should kodak replace 64t with 100d in super 8?

[MovieStuff]

and it's a myth that hmi's and kinos are out of the amateur's price range. just rent them as you need them.

The idea isn't just that they are out of the amateurs price range but, rather, simply not available to the average super 8 shooter. If you live in a metropolitan area with access to a rental house, then getting HMIs might not be a problem (though it really can be) but if you live in a small town without a grip rental house then you're going to have a tough time of it. Also, my experience is that amateurs walking into a grip house will generally walk out empty handed because the house generally doesn't want to rent to people inexperienced with HMI units. So to say "just go get HMIs" when using a daylight balanced stock isn't a realistic option to most amateur super 8 shooters. If working on a shoestring they will rig up the cheap Home Depot worklights and do what they can with tungsten lights every time. So a tungsten balanced film is a more realistic option for how amateur shooters regularly operate, as opposed to how they should operate.

Roger

[T-Scan]

I think the real question is: How many people are setting up tungston light kits to shoot a 64ASA film for direct projection? My guess is not many. If 64T was a 160ASA film with the same grain, I could almost see the argument. But the reality is... If we are looking to have one color reversal, where the vast majority is used in daylight... how about going with the best looking reversal film the format will ever experience?

[christoph]

I think 100D would be fine for outdoors but would be useless indoors.

i disagree, just filter 3400k photoflood lights with 80a light filters,put them over the lights not on the camera lens. that way the light loss would not be as significant, and the right color temperature would be had.

the light loss is exactly the same if the tunstens are your main lights, like 2 stops. trying to light coulor film for 25ASA is not funny.

a budget solution on small indoor scenes would possibly be fluorecent tubes or bulbs with good CRI if you cant afford HMIs (or, as Roger correctly says, the rental house looks at you sheepishly)... however if you have any practicals in the shot they might look awfuly orange.

++ christoph ++

[MovieStuff]

how about going with the best looking reversal film the format will ever experience?

Oh, I agree. The 100D is the best option, especially over the 64T. But it would be nice if there was a 160T with the same grain structure.

Roger

[marc]

Being that the price I have seen on a 25 ft. spool of regular 8 for 100d is about $16.00, I can only hope that if Kodak releases it in s8 that it will be at least a tad cheaper. Also, if I shoot at 16 fps in R8, I wonder if I will have a problem with overexposure.

[wado1942]

I just assume shoot 200T for indoors and 50D outdoors. I'm not wasting my time with 64T again because it's useless both indoors and outdoors except on really sunny days. Never-the-less, the image it produces is too crapy to be worth the expense.

[marc]

I just assume shoot 200T for indoors and 50D outdoors. I'm not wasting my time with 64T again because it's useless both indoors and outdoors except on really sunny days. Never-the-less, the image it produces is too crapy to be worth the expense.

Apparently, The debate over it's image quality has been due in large part to who processes it. Who processes your 64T?

[mattias]

and it's a myth that hmi's and kinos are out of the amateur's price range. just rent them as you need them.

The idea isn't just that they are out of the amateurs price range but, rather, simply not available to the average super 8 shooter.

if you had quoted the rest of that paragraph it would have been more clear what i meant. my point is that no movie lights are generally available to most people, unless you rent them but even then. i doubt that many people shot k40 under tungsten, and those who did can just gel their lights 3/4 blue and get the same reading as always, so it's not a problem. and those who used to rent tungsten units can rent hmi's instead. rental houses are wary if you want to rent a 6k, but a 575 is just a blonde with a ballast. and kinos are never a problem.

the light loss is exactly the same

no, because the idea is that if you gel the lights you need less blue. i'm not sure how this works but it does. probably because light become whiter when it bounces off things, plus if you gel the lights you don't color the shadows as much. or something like that.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

and it's a myth that hmi's and kinos are out of the amateur's price range. just rent them as you need them.

The idea isn't just that they are out of the amateurs price range but, rather, simply not available to the average super 8 shooter.

if you had quoted the rest of that paragraph it would have been more clear what i meant.

Okay, here's the entire paragraph:

100d is great for indoors. you don't have to gel the windows, a major plus, and since you need huge lights for low asa anyway you might as well use a few more watts and a filter. 1/2 or 3/4 ctb is often enough and that means you only lose a stop, making this stock as fast as k40 under tungsten.

and it's a myth that hmi's and kinos are out of the amateur's price range. just rent them as you need them. you most likely can't afford to buy a real redhead kit either.

I don't see that it makes a functional difference to what I was addressing, which was/is your assertion that HMI aquisition (or any type of lighting rental) is no problem for amateurs. It is.

my point is that no movie lights are generally available to most people, unless you rent them but even then. i doubt that many people shot k40 under tungsten,

Why not? If they aren't shooting under daylight inside, then the only other alternative is going to be tungsten, even if shooting under available light inside the house. Most people don't have flourescents in their home and flourescents in an office environment won't have enough light for K40. Amateur shooters may be inexperienced but they know enough to plug in dad's worklight if needed, even if that's all that's available.

and those who did can just gel their lights 3/4 blue and get the same reading as always, so it's not a problem. and those who used to rent tungsten units can rent hmi's instead. rental houses are wary if you want to rent a 6k, but a 575 is just a blonde with a ballast. and kinos are never a problem.

Mattias you are a total pro and I respect you immensely. But I think you are making some generalizations based on your easy access to grip equipment. I think you are also making some assumptions about the sophistication of the typical amateur K40 shooter. For the record, I agree that using a daylight balanced stock with daylight instruments is the best way to light but that isn't the issue here. Shooting a daylight balanced stock indoors presents a host of problems for the average super 8 shooter working with limited experience, limited equipment and limited budget. It is my belief that this describes the majority of super 8 shooters these days working with reversal because we get in tons of K40 footage to telecine that was shot with nothing more than worklights. These kids wouldn't have a clue where to get gel or even have a way to attach blue gels to their makeshift lights.

We may just have to agree to disagree but, looking at all this footage, it becomes obvious to me that a fine grain tungsten stock would benefit them tremendously in their efforts. I would not want to implement such a stock at the cost of losing the 100D, because it looks just great. But the 100D would not look so great if it were shot incorrectly indoors by struggling film makers with only dad's tungsten worklight to go on. I think they need a different stock, one that is better suited to the realities of how they are forced to work.

Roger

[mattias]

I don't see that it makes a functional difference to what I was addressing, which was/is your assertion that HMI aquisition (or any type of lighting rental) is no problem for amateurs. It is.

now you quoted too much instead. ;-) the important sentence is "you most likely can't afford to buy a real redhead kit either." those who have access to and can afford tungsten movie lights can probably get access to hmi's as well.

If they aren't shooting under daylight inside, then the only other alternative is going to be tungsten

no, there's another alternative: not shooting at all. i'm absolutely positive this is the most popular one.

Mattias you are a total pro and I respect you immensely. But I think you are making some generalizations based on your easy access to grip equipment.

well, some ctb and c47's are certainly required, but is that really much harder to find than the cto and gaffer's tape required for the windows when shooting tungsten stock indoors? low asa indoor shooting is already a major problem and i'm sure those who even consider doing it have the money, skill, contacts and whatever to do it with a daylight stock as well.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

those who have access to and can afford tungsten movie lights can probably get access to hmi's as well.

Those same people could also just shoot 16mm instead of super 8, right? This isn't about what works best but about what is the most common to the average super 8 shooter. "Having access to" and "knowing what to ask for" are often mutually exclusive within that context.

well, some ctb and c47's are certainly required, but is that really much harder to find than the cto and gaffer's tape required for the windows when shooting tungsten stock indoors? ....

Irrelevent if the people shooting don't know what daylight gel, clothespins and a gaffer is or where to get such supplies. Think of it like this: There are about 50,000 cities in the USA. It is safe to assume that there is at least one person in each city that is a wannabee film maker. Is it safe to assume that there is a grip house in each of those cities? No. The majority of cities don't have an infrastructure that supports film making of any kind. So whether shooting film or video, finding grip supplies is going to be problematic for the majority of amateur film makers. If those film makers happen to be shooting super 8 and not video, then shooting inside becomes even more problematic. Again, this isn't about what works best without any other considerations but about what works best when you consider the limitations of the target group. You think differently because you are in a different target group; one that knows what to ask for and where to get it.

Roger

[mattias]

Irrelevent if the people shooting don't know what daylight gel, clothespins and a gaffer is or where to get such supplies.

i agree, but you're not listening. those who don't either don't shoot indoors, or don't care much about color temperature. if you do care and if you do know how to light for 40 or 64 asa you probably know what a gel is too.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

Irrelevent if the people shooting don't know what daylight gel, clothespins and a gaffer is or where to get such supplies.

i agree, but you're not listening.

I'm listening but simply disagree with you on certain points.

those who don't either don't shoot indoors, or don't care much about color temperature.

Once they get their film back from processing and see their 100D shot under tungsten light, they'll care a lot about color temperature, even if they still don't know what color temperature even means.

if you do care and if you do know how to light for 40 or 64 asa you probably know what a gel is too.

Hah! Now you're not listening! Even if they understand what color temperature means, knowing that their daylight stock is going to turn yellow under tungsten isn't very helpful if all they have to work with is tungsten light and need to shoot inside. Telling them to simply not shoot at all does little to address the issue, which is what stock is best for the average super 8 shooter working indoors. If they had shot with a tungsten stock, they would not have that problem.

Roger

[mattias]

Once they get their film back from processing and see their 100D shot under tungsten light, they'll care a lot about color temperature

i don't think so. in fact it often looks pretty natural since at low light levels light usually looks orange. it's certainly not as bad as not gelling the windows when shooting tungsten stock, a much bigger problem that people don't seem to care about at all. not to mention the problem of exposure. if you're ok with extreme darkness i'm sure you're ok with yellow extreme darkness too. ;-)

Telling them to simply not shoot at all does little to address the issue

i don't have to tell them. the difficulties involved in shooting low asa indoors are already overwhelming enough. this is my main point and you still haven't responded to it. if you do think that the average super 8 filmmaker who doesn't know what a gel is goes to home depot, buys ceramic socket worklights and 500w photofloods, rigs this, flags off or filters any stray daylight, then i agree we can agree to disagree.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

Once they get their film back from processing and see their 100D shot under tungsten light, they'll care a lot about color temperature

i don't think so. in fact it often looks pretty natural since at low light levels light usually looks orange. it's certainly not as bad as not gelling the windows when shooting tungsten stock, a much bigger problem that people don't seem to care about at all. not to mention the problem of exposure. if you're ok with extreme darkness i'm sure you're ok with yellow extreme darkness too. ;-)

But for your argument to make sense, you make some illogical assumptions about what these amateur shooters know to care about. Will they care about color temperature? Maybe, but caring about it won't be much use if they don't have the means to do anything about it and I maintain that most do not. Will they care about exposure and not color temperature? More likely. Their camera's metering system will tell them if they don't have enough light but not if that light is the right color temperature.

Telling them to simply not shoot at all does little to address the issue

i don't have to tell them. the difficulties involved in shooting low asa indoors are already overwhelming enough. this is my main point and you still haven't responded to it.

Because that isn't the current issue. My previous suggestion about a low ASA tungsten stock was relative to grain only. Had I known that the 100D was going to be higher ASA and lower grain then that would have been different at that time because my main concern was excessive grain. That's an old argument irrelevant to this discussion because, no matter how good I think the 100D looks, or that I might know how to light and shoot it, it doesn't address the issue of amateurs shooting with tungsten light indoors with the limitations I feel are common to these film makers. I think that 100D is wonderful but a 160T with similar grain structure would be very useful for these guys; more useful than a daylight stock that they have no common means to accurately light with.

if you do think that the average super 8 filmmaker who doesn't know what a gel is goes to home depot, buys ceramic socket worklights and 500w photofloods, rigs this, flags off or filters any stray daylight, then i agree we can agree to disagree.

I think the average super 8 film maker goes to Home Depot, buys worklights, takes them home, turns them on inside, points his super 8 camera and pulls the trigger. Within that context, I think a tungsten stock would be a better solution for them. If they learn enough over time to understand that shooting with mixed light sources works better with a daylight balanced film, then that's terrific but the scenario of the open window is more the exception than the rule for this target group, IMO.

Roger