John_Pytlak wrote:
I don't think anyone here has a problem with using a filter or bypassing the notches to set the ASA manually but they all have a problem with grain that is too big. After all, you are replacing K40, so it's a pretty tall order for any Ektachrome reversal.
I respectively disagree, I think a great number of super 8mm color reversal users will struggle with the filter issue. I base this on my intuition that a large number of these filmmakers around the world are home movie enthusiast who don't get into the technical aspects of moviemaking but just enjoy slipping a cartridge of film in their camera and pulling the trigger. They don't want to worry about the ASA or manual exposure they just enjoy using film with a camera they've had for years and seeing beautiful images projected. I also suspect that the majority of these individuals live in Europe and have purchased mostly Kodachrome film from the same dealers for ever. If we change to many things we will lose these filmmakers and that will reduce sales to a point were Kodak will drop Super 8 color reversal stocks altogether.
The B/W and negative stocks are a completely different market and will benefit with Kodachromes demise, which because of higher profit margins and less hassles is part of Kodaks strategy.
Roy Brown wrote:a large number of these filmmakers around the world are home movie enthusiast who don't get into the technical aspects of moviemaking
and those are "here" you mean? if they're not interested in the technical aspects i highly doubt that they lurk on this board too. ;-)
/matt
Exactly my point and to make it more clear, I don't think our opinions and thoughts on which reversal film to release is paramount to the success of such film. I am hopeful that the number of reversal cartridges that the members of this forum purchase are minimul compared to all sales of reversal (Kodachrome) film.
I love this forum and visit it everyday and sometimes several times a day but as another esteemed member once said (I am paraphrasing) "The success of my product was not due to sales to the members of this forum but to a community of users who for the most part don't even know this forum exists"
I don't know guys, maybe I'm wrong here but how many "uninformed" Super 8 users are there left anyway? Seems to me these days with advent of cheap DV cameras that have been around for some time now and the fact that Super 8mm is such a specialized thing, that you almost HAVE to be an informed person and/or a film enthusiast to even be interested in shooting Super 8. I mean I just don't see someone being that clueless about shooting the format that they just want a "point and shoot" experience. Those folks moved to cheap video cameras years ago.... Just my two cents.
Roy Brown wrote:
I respectively disagree, I think a great number of super 8mm color reversal users will struggle with the filter issue. I base this on my intuition that a large number of these filmmakers around the world are home movie enthusiast who don't get into the technical aspects of moviemaking but just enjoy slipping a cartridge of film in their camera and pulling the trigger.
I understand. However, your concern is a distinction without a difference as it applies to this situation. We may not be able to second guess what Kodak is going to do but I can guarantee what they will not do and that is produce a special run of 3400K Tungsten Ektachrome. Thus the internal filter of any super 8 camera is going to be wrong for what ever they deem proper for us to work. As a result, a degree of external color correction is going to be required for proper color, regardless of what we end up using in the way of Ektachrome, be it daylight or tungsten. Why would those you speak of have more of a problem with one type of external filter than another? They won't. Therefore, it is just a fact accepted by the remaining super 8 users that filtration is part and parcel of the super 8 experience, assuming that they care enough for proper color. If they just want to point and shoot without regard to technical considerations, I think I hear DV calling their name. ;)
Everyone sure is tripping on this filter. Here is a link to some guy (a member of this forum?) who shot ektachrome 7240 with the 85 and the 85b and spliced the results together and claims he could tell no perceptible difference. http://www.omniprints.com/super8/ektachrome.html
Although the difference in the filters might be more extreme with the new emulsion.
Bottom line after this new stock arrives maybe someone can do the same and compare the results. The camera's built-in filter might produce acceptable results for many people. If not then you will have to buy more gear. That does not seem to bother too many super 8 users already. I just shoot home movies and I own too much shit.
Last edited by tejas on Thu May 19, 2005 1:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Roy Brown wrote:
Why would those you speak of have more of a problem with one type of external filter than another? They won't. Therefore, it is just a fact accepted by the remaining super 8 users that filtration is part and parcel of the super 8 experience, assuming that they care enough for proper color. If they just want to point and shoot without regard to technical considerations, I think I hear DV calling their name. ;)
Roger
I haven't taken the time to do any research so correct me if I'm wrong on the following points.
Super 8mm cameras engage a filter when shooting tungsten films. When using K40 for instance, outside you are shooting through a filter and rendering an effective 25ASA. The faster 40ASA is for unfiltered indoor lighting with preferably 3400 kelvin lights. Given that most outdoor shooting is under available sunlight with Kelvin swinging several hundred degrees why would one have to worry about correcting the two hundred degrees. The concern would be to be sure your indoor lighting was as close to 3200 as possible and honestly thats easy to do with todays pro and semi pro lights.
