MovieStuff wrote:Nope. But then again, what OTHER film stocks do? ;)[/quotemarc wrote:Does it look as good as Kodachrome?
THEN:MovieStuff wrote:Does it? Kodachrome used to be THE emulsion for print ad work. Now, most ads are shot digitally and that "Kodachrome Look" is easy to achieve, just as the funky metallic "Bleach bypass" look and the "Ektachrome Look" can be created in the computer for peanuts.marc wrote:But Kodachrome still holds it's ground with respect to discerning the difference.
Future of film. Still vs Motion
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
- MovieStuff
- Posts: 6135
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
- Real name: Roger Evans
- Location: Kerrville, Texas
- Contact:
Marc, is there a point to your post?
(Edit, here. Sorry, that was a bit terse and, upon re-reading it, didn't come out like I meant it. Sorry, again.)
When you asked if digital looked as good as Kodachrome, I said "no" because nothing really does, including any other FILM emulsion. The point being the just because digital doesn't look like Kodachrome doesn't really mean anything since no two film emulsions look alike, anyway, and certainly no other film emulsion looks as good as a Kodachrome original, but people still accept other film emulsion as valid alternatives to work with in telling a story.
But emulating the "Kodachrome Look" in print isn't the same thing as looking at original Kodachrome, which is what I assumed you meant when you asked the original question. Hell, even Kodachrome doesn't look as good in print as it does as a viewed original.
So, to be clear:
Digital (or any other format) doesn't look as good as a Kodachrome original, but then it doesn't have to.
Emulating what Kodachrome looks like when printed in an ad is very easy to do with digital. That doesn't mean you will produce a digital original that has the definition or clarity of a Kodachrome original, but the ad won't have it, either, even IF it were produced from a Kodachrome original.
Better?
(Edit, here. Sorry, that was a bit terse and, upon re-reading it, didn't come out like I meant it. Sorry, again.)
When you asked if digital looked as good as Kodachrome, I said "no" because nothing really does, including any other FILM emulsion. The point being the just because digital doesn't look like Kodachrome doesn't really mean anything since no two film emulsions look alike, anyway, and certainly no other film emulsion looks as good as a Kodachrome original, but people still accept other film emulsion as valid alternatives to work with in telling a story.
But emulating the "Kodachrome Look" in print isn't the same thing as looking at original Kodachrome, which is what I assumed you meant when you asked the original question. Hell, even Kodachrome doesn't look as good in print as it does as a viewed original.
So, to be clear:
Digital (or any other format) doesn't look as good as a Kodachrome original, but then it doesn't have to.
Emulating what Kodachrome looks like when printed in an ad is very easy to do with digital. That doesn't mean you will produce a digital original that has the definition or clarity of a Kodachrome original, but the ad won't have it, either, even IF it were produced from a Kodachrome original.
Better?

- MovieStuff
- Posts: 6135
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
- Real name: Roger Evans
- Location: Kerrville, Texas
- Contact:
Okay, take a look at this:
http://www.pixelmonger.com/vip2
This is a still from a 24p camera call the "Viper". More info can be found here:
http://www.pixelmonger.com/hg_cam.html
Roger
http://www.pixelmonger.com/vip2
This is a still from a 24p camera call the "Viper". More info can be found here:
http://www.pixelmonger.com/hg_cam.html
Roger
- MovieStuff
- Posts: 6135
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
- Real name: Roger Evans
- Location: Kerrville, Texas
- Contact: