Ektachrome 64T and it's amazing colors

[Shanec8mm]

Just got back a roll of Ektachrome 64T that I shot while on vacation. This was my first time using this stock, all I can say is the colors are truly amazing. This stuff looks truly awesome projected. The process I would assume has improved over the last 2 yrs or so. I had it processed through walmart via Fuji, then Dwayne's. Dwyane's did a very nice job.
I used a Minolta Autopak 8 D6 camera to film, and the results were better than I expected. No jamming, or jumping of the film, and I was able to get the most out of this stock, ran all the way through with no problems. I even relyed solely on the auto exposure, however, with this camera you are able to lock the f-stop, which I did on most of the scenes, the camera got it right every time. Processing took only a week, makes one want to shoot more film, with how easy it is to have processing done in this manner.

[Shanec8mm]

Oh as a site note. I used the internal #85 filter, and there was no color problems what's so ever.

[Angus]

I've just been projecting today for my family, 150' of Dwayne's processed material and 200' that Andec processed.

I have to say Andec does a slightly better job, I think the grain is actually the same but the colours are better on Andec's processing. The less vivid colours leave the Dwayne's material somehow looking more grainy but I do not believe it is.

But to be honest both are light years ahead of where the first attempts at processing 64T were a couple of years ago. I suspect all labs have tweaked the processing, and I agree, the internal filter now is fine with this stock.

FWIW my family members didn't notice any difference, just my rather critical eye.

[Muckymuck]

I agree. When I first used Ektachrome 64T with a built in filter it was far too cold and very grainy (like old Tri X), however recently films sent to both Andec and Nanolab (VERY fast service for UK to Australia to the UK again!) have been brilliant- much finer grain and better balanced colours.

[Shanec8mm]

I was surprised, the grain was not an issue while projecting. The only times I noticed it more was with longer shots near the ocean, with blue sky above, a little more grain but nothing to take away from the film itself. Yes, the colors do seem to be balanced correctly, more true to life than the Kodachrome I was shooting last year.

[Angus]

I would still prefer Kchrome because I like longer establishing shots before going close in....and long shots do look grainy on 64T.

I have some on its way to Dwayne's right now and I realised after shooting that I'd dome some long shots of Warwick Castle that will probably look quite confused. I still am in K40 mode I think...especially since I've used 100D and Kahl UT18 more than 64T until recently...those other films can generally be used the same way K40 was.

But the processing of 64T is definately better, and some people reckon Kodak may have tweaked the stock too (I find this unlikely).

[mattias]

64t is not grainy projected, but extremely grainy transferred to video, which is something to remember. you can make the situation a little better, as noted by mitch perkins and others, by overexposing a little but this will of course cause problems with the highlights and will reduce the saturation too. and yes, the colors are amazing. if you haven't before, check out the music video for nom de guerre on my homepage.

/matt

[cineandy]

sorry, but 64t is not grainy when projected, wot planet r u on??, ( no offence:), yes i have grown to like 64t, but compared to th e stock it replaced, 64t projects dreadfully. For long distant establishing shots its rubbish, just a sea of grain.

[mattias]

sorry, but 64t is not grainy when projected, wot planet r u on??

the planet where you have to think just a little when you interpret what somebody's saying. i'll take the special needs of the asperger planet into account next time.

have you transferred the "sea of grain" of yours to video at all?

/matt

[Angus]

I have to say I am more with cineandy than Mattias....on close-ups 64T looks lovely but on long shots and establishing shots the grain becomes quite apparent...this is regardless of who processes it (in my experience Andec, Dwaynes, myself by hand).

64T is sharper than K40, which is why close-ups are so nice with this stock...but long shots can get very confused.

[super8man]

Perhaps the remaining reversal stocks are forcing us to use super 8 and regular as a close up photography format as it was intended. I agree that they both do not stand up to K40 for the distant details but then, even in super 8, K40 on the distant stuff was generally disappointing when you knew that to do it correctly, you needed 16mm. I mean, it worked, but still, you quickly realized you are not shooting a 35mm motion picture feature where you can read car license plates at a distance...There just simply isn't enough square inches in the format to give you the real detail you need. Don't get me wrong, K40 could sort of pull it off but it was at its limits.

And yes, I am having difficulty transferring 100D to show what I saw on the projection screen but its pretty close. However, they ALL lose a whole bunch upon transfer to video compared to the analog projection path.

100D is great though. A really neat stock.

[mattias]

I have to say I am more with cineandy than Mattias.

well, sorry for being unclear. it's definitely not a grainless stock. my point was that it really becomes a problem when you transfer it to video. projected it brings life to the image without disturbing it, in my opinion, while on video it looks like a noisy transfer with dancing blue dots all over.

/matt

[super8man]

agreed on that last point...

[Muckymuck]

Well that's answered something which I'd been pondering for some time- I thought I had camera focussing issues when I noticed that 64T is very sharp for near objects and not so sharp for distant landscapes. It isn't just me then?

[audadvnc]

Nah, it's the other way around. E64T is very sharp for unsharp objects, but not as sharp for very sharp objects. As opposed to K40 which is unsharp for all objects, sharp or not. Is that more clear, now?

If you want sharpness, buy a razor.