grainless film

Post by **thebrowniecameraguy** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 1:56 am

I reviewed a couple of 60's Kodachrome II 8mm films of my mother, grandfather etc.

The grain of the indoor shots are very thick, inversely the grain of the outdoor shots with the #85 filter in place are very low grain.

I dont know that much about film to decide whether this thicker grain occurs naturally in the tungsten balanced films indoor versus outdoor filtered films, can someone clarify.

Another point. When I view some Kodachrome 25 8mm films, I notice that the grain of the shots are very low, and even when I used some K25 indoors without the color correcting filter, I get very low grain.

Also, on both Kodachrome II and Kodachrome 40 I have noticed a great low grain on the filtered outside shots. But the KII and K40 indoors are very different grainwise, thick versus thin.

Opinions?

JOrdan

Post by **T-Scan** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 2:23 am

With more exposure, you stimulate the finer grains in an emulsion. even though K-40 is a tungston balanced film.. 40ASA is very slow for indoors, causing the emulsion to rely more on the larger crystals to form an image. now in bright conditions, 25 ASA is fine because you will be able to make use of the finer grains in the emulsion.

Post by **thebrowniecameraguy** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 2:48 am

The more exposure idea is definetly correct. If I use outdated K40 R8 indoors, I overexpose by 1 to 1 1/2 stops to the metered stop and get much brighter(grain and picture). But with K40 Super8 I use an XL camera mostly and get great shots even at f/5.6. (Elmo 1012SXL, with 300 watt BarLites)

Cheers,
Jordan

Alex · Post by **Alex** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:31 am

kentbulza wrote:I think Vision2 100T and EXR 50D from Pro 8 probably have finer grain than K40. Of course if you're going to project it, you'll pick up grain on the print which will negate the advantage v.v. K40.

I haven't actually compared the three stocks, but I believe K-40 is still king of least grain.

Post by **sophocle** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 5:42 am

I haven't actually compared the three stocks, but I believe K-40 is still king of least grain.

Take a look at the v2 200 stills I recently posted. Grain is less than the k40 I have seen, and I have been told that it also resolves better.

I have seen 50d in 16mm, and since it is notably less grainy than 16mm v2, I expect a superb image structure even in 8mm.

v2 500 is grainy, but a beauty nevertheless.

Post by **T-Scan** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 8:47 am

I have compared WP transfers of K-40 and 7217.. only slightly grainier than K-40. the extra latatude and sharpness makes up for it.. although its still much easier to deal with a positive when DIY. I could imagine the 50D would be very nice. I have some 16mm test rolls ready to shoot of 50D, 7212 100T, and 7205 250D. I just need a day off!