Poll- 100D or 64T?

[Rusty]

I'm content with 64T. As long as Kodak continues making reversal films i'm happy.

Rusty

[Daniel]

Hello,
I would recommend both Eastman EPP 100D and Fujifilm Vevia 50D/100D super-8 reversal [E6] stocks, as well as, Eastman vision2 50D (7201) for daylight negative.

As it is well known, the exposure latitude of the vision2 50D is extended enough to handle high contrast in full daylight situations. It presented precise color reproduction (checked through color chart and skin tones) in our super-8 short-feature "Halogenuros" project.
Remarkable ability to resolve very fine details.

Good luck,
DHI

[Nigel]

64T

Good Luck

[richard p. t.]

I voted for 100d but I feel like a traitor. Obviously the down side with 100d is shooting in Tungsten light at 25asa. This is a real problem. Both, please both. If both existed, however, I know that most of the time I would buy 100d as the majority of what I film is outdoors... so I voted for how I know I would vote with my money, but I like 64t and would buy heaps if I knew it was going...ah if only 160 was still an option.
As for 50D negative. Great. this is the way forward for super8 ... only not for super8 in Australia as no lab will agree to process super8 ECN2. I process 64t in a semi commercial way (as 'nano lab Australia' nanolab@iprimus.com.au) and would love to do super8 neg if it were possible to buy the chemicals in smaller volumes! If I had a wish list, that would be at the top!
Richard

[Mogzy]

No need to feel like a traitor- it's not asking you to support the withdrawal of 64T- I think everyone would keep both if they could, just asking "if you could only have one, which would you choose"?

[audadvnc]

Keep 64T running for now. I've got an 85B filter from a 16mm camera that I can put to good use. But I plan to try 100D soon.

[Angus]

100D.

It works in more cameras than 64T, it was designed with movie making in mind and is proven in small format film making (16mm).

100D also seems to fit in with today's amateur film maker, seeing as few of us need to use tungsten balanced film these days.

If I had to choose just one.....it would be 100D.

I still think that the ideal world would include a slow daylight balanced film and a high speed tungesten...say a 40/50D reversal film and a 200T reversal film....but that is a pipe dream these days...clearly it is felt that the majority of future sales will be with negative film.

Naturally I have nothing against 50D colour neg being added to the existing portfolio...any new stock is to be welcomed.

[Mogzy]

As Mr Pytlak said earlier, its all about the business case for keeping one, having both or replacing one with the other.

Realistically if Kodak come down on the side of 100D as the preferred reversal stock, then the chances are it would be the only reversal stock.

You could still use 200T and 500T for tungsten filming and get a print from Andec if tungsten shooting is what you need. Most reversal shooters will be shooting outdoors.

The Vision stocks are perfect in tungsten (I've only shot in tungsten a few times as part of specifically requested 'jobs').

200T and 500T have the speed and latitude necessary. 64T like K40 requires a great deal of additional lighting and doesn't look as good.

ADDITION: HEY! WHERE DID THE POST I'M REPLYING TO GO??? I COULD HAVE SWORN THERE WAS ONE AFTER ANGUS'S BY SOMEONE ELSE! Can people delete posts or was it an electronic error? (Or maybe I'm finally losing it.... too many exams...)

[fireflame productions]

hi.
having take all comments int account, for a professional angle
i would say that you should keep 64T. I mean, there may be slightly blue images in daylight but you have to think about all the things filmed in studios.
WITH TUNGSTEN LIGHT

If i was kodak, i would put both out, give a choice because you always have to think of the studio lighting!!!!!!!

If i had to keep one......... 64T.

[reflex]

hifor a professional angle
i would say that you should keep 64T. I mean, there may be slightly blue images in daylight

There will not be a slight blue tinge if you use the correct filter instead of the one built-in. As for shooting indoors, it's better to use Kodak's 200T or 500T negatives.

[Angus]

The professionals are probably not shooting reversal in the first place.

One of the problems with 64T is that it is the "replacement" for K40, the amateur's stock of choice....and it won't give correct images in most cameras using auto exposure and without adding an external filter - something many amateurs might find more difficult than the professionals....

[mattias]

There will not be a slight blue tinge if you use the correct filter instead of the one built-in.

i disagree. the problem is that the blue layer is many times grainier than the rest of the image, which will show as dancing blue dots no matter how you filter it. except for that i've shot 64t with the built in filter and didn't notice any overall blue cast. in fact i wanted some which is why i didn't use an 85b so i had to add it in telecine.

/matt

[Carlos 8mm]

One advantage to switch to Ekta 100D 7285 is the possibility that in a near future when a new emulsion replaces 7285 this will also benefit Super 8 format .

I think that at the moment is very difficult that Kodak invests their money in a new low-speed emulsion like E64T 7280.

[reflex]

i disagree. the problem is that the blue layer is many times grainier than the rest of the image, which will show as dancing blue dots no matter how you filter it.

Is this a processing issue or is it the stock? It seems that people are reporting wildly variable results with this film - it's no secret that there were many badly processed rolls when it was introduced.

[mattias]

i'd say it's the stock, but i've only shot one batch. it depends a lot on the scene obviously. i have a feeling it performs better in sunlight and very contrasty artificial light. i tried rather soft lighting with comopositions that show a lot of medium grey surfaces, and those got quite grainy. i processed my rolls at super8.nl, and i believe frank is known to do a good job with this stock. this said it could also be a telecine issue. the projected material looks fantastic. not that there was anything wrong with the telecine, but maybe this stock isn't the best for video transfer.

here's a couple of stills:


/matt