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

[Mitch Perkins]

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

There are no Super 8 stocks in the Kodak consumer catalogue anymore; they're all in the professional catalogue. This tells me that the target group has changed, in Kodak's estimation.

With film, if you don't know what you're doing, you will likely fail. This reality used to be addressed by Kodak in many ways, including stocks available. Now, those with no clue have MiniDV, and they are swarming to it.

Instead of trying to compete with that, Kodak has shifted focus to shooters who like Super 8 and know what they're doing. The negs prove this quite nicely, no? How many of what you think of as "average Super 8 shooters" are neg-savvy? Zeeerohh!
These folks you're thinking about are not supporting the format in large enough numbers anymore - they can't be the target group, or Kodak would not be able to justify offering any Super 8 stocks.

A little research on the 'net, and you can learn much about film immediately. A couple of simple tests are also required, there's no way around that.

I agree that a 160T would be more generally useful. That and the 100D would be great.

Who has what/how many open windows to shoot beside is an un-known in the equation if ever there was one...

Mitch

[MovieStuff]

There are no Super 8 stocks in the Kodak consumer catalogue anymore; they're all in the professional catalogue. This tells me that the target group has changed, in Kodak's estimation.

But, in Kodak's estimation, 64T is what we needed as well. Good thing 64T is in the professional catalog. Being a professional stock makes it look soooo much better. ;)

I agree that a 160T would be more generally useful. That and the 100D would be great.

Agreed! Both would be great, especially if the 160T had the same grain as the 100D.

Roger

[mattias]

Agreed! Both would be great, especially if the 160T had the same grain as the 100D.

that's not my context though. i'm comparing 100d with the 40 asa people are used to and the 64 asa we have now. obviously a faster tungsten stock would be more useful indoors.

but to be honest i think that would also cause more color balance problems since at lower levels stray daylight, off color flos and such will have more impact. look at most indoor video people shoot. looks absolutely *horrible* most of the time. purple skintones, blue kickers, green spikes, all encapsulated in a orange flooded mud. i'd take the warmth of uncorrected tungsten over that any day.

/matt

[wado1942]

Instead of arguing the same points back & forth, just listen to where I am. I'm a professional audio engineer and even shoot movies a couple times a year. But my super-8 stuff is my hobby. The serious stuff we do is on 16mm or 35mm. I'll tell you that there ARE no rental houses in my area and there ARE no real places to buy cinema stuff either. So If I were to rent, I'd have to get it mailed to me which is expensive. That said, gelling tungsten lights won't work because I can neither afford gels (because I'd have to buy more lights) nor have the time for them. Aside from that, I only have 2,700 watts of lights. 1 of these lights is a 500 watt work lamp like Moviestuff described but the rest comes from a kit that I bought for $80 at a camera shop. I got a good price because the store owner knew nothing about the lights at all and didn't even know if the lamps were available for it. So I did some research and got replacement lamps for another $80. These lights are barely enough for a small room in most cases dealing with low speed film. This would be compounded by putting gels on them because I'd lose at least half the light through the gells right off the bat. Now on our big productions, we use Moles but I don't have the money, nor the space to use those on my hobby. I should add that most of my company's equipment is disgarded rejects from Hollywood like our Mitchell BNCR and our Arri II as well as our Moles which our company owner researched and brought up to moderns specs. We don't get our stuff from rental houses or the traditional sources because it's too expensive. Never-the-less, using 100D indoors is rediculous because it will require a lot more power to light for it than 64T which many have already said is useless. Anyways, I'd much rather put an 80A on my camera for $20 than gels on all my lamps.

"you most likely can't afford to buy a real redhead kit either."

My wife doesn't like me talking about her that way.

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

Nobody processes my 64T because it is usless indoors and outdoors for most shooting situations.

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.

I'd rather shoot 65mm and print to 35mm anamorphic but that's not going to happen either. I can barely afford super-8. I'm not arguing with you BTW, I'm just taking your example further. The truth is, I DON'T have access to HMI lights just because there aren't any in my state. I don't even have access to more proper tungsten lights to gel because nobody sells them here. Everything I'd get for my hobby would have to be off Ebay which means buying. That said, 200T is ideal for indoor shooting because it's the same price as E64T and it looks better as far as I'm concerned. I'd also rather use 50D outdoors becase it requires no filtering and is much better looking than 100D.

[mattias]

I can neither afford gels

seriously?!?

using 100D indoors is rediculous because it will require a lot more power to light for it than 64T.

about a stop, which in practice isn't a big deal. if you use 1/2 blue you'll get an ok color balance and can use exactly the same amount of light.

Anyways, I'd much rather put an 80A on my camera for $20 than gels on all my lamps.

now i'm confused. you think gels are expensive? why would you want to spend $20 on a filter if you can't afford $5 for a pack of gels? and since you seem to have a foot in the industry, why don't you just steal some? it's thrown away all the time.

Nobody processes my 64T because it is usless indoors and outdoors for most shooting situations.

so why do you think it's better than 100d? that's what we're discussing. sorry if that wasn't clear.

/matt

[wado1942]

I said I can't afford gels because it would require me to buy LIGHTS!

so why do you think it's better than 100d? that's what we're discussing. sorry if that wasn't clear.

I don't think it's better. I'm saying the whole argument is moot because they both suck as options. OK, maybe if it was 100T and 64D I'd say cool, let's use both but it's not. It's completely backwards. Why would you want a higher speed outdoor film and a lower speed indoor film?

[mattias]

I said I can't afford gels because it would require me to buy LIGHTS!

i thought you said that after buying your lights there would be no money left for gels. you'll need lights in either case so that was the only logical interpretation.

I don't think it's better. I'm saying the whole argument is moot because they both suck as options.

so why are you discussing it? if all you're saying is that more asa would let you use fewer lights, well congrats for stating one of the most obvious facts ever on this board.

/matt

[christoph]

the light loss is exactly the same

no, because the idea is that if you gel the lights you need less blue.

well, with the same argument you could just put a weaker blue filter in front of the camera :P

seriously, usually you gel lights to balance light sources to each other, you put a filter in front of the camera to balance flight to the film stock.

i'm not sure how this works but it does. probably because light become whiter when it bounces off things,

uh? if becomes more the color of said "things".. so if you have blue walls and light with tungsten i guess you're right :)

plus if you gel the lights you don't color the shadows as much. or something like that.

the shadow get their color from fill light which usually means the room color and/or ambient light. i can see no way you can gain light by using gels insted of filters, if you do then most likely your gels are getting old or you're doing some strange voodoo.

a typical example:
day interiour, stong daylight coming through the window, you need to fill actors faces with artificial light, only stock you have is 64T.. choices are:

A) put 1/1 CTO on the window and fill with some tunsten light, expose at 64ASA.
- pro: cheap lights with enough output you can bounce them for softness, windows dont blow out as much.
- cons: gels expensive if you have big windows

B) put 1/1 CTB on tungsten lamps, filter with 85 in front of camera
- pro: err.. none
- cons: tungsten light loose 2 stops, then the whole scene looses another 2/3 stop, leaving you with about 10ASA on the fill (and 40ASA on the windows)

c) use daylight balanced lights, forget gels and use a 85 filter, expose at 40ASA.
- pro: easy to setup, good light output
- cons: daylight lights (HMI/kinoflos) not cheap

all of the above will look nearly the same.. or

D) forget those damn lights and gels and HMIs, and just shoot it with worklamps
pro: dead easy and cheap
cons: window will look blue (if shot on tungsten setting) or faces will look red (if shot with camer on daylight setting)


++ christoph ++

[christoph]

Why would you want a higher speed outdoor film and a lower speed indoor film?

you dont.
in fact in motion picture films the fast emulsions have always been tungsten because of the very reason you mention.

but the problem is that kodak seems to have decided to only release one reversal stock, and 64T seems to be the only one in their portfolio that is similair in use as K40 that the average super8 shooter is used to :/
++ christoph ++

[mattias]

the light loss is exactly the same

no, because the idea is that if you gel the lights you need less blue.

well, with the same argument you could just put a weaker blue filter in front of the camera

no. using a weaker camera filter will make the image more orange than using weaker filters on the lights. try it and you'll see. i can't explain it but it's not theoretically impossible because light changes quality after it's hit things and when you filter it has an impact on what result you get.

/matt

[christoph]

i can't explain it but it's not theoretically impossible because light changes quality after it's hit things and when you filter it has an impact on what result you get.

you're saying that if i take a tungsten with 3200K and a 1/1 CTB in front and light a white piece of paper it will look bluer and brighter than if i light it without the gel and film through a 80A?

doesnt make sense to me
++ christoph ++

[mattias]

no no, i must make very different films from you because i rarely use white paper as my main subject. ;-)

and brighter

of course not.

/matt

[christoph]

no no, i must make very different films from you because i rarely use white paper as my main subject. ;-)

hehe, good point..

however, i just took the white paper for an easy to see example. nearly every scene has some white object in it, and i can garantee you that if you light the scene with a 1/2 CTB on tungsten lights and film with a D film, it will look orangish if you dont correct it out on telecine or answer print, as will the rest of the scenery (only less noticably).

so basically, i'm claiming that your light gain is because you're cheating :)
++ christoph ++

edit: fixed T/D messup

[mattias]

so basically, i'm claiming that your light gain is because you're cheating :)

busted. :-)

/matt

[mattias]

...