It's pick on Roger time

[Santo not signed in]

No, not really. More like praise, actually.

I came across this fantastic thread in Brantley's archives from something like six months ago, that I thought was very impressive and showed a solid job of serving as a spokesman of sorts for super 8 indie filmmakers:

http://www.hostboard.com/cgi-bin/ultima ... 409&t=3074

I thought I'd draw attention to it to anybody unfamiliar with the proposals Roger made to Kodak which are very well thought out. Bravo! The reversal stock you suggest would be about the best chance super 8 has got for film origination of video and colour film blow-ups that would really deliver the promise of the small gauge. Though I really do think it needs to be at 100 ASA because that extra stop is so important trying to get a light meter "out of the red" indoors. A tiny bit more grain -- well worth it.

But you did a great job! Have you ever heard anything again from Kodak, Roger?

[MovieStuff]

Thanks for the kind words.

No, I haven't heard anything from the nice ladies at Kodak and, frankly, I'm a bit miffed about that. I was pretty certain that they'd make some moves but, then again, it'a only been about 8 months which is nothing in the time scale of a corporation. I'll give it until this March and then recontact them.

Roger

[Santo]

you should try writing screenplays for corporations ](*,)

[calgodot]

The reversal stock you suggest would be about the best chance super 8 has got for film origination of video and colour film blow-ups that would really deliver the promise of the small gauge. Though I really do think it needs to be at 100 ASA because that extra stop is so important trying to get a light meter "out of the red" indoors. A tiny bit more grain -- well worth it.

Because it's my own crusade, I'd like to once more point out how Ektachrome 100D reversal film (5285) would be the best choice for a new Super8 reversal stock.

Check it out:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/produ ... 5285.shtml

I don't think we need another Tungsten balanced film. If you've got lights, then go with K40 (or a Pro8 negative stock) - you've got the latitude and the footcandles. IMHO, shooting 7240 in daylight forces you to compromise way more than shooting K40 under lights (unless you're limited to one lamp or something).

Plus the color saturation and intensity of E100D would be the perfect complementary palette to Kodachrome. The music video people would probably love it, in spite of the relative (to 250T that is) lack of grain.

But it's all pie in the sky dreaming eh? Filmmakers have been trying to get Kodak to release 5285 in 16/S16 for some time. Bono Film recently had a special run of it done (which I'm trying to get my hands on). The stock is said to be more expensive to produce than other stocks, so is more expensive than most 35mm stocks (I have no idea of actual prices). This is said to be Kodak's reasoning for not bringing it out on 16mm: no one would pay that much for 16mm reversal.

[MovieStuff]

Because it's my own crusade, I'd like to once more point out how Ektachrome 100D reversal film (5285) would be the best choice for a new Super8 reversal stock.

I tend to disagree. If you're indoors, you don't want to lose even more stops by having to put on a filter just to correct daylight balanced film to tungsten. Granted, the pros use HMI lights but us po' folk only gots tunsten. If'ns you axe me, we need a tunsten balanced, low ASA stock. Considering that tungsten lights are generally about 500-1000 watts each, that's more than enough light inside a moderately sized room, even with a low ASA of 50. Super 8 has plenty of depth of field, even wide open, so gaining an extra stop is not really that big a deal and you'll LOSE a stop if you shoot with ASA 100 daylight and have to add a filter, anyway. The only difference is that the 50 ASA would have smaller grain. Hell, I'd go for ASA 25 tungsten. Wouldn't bother me. Outside, there'd be plenty of light, even with a filter, and the grain would be really tight.

My two cents, any way.

Roger

[Nigel]

I think that the 100D would be a great choice. I have rallyed for it in the past. Why have two T balanced stocks?? Why not have a D and a T?? I have told my kodak rep to pass it on she said she would.

Good Luck

[Santo]

I looked over the specs on that 100d. The problem is that it plummets to an ASA 25 in tungsten according to Kodak's literature. With the struggles a microbudget filmmaker faces working with something like that, you'd think it should be grainless.

I read about the struggles guys like Matt and Scot had trying to light their features with an asa 40, and even consider the lighting restrictions I'm faced with shooting a short in (the now history) asa 50/40 plus-x (though it's a hell of a lot easier because I can cheat so much in black and white). Just turning that filter on and off on the camera or hitting the "1" button gives a pretty good demonstration of the value of a stop when you're dealing largely with available light indoors.

If a new colour reversal stock is introduced, it has to be more friendly for the people who are only using a few tungsten lights and trying to be creative about it (the average super 8 enthusiast with big dreams). Especially if you want your lens in a nice 4 - 5.6 sweet spot indoors. Don't need 200 for that, but 100 indoors -- that's a nice area that makes for some options and fun.

Outdoors, who cares? 50, 25 -- so what? It's indoors that's the tough one for people without megabuck lighting kits.

So all Roger's suggestion includes: excellent digital transfer characteristics, authentic blow-up potential, decent price, easily available labs -- I really believe Roger has the answer -- with only one stop added.

[Nigel]

You wouldn't use the 5285 for tungsten shooting that is what the 7240 is for. So the whole thing about the ASA dropping is thrown out the window. This makes sense--7240=T 5285=D. Where is the problem?? Two modern stocks that can be processed in more places using modern technology.

Now you can go into the grain that the 7240 has or what you think the 5285 may look like blah blah blah. We have been over it before. The fact is that Kodachrome most likely won't be around much longer. Look in the catalog--Look at what it takes to buy it in 16 with minimum orders and check out those prices!!!! Ouch. My opinion is that it will be gone within five years.

It is logical to have a D rated and a T rated stock. We only have T rated now and it kinda sucks. I welcome the death of K40--I love it but hey its time to move forward. I hope that its death brings in the 100D.

Good Luck

BTW--Roger it is great that you work to keep S8 alive as a whole.

[Santo]

Because 7240 looks like garbage in super 8. Bad "home movie" colour, a higher grain rating than even Vision 200T, and not a hell of a lot of sharpness.

Guess it looks good shooting neon lights at night or something. That's about it. Try shooting some people with it. Looks like shit.

But it's just perfect for that phoney home movie look and low-fi music video images, I guess.

[wahiba]

Would it have not been in Kodaks interests to have 'dumped' Kodachrome years ago and replace it with a direct Ektachrome equivalent. I would have thought a 25/40 Ektachrome as good as Kodachrome 25/40 was possible.

I know this statement might be scariledge in some quarters, but big Ks economic position might see the final notice on Kodachrome with no direct Ekatachrome replacement. A few years back this might have been possible.

Of course, if the new compact processor is suitable for cine then there should not be a need.

[Angus]

None of the slower Ektachrome stocks, when they existed, looked anywhere near as good as Kodachrome. There used to be an ektachrome 40 which didn't look particularly good.

Kodachrome's secret is in it's unique construction and processing, no E6 type film can ever look like it.

QUite why anybody would welcome the death of K40 is totally beyond me. I'd welcome any new stocks though, because new stocks always mean new ways to use super 8. We need to keep as many stocks in production as possible.

[kodachromearchive]

None of the slower Ektachrome stocks, when they existed, looked anywhere near as good as Kodachrome. There used to be an ektachrome 40 which didn't look particularly good.

Kodachrome's secret is in it's unique construction and processing, no E6 type film can ever look like it.

QUite why anybody would welcome the death of K40 is totally beyond me. I'd welcome any new stocks though, because new stocks always mean new ways to use super 8. We need to keep as many stocks in production as possible.

While I realize that Ektachrome has been improved, nothing will turn you off on it faster than trying to salvage 40 year old slides.

Sorry - I would NEVER use it. Would give up on film entirely and take my chances with video. What's the point - if the image isn't there when you wish to view it?

[Patrick]

I'm actually hoping for two new film stock replacements.

The death of K40 is inevitable eventually because of environmental pressures. Everybody knows that the best thing about K40 is it's micro fine grain. So logically, we need to look at other film stocks with similar low ASA speeds as a suitable replacement. If this new stock is tungsten balanced, I do not have a problem with this. If I am ever placed in an artificial light situation and I only happen to have this particular film stock handy, I simply cancel the filter and take advantage of the 'increased film speed.'

We also need another film to replace Ektachrome 7240. For those looking for moderate speed in super 8 and don't mind a little grain, perhaps for atmospheric look, we deserve better than the current 7240. I admit, I have only shot on 7240 about 4 times and some of the results were a little disappointing - soft, flat images. I guess part of the fault lies in the thinness of the film which really needs a sturdy pressure plate to keep it exactly in the focal plane. Anyone know any contenders out there that would be a good replacement for 7240 ie - thicker film, moderate speed without too much grain?

So in conclusion, we will end up with two new colour reveral film stocks

FILM 1. A slow speed, fine grain film with rich colour for maximum image quality and is enviromentally friendly to manufacture and process.

FILM 2. A moderate speed but sharp film with good colour and a slight bit of grain (for more demanding shooting applications)

My 2 cents

[marc]

I have found that the 7240 isn't half bad when it is slightly overexposed.
When viewed side by side with the K40 it is obviously inferior with respect to it's grain structure but it can be sharp within it's own limitations.