previous comment about old dogs).

[Mogzy]

they already asked. everybody wanted the slowest film possible and it had to be tungsten. except for me. suit yourselves.
/matt

I might get flamed for this, but Kodak's decision to introduce E64T actually made a great deal of sense. Here's why it was the best option to replace K-40:

1. The filter operation is exactly like K-40 (assuming you don't mind things a little blue). No need to learn something new after 40 years of filming. Kodak assumes that old dogs can't learn new tricks, of course.

2. Choosing a tungsten film ensured that people could shoot indoors and out. Shooting 100D indoors would require an 80A filter and result in an EI of 25 -- You'd have to light Aunt Thelma's living room like a 1930s soundstage just to get an image.

3. People were used to being able to film K-40 outdoors in sunshine without a stack of ND filters in front of the lens. Replacing it with a significantly faster stock would have forced them to buy potentially hard to find accessories and learn a new approach to shooting (see previous comment about old dogs).

I don't think it would be very polite of anyone to flame you for expressing such reasoned opinions. A couple of responses though,

1. With 100D the cartridge will put the filter out regardless of the way the switch on the camera is set- it's idiot proof. Also the pictures will not be "a little blue" as they would using 64T with the in-built camera filter.

2. 64T is really too slow to shoot in tungsten (remember K40 in tungsten?) Most people using reversal film will be shooting outdoors. For indoor the 200T and 500T films as well as Tri X for b/w will give much better results.

3. Most Super 8 cameras in circulation are not of the XL variety and will thus handle 100D in bright conditions fine (I've used it in both non-XL and XL cameras and it looks fantastic). An ND filter is no more difficult to have to find than an 85B to replace the internal 85 filter.

4. Most Super 8 cameras can handle 100D on auto. Most Super 8 cameras cannot handle 64T on auto.

Just my thoughts

Naturally if Kodak offered both everyone would be happy, but I think when Kodak consulted Super 8 users who wanted everything to be as close to K40 as possible, the users didn't realise that 100D would be finer grain than 64T (fine grain seemed to be what they were after most) and it would be compatible with all cameras.

[filmamigo]

I didn't vote, because I would like both please!

There are good reasons to keep the 64T, and I like how it looks and performs under tungsten lighting.

Simply replacing 64T with 100D is problematic. But adding the 100D makes a lot of sense. Gives a choice of daylight or tungsten stock to those who care.

100D's compatibility with all of those 25/40/100/160 automatic cameras is a bonus. Makes it easier for film instructors, schools and co-ops to recommend a colour film that will work in a hodge-podge of cameras.

[mattias]

Ah, but didn't they want the slowest speed because they thought this meant finer grain?

probably, that's why you should never ask people what they need but what they want to accomplish.

/matt

[Daniel]

EPP

[John_Pytlak]

Now that the Super-8 production line has been moved back to the United States, and is up and running, E100D (7285) is among the films being evaluated for Super-8 use. Any comments here will be part of the business case.

Kodak VISION2 50D Color Negative Film 7201 is also being evaluated.

[Andreas Wideroe]

John,
In my opinion releasing the 50D in Super8 would be simply amazing. It's a great film which I use in 16mm and 35mm all the time. I would love to see it in super8.

Best regards,
Andreas

[mattias]

second that. while i've yet to use it in the other gauges, if it has similar characteristics as the other vision 2's but with less grain it would indeed be awesome.

/matt

[audadvnc]

50D film sounds interesting, but to bring up a tiresome subject, we'd have to hash through the 40/160 camera issue again. Would 50D work on 40/160 cameras? I suppose it would as long as the internal 85 filter was disengaged.

[John_Pytlak]

One advantage of the Kodak VISION2 Color Negative Films is their tremendous exposure latitude, especially for overexposure.

[Carlos 8mm]

Would 50D work on 40/160 cameras? I suppose it would as long as the internal 85 filter was disengaged.

Sure! 1/3 f-stop of overexposure is irrelevant, specially for negative films.

John,
If Ekta 100D 7285 will be released in Super 8, this would imply the discontinuance of Ekta 64T 7280 :?: