Why did kodak get rid of K40 (i mean "glorious K40) and is there any change of its return?
K40 is sooo over rated. I just retransferred some the other night from 2 years ago, and the colors appear totally washed out in comparison to the E6 films I've been shooting since it's demise. If Kodak released the 100D, it will have similar grain as K40 did but with all the added benifits of a more modern film stock.
YOU JUST RETRANSFERRED IT.........
K40 was intended for projection, not telecine. It is notoriously difficult to telecine well.
Trying to judge the merits of K40 after telecine with 64T on projection is grossly unfair.
The government says that by 2010 30% of us will be fat....I am merely a trendsetter
Daft question coming up:
Regardless of wether your camera recognises E64t or not,how many of you use an external lightmeter?? You may well be surprised.
And yes! Angus is correct,this stock projects far better than it tranfers to digital media.
Some weeks ago I got processed my first 2 rolls of E64T and have the same impressions. Shot with Minolta 64-XL, external exposure meter, 500 W tungsten, no filters, so the exposure and colour reproduction are good (some weeks earlier I made tests with E64T still film). Remaining problems are the horrible grain and sharpness, pulsating during projection. This film is not so horrible, as former soviet SVEMA colour stock, but in XXI century Kodak could make something better, especially for this price (the costs of S8 stock in Poland are the highest in Europe). PS. Don't give up. Try with Fuji Velvia or b/w Kodak. Or... make films, as the old books used to teach: no wide panoramas, more close-ups and contrast motives to loose the grain
Amator:
That 'pulsating' you describe could well be down to the lighting source.If the power supply to the lamps is not exactly constant,film will pick this up and reproduce it as a pulse effect on projection.This is particularly noticeable with flourescent lighting and certain HMIs with their own external rectifiers.
Uncle Barry: I meant that during projection the picture is "sharp-unsharp-sharp-unsharp for the while" Is this not a problem of film thickness and threading in the cartridge during shooting?
Amator:
Yes indeed.The problem you have seems to be 'breathing'.This means that the cartridge is not laying absoluteley flat in the gate.This would also apply to a manufacturing error when the brand new filmstock was wound into the cartridge (a more likely explanation I think) than a camera fault.
Anyway,it may give you something to work on.Would not undervalue E64t just yet though.
AMAT0R wrote:This film is not so horrible, as former soviet SVEMA colour stock
How's that for a comparison for what some people here referred to as a 'modern' and 'state-of-the-art' stock? Only one level above Soviet Svema! :lol:
Old Unkle Barry wrote:This would also apply to a manufacturing error when the brand new filmstock was wound into the cartridge (a more likely explanation I think than a camera fault).
As far as I can see, Amator credited it to 64T, not his camera.
The only way "to work on" would be to buy the fabulous-expensive "pressure plate".
For all I know, the pressure plate was designed exclusively for 60m/200ft mags, however they of course won't tell you that when you buy it as they wanna sell it.
"Mama don't take my Kodachrome away!" -
Paul Simon
Chosen tools of the trade: Bauer S209XL, Revue Sound CS60AF, Canon 310XL
The Beatles split up in 1970; long live The Beatles!
tlatosmd wrote:As far as I can see, Amator credited it to 64T, not his camera.
quite frankly i agree with many disappointed reactions to this stock, especially regarding the dancing grain, but image stability and edge to edge focus was fantastic throughout the 10 carts i shot.
Why did kodak get rid of K40 (i mean "glorious K40) and is there any change of its return?
K40 is sooo over rated. I just retransferred some the other night from 2 years ago, and the colors appear totally washed out in comparison to the E6 films I've been shooting since it's demise. If Kodak released the 100D, it will have similar grain as K40 did but with all the added benifits of a more modern film stock.
YOU JUST RETRANSFERRED IT.........
K40 was intended for projection, not telecine. It is notoriously difficult to telecine well.
Trying to judge the merits of K40 after telecine with 64T on projection is grossly unfair.
64T is also meant for projection... where did I compare it to 64T projected? All I have ever said is that 64T's grain is not as apparent on projection, where its grain reputation has taken a beating. But I still prefer it over K40 in both departments. I have shot enough bulk loads of K40 and E6 to say that no matter how you view them, K40 appears soft, muddy, with flat colors in comparison. K40's grain is finer than 64T, but not 100D or Vel 50D.
fireflame productions wrote:
Myself, i might be moving on to 16mm soon. That's if the widescreen centre's prices are processed paid.
All the best
,Ross
I would not advise buying 16mm stock from widescreen. They are great for many things but by far the best prices are direct from Fuji where you can buy 100ft loads for £15 + vat. You should then send to Soho Images for processing - they should do this for 10p / ft.
Matt
Birmingham UK. http://www.wells-photography.co.uk
Avatar: Kenneth Moore (left) with producers (centre) discussing forthcoming film to be financed by my grandfather (right) C.1962
