Ektachrome Type A 160
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
Ektachrome Type A 160
I picked up some of this stock at school from the bookstore. I have shot Kodachrome before. But never ekta. So I was wondering about ASA compared to K40 and what the "ideal" conditions for shooting this stock. If the ASA is higher I need LESS light and vice versa? Would I still use my built-in outdoor filter to shoot outdoors?
-Matt
Enjoying every aspect of Super8 one frame at a time.
Enjoying every aspect of Super8 one frame at a time.
-
Maurizio Di Cintio
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 4:56 pm
- Location: Pescara, Italy
- Contact:
Hi, there.
E 160 is a type A tungsten balanced film therefore it is to be used exactly the same as k40 filterwise: filter in when shooting outdoors in sunlight, filter removed when using 3,400 K tungsten lamps.
It is just that the film is faster, exactly 2 F-stops in both conditions (day & tungsten).
Also processing is very different from K40, and used to be carried out by indipendent film labs too.
It looks a little more contrasty and grainy of course, in comparison to K40, but amazingly less grainy than the present Ektachrome VNF.
Colors depended much on the quality of light conditions: in critical situations they were rather bad, but the footage was arguably still usable.
If you are planning to shoot you roll, be advised Kodak no longer offers processing for it. I think Colorado Film Labs do, but it will be expensive. You should also consider that bacause this emulsion is not Kodachrome, it does contain color dyes, and in time these have surely changed if the cartridge has not been stored in a cool dry place (refrigerator is best).
Eventually you might end up with footage not exactly satisfactory and expensive to get.
Good luck.
E 160 is a type A tungsten balanced film therefore it is to be used exactly the same as k40 filterwise: filter in when shooting outdoors in sunlight, filter removed when using 3,400 K tungsten lamps.
It is just that the film is faster, exactly 2 F-stops in both conditions (day & tungsten).
Also processing is very different from K40, and used to be carried out by indipendent film labs too.
It looks a little more contrasty and grainy of course, in comparison to K40, but amazingly less grainy than the present Ektachrome VNF.
Colors depended much on the quality of light conditions: in critical situations they were rather bad, but the footage was arguably still usable.
If you are planning to shoot you roll, be advised Kodak no longer offers processing for it. I think Colorado Film Labs do, but it will be expensive. You should also consider that bacause this emulsion is not Kodachrome, it does contain color dyes, and in time these have surely changed if the cartridge has not been stored in a cool dry place (refrigerator is best).
Eventually you might end up with footage not exactly satisfactory and expensive to get.
Good luck.
E160 is actually MORE stable over time than K40...I've used films from 1985 with no drop in performance whatsoever.
Process is E6 so anybody can buy the chemicals from a proper camera shop, and process the film if you have a movie film processing tank.
Several labs should offer processing of this film and because it is E6 it should NOT be expensive, though due to small demand turnaround might take some time.
Process is E6 so anybody can buy the chemicals from a proper camera shop, and process the film if you have a movie film processing tank.
Several labs should offer processing of this film and because it is E6 it should NOT be expensive, though due to small demand turnaround might take some time.
-
Maurizio Di Cintio
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 4:56 pm
- Location: Pescara, Italy
- Contact:
Sorry Angus, but my past experiences with this film stock make me disagree with your opinions, regarding color stability
As for processing, many years ago I thought it might require E-6 chemicals, being an Ektachrome family stock, so I enquired about this at Kodak and they said basically EM-26 (the proper Movie Ekta processing) and E-6 are basically the same but the duration of some baths are different (though they gave me no details), which is enough to me to make me consider the attempt of home processing as a waste of time. especially for the time being
Em-26 processing is now offered only at very few labs and they charge top money for it often with a ridiculous turn around time.
IMHO...
As for processing, many years ago I thought it might require E-6 chemicals, being an Ektachrome family stock, so I enquired about this at Kodak and they said basically EM-26 (the proper Movie Ekta processing) and E-6 are basically the same but the duration of some baths are different (though they gave me no details), which is enough to me to make me consider the attempt of home processing as a waste of time. especially for the time being
Em-26 processing is now offered only at very few labs and they charge top money for it often with a ridiculous turn around time.
IMHO...
I have processed several carts of E160 using a standard E6 three bath process, no trouble whatsoever - results as good as Kodak if not better.
In my experience it keeps better than K40 and K25. Your experiences, of course, may vary - I can only speak first-hand about my own.
Many people process E160 with E6 chemicals, as do several laboratories.
In my experience it keeps better than K40 and K25. Your experiences, of course, may vary - I can only speak first-hand about my own.
Many people process E160 with E6 chemicals, as do several laboratories.
-
S8 Booster
- Posts: 5857
- Joined: Mon May 06, 2002 11:49 pm
- Real name: Super Octa Booster
- Location: Yeah, it IS the real thing not the Fooleywood Crapitfied Wannabe Copy..
- Contact:
I think the E-160 kan be quite good.
Samples.
R
Samples.
R
..tnx for reminding me Michael Lehnert.... or Santo or.... cinematography.com super8 - the forum of Rednex, Wannabees and Pretenders...
There is grain for sure, I find there is less grain when I develop the film myself than when Kodak still did it!Ralph S wrote:Pac Lab in NYC processes Ektachrome the same day for $13.
In my opinion Ektachrome is too grainy and colors are dull, no details in shadows.
The colours on E160 type G can be dull because it's supposedly an "all conditions" film where you can film in daylight or artificial without the filter...and it ends up looking a bit dull in all conditions.
Type A is better.
The new 7240 works quite well with less grain than E160 in well lit situations (where one might be able to use K40 instead), looks pretty horrid outdoors at early morning (when E160 looked good) but is stunning and by far the best choice at night under artificial lights or for shooting neon signs, rock concerts and the like.
If the spotlight is very bright professional unit you might get away with K40, otherwise I'd use 7240 myself.
The thing with 7240 is that it is designed to be telecined. It works OK on projection but can look flat. If you have great contrast in the lighting (such as a rock concert) this counter-acts the effect somewhat and still looks good on projection or on telecine.
My experience with rock concerts is mostly with still photography where, generally, I would go with the fastest film possible often to spectacular effect.
The thing with 7240 is that it is designed to be telecined. It works OK on projection but can look flat. If you have great contrast in the lighting (such as a rock concert) this counter-acts the effect somewhat and still looks good on projection or on telecine.
My experience with rock concerts is mostly with still photography where, generally, I would go with the fastest film possible often to spectacular effect.