Kodak Bozo in Switzerland

[wahiba]

A white padded bag drops through the door. Wonder why the film has come back this way. Feel it, square. :?:

Unprocessed film back with a a list of addresses suggesting I send it to Rocky Mountain Lab, 560 Geneva Street, Aurora Co 80010 USA.

Andec, Kahl and the Widscreen Centre are not ticked. It was sent to the regular UK Kodak address.

Cartridge is clearly Kodachrome II and price includes processing by Kodak.

Assumption is that someone cannot tell theri Kodachrome from their Ektachrome. Anyhow it is going back.

Alternatively, is it the Kodachromee II rather than the Kodachrome 40 on newer packets that is the problem?

Although I think I had two of these old films and the other was processed, abeit a bit faded.

[nik-super8]

Hi,

you have already mentioned the problem:

Cartridge is clearly Kodachrome II and price includes processing by Kodak.

Kodak doesn`t process Kodachrome II films for at least 20 years now because they require the old K-12 process.

cf.:http://members.aol.com/Super8mm/ServicesPage10.html

You may have it processed as B&W negative, but you have to judge for yourself if it is worth the costs.

[MovieStuff]

Correct-o-mundo!

Kodak does not process Kodachrome II anymore.

And, actually, that's a shame because the colors on the old KII were so nice and low contrast compared to modern Kodachrome. I swear, the best looking stuff we get for transfer was shot on Kodachrome II. The new Kodachrome is terrific for projection but not as good for telecine.

Roger

[wahiba]

It was rather old, just used it for tests. Now if they had put that information in with it, and not just sent it back, then I would have accepted it.

Oh well, I expect it will come back again, maybe this time with an explanation.

Looks like a bit of hubble bubble experimentation.

[marc]

Correct-o-mundo!

Kodak does not process Kodachrome II anymore.

And, actually, that's a shame because the colors on the old KII were so nice and low contrast compared to modern Kodachrome. I swear, the best looking stuff we get for transfer was shot on Kodachrome II. The new Kodachrome is terrific for projection but not as good for telecine.

Roger

What? don't you have it the other way around? From what I understand, it was the development of the new Kodachrome with the K 14 process that made Kodachrome less contrasty. Kodachrome's contrast issues have only improved over the years. This is the same Kodachrome that my parents shot on their honeymoon and I can tell you that it had some serious contrast issues.

[marc]

Also, if you havn't already read Lenny Lipton's Super 8 filmmaking book, check it out. He mentions this very same point about Kodachrome's evolution and the fact that it is less contrasty than previous versions of it.

[MovieStuff]

Nope. I stand by my observations. Kodachrome II is waaayyyy less contrasty than modern Kodachrome, regardless of Lipton's analysis on the subject. The new K40 is super saturated and the whites peak very quickly. The older KII held the whites much better. We get a lot of old wedding films that were shot on KII and it's amazing how it holds the details of the bride's dress while similar shots on K40 tend to burn out. The old KII looks like the colors in Life magazine. Nice and pastel but still vivid. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that I could spot the difference without being told which is which. Granted, it might be something about the aging process of the KII that makes it look that way now. Hard to say what it looked like freshly shot all those years ago but I know what I see now and the new K40 looks almost "plastic" compared to the old KII we get for transfer.

I'll pull some stills and post them here this weekend.

[marc]

Well, I cannot speak for the whites, but I can tell you that the blacks on the old KII are terrible. Shadows show up as black splotches. I saw some old footage from my parents wedding and honeymoon and I can tell you that shadow areas looked like pieces of black matting pasted on the frame with no detail at all. And as far as the rest of the picture was concerned, everything else seemed to be exposed properly.

[S8 Booster]

May there be a difference in how the films are viewed.
Is marc defining it from projection while Roger looks at transferred material?

Regarding the whites - if not shot under exact same conditions with the same cam (ie identical exposure control) isn´t basically impossible to compare the two directly?

My dos.

R

[mattias]

aren't you confusing exposure latitude with projection contrast here? for telecine performance only the projection contrast should be of any concern, while the look of the image is more or less equally affected by both...

/matt

[FilmsUP]

Having shot the Old Kodachrome II and the Older Kodachrome, I can tell you first hands that K-II has less contrast. More of a pastel look.

If your having out dated film processed, god knows how it will compare.

Transparancy films (revedrsal stock‚) has always had a more contrasty look with the exception of the old Ektachrome Profesional (ECO) .

If you remember the old adage from the black & white still photographers of expose for the highlights and develope for the shadwows. Try this one with Kodachrome expose for the hightlights and fill in the shadows. Otherwise you will never capture all the eye can see on a bright day.

The other lighting solution is use skrims to cut down the highlights (on your subject) select your background carfully. And still use frontal fill!

but don't expect mericles from Kodachrome, it ain't gonna happen.

[S8 Booster]

Just curious.

Does "Bozo" have a slightly (or subtsantially) different meaning or amplitude in English vs US English (Since this term caused such mess elsewhere). Anderas is a gerat supporter of Kodak for sure.

R

[wahiba]

In this part of England it is just a mild way of calling someone who has done some minor erroneous activity. Not sure where it comes from, I suspect a cartoon film.

My favourite misused word is Pajero, used by Mitsubishi on there 4X4 range in countries where Spanish is little know.

In the UK they are Shoguns and the US Monteros. There are now a lot of 'grey' imports in the UK, usually second hand from Japan, who, being a relatively sensible nation drive on the left side of the road.

A quick check in any 'your language'/Spanish dictionary (obviously no japanese version when this one was made up) will explain. Make sure it is a big one, they tend to spare ones blushes in the pocket versions.

[S8 Booster]

In this part of England it is just a  mild  way of calling someone who has done some minor erroneous activity.

Exactly what I thought.
Unfortunately this may be more "peaky" in the US?


Found this WEB defi on the Boz:

WordNet Dictionary

bozo

Pronunciation: 'bowzow

Definition:
 
(1) [n]  an informal term for a youth or man; "a nice guy"; "the guy's only doing it for some doll"

(2) [n]  a man who is a stupid fool


Synonyms:
cat, cuckoo, fathead, goof, goose, guy, hombre, jackass, twat, zany

See Also:
adult male, fool, man, muggins, sap, saphead, sod, tomfool

We have this funny situation between Norwegan/Swedish/Danish(And to some extent German) too that exact the same words may have TOATLLY different meaning even though the languages basicalley is as close as English/Scottish.

Samples:
Norwegian: Snål=funny
Swedish: Snål= Greedy(approximate - do not remember the exact term)

Norwegian: Griner=Cries/wiping
Danish: Griner=laughing

German: Knüller=Fantastic/blaster or something like that
Norwegian: Knuller=something not to be mentioned on this board
Sweedish=same as Norwegian.

++++moooooorrree+++++++

Communication is really something?

R

[Angus]

Not sure if I would call KII less or more contrasty than K40 but from what I've seen (several hours of footage my grandfather shot in the 60's) it was BETTER than K40 or K25. As Roger says, the colours were somehow more natural - but hey when has Kodak worried about natural colours? If they had any concern at all about natural colours Kodacolor Gold print film would NEVER have been produced!

I disagree with the comments on poor blacks, KII captured the complete range of colours neutrally and perfectly for projection.

Not to knock K40 it is a fantastic stock and presumably as close to the look of KII as Kodak can achieve with the less dangerous chemicals and process.

Of course any KII processed correctly was manufactured at least 30 years ago and processed at least 21 years ago so storage would be an issue...and as with any film camera and filming technique.

Kodak (or anybody else offering "process paid" film) is under no obligation to process it after the expiry date. If you bought Agfa Moviechrome on ebay or wherever, Agfa are under no obligation to process it and indeed probably no loger have the facilities.

Rocky Mountain film lab and possibly Martin Baumgarten are the ONLY two labs in the world who can do KII - and they will do it B&W negative...alternatively it can be done B&W neg by hand. I tried it once with a film I found in a camera and got nothing.