Anyone interested in K64 in 8/16mm?

Post by **FilmIs4Ever** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:46 pm

I'm trying to see if Kodak is willing to do this, and just wanted to know if there is any interest out there (I've been out of the loop here for five or six months) especially in Europe, or if you've all learned to like E64T. I know initially a lot of people were complaining about it. K64 would probably have comparable grain, and might only be available in DS8 and DR8, but I think the color pallette is just as nice.

Regards,

~Karl Borowski

Post by **Nigel** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:58 pm

Nope.

Good Luck

Post by **ECNtoo** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:06 pm

arent all the K's dead?

Post by **jpolzfuss** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:20 pm

ECNtoo wrote:arent all the K's dead?

Nope - the Kodachrome is still available as a 35mm-slide film:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professi ... 7.18&lc=en

Post by **mr8mm** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:21 pm

Kodachrome 64 and 200 are still available--barely. But for how long?

Post by **gianni1** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:28 pm

It would be nice. Might as well also go for kodachrome 200, I always liked that stuff...

Gianni

Post by **Angus** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:29 pm

We know Nigel thinks Kodachrome is the devil's spawn so his response was predictable.

Personally I'd like to see some form of Kodachrome remain available. I thnk 200 would have too much grain in super 8, but 64 might be OK. Could any cameras read either film automatically?

Kodak likely would veto the super 8 version it on the grounds that there is no "kodak certified" processing available....16mm might be possible.

I notice my Wittnerchrome 40 cartridges (K40 in disguise) had the "exposed" tag on the end, which the reprefed 100D from the same company did not....so are the Wittnerchrome really genuine Kodak product relabelled?

I support the idea, but I doubt Kodak can be persuaded to do anything.

Post by **reflex** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:26 pm

Angus wrote:We know Nigel thinks Kodachrome is the devil's spawn so his response was predictable.

His opinion is as valid as anyone else's. He happens to dislike Kodachrome.

I've used quite a bit of it to shoot home movies. I would only use it for a special effects sequence in "serious" work because the look is too dated.

I suspect that's where Nigel's comments are coming from. A modern negative has much wider exposure latitude and more natural colors when your goal is to transfer to video and cut with an NLE.

Post by **Angus** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:42 pm

The other stocks look better if your goal is transferring to video....as I said, Kodachrome is better *when used as it is intended*.

Nobody denies that the lower contrast reversals or the negs aren't easier to telecine.

The people who predominantly use neg film are not the same people who'd like to use Kodachrome.

I'd use K64 if it were available in super 8 or reg 8mm. Not sure about K200.

Post by **Nigel** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:04 pm

I would take V2 200T over K-Anything any day.

If you want reversal because you really like to project your film then try the 64T or lobby for the 100D.

Either way K40, K-Anything is dead. Get over it. Move on. Move forward.

Kodak knows what sells and what they are doing(at least on this).

Good Luck

Post by **mr8mm** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:29 pm

The important question is -- does Kodachrome in any type have qualities or characteristics that can not be duplcated by any other film stock? Not subjective qualities like color density or a special "look" but a unique quality not found in any other film. Perhaps an example would be archival. If that is the situation, then there would be a case for saving Kodachrome from extinction. If not, then what is the fuss.

Post by **David M. Leugers** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:20 am

Good point John. The archival quality (in addition to the projected beauty) of Kodachrome was its main attraction to me and I presume a lot of home movie diehards. In that light, I would vote for the niche market of DS-8mm Kodachrome 64 and 200. I just think that in R-8mm those stocks might be disappointing. With a widened gate for 16:9 in DS-8mm the image area may be enough to overcome any grain issues. Shooting Kodachrome indoors with a 200 ASA would be something unique... Of course, I still would love to have available 64T in DS-8mm... 8)

David M. Leugers

Post by **Nigel** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:00 am

You want K40?? I can give you K40 in Xfer.

If all you ever do is project than you might--Maybe have an a reason to want to shoot Kodacrap. Otherwise, I can get you that look in Xfer. Perhaps ever better....

Die Kodachrome Die!!!

These threads are perhaps the most amusing. Nope--They are the most amusing.

I love to watch all you guys arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Good Luck

Post by **vapparn** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:28 pm

For Nigel, While I do understand your opinion about K40 in S8, I can't help thinking that maybe you are more specialized in cinematography than in still photography. If that is right, please remember when your write your posts, that Kodachrome is not only and mainly for cinematography. It is/has been excellent film for those who want to shoot slides.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fet ... 0HQek&tag=

Post by **hellesdonfilms** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:40 pm

IMHO it would be good to have a 16mm reversal for tungsten as 100D rates as 25asa when filtered for tungsten which is way too low to do anything usefull.