What do you like most about k40

[tlatosmd]

How about life expectancy - stability/colour-fastness/shelf-life? After all, Kodachrome seems to outperform most others in this respect.

Alastair

After processing, yes, it'll stay like new for hundreds of years, but before exposure, it's not that different from most other color reversal stocks in S8, Ektachrome 160 (Sound) seems to outperform it in that field.

[super8man]

I went to a Kodak seminar long ago and at that time it was stated that Kodachrome is best for archving and holding color during over time...whereas Ektachrome is superior for repeated projection but not as long a shelf life for retaining colors...I would hazard to guess that for us movie folks, Kodachrome is better since we do not overly project the films and therefore they retain their color longer than a similarly used Ektachrome movie...I think there is an order of magnitude of about 25 years longer with Kodachrome vis Ektachrome.

Note, this all refers to AFTER being processed.

[Dre]

Just for my own edification I'm trying to work out what people are going to miss so much - I think these are the reasons - please add any suggestions if there's something else

Scot

All those reasons are why I love K40. But if I have to choose one it would be “Small grain size”. I know some people use super 8 because they like grainy footage. I use it because it’s a cheap alternative to 16mm. I personally don’t like grainy footage, and K40 appears to be the only super 8 film stock available from Kodak with the finest film grain. I also like K40’s high contrast, but I admit I don’t like its extremely short latitude.

The price is another reason I like K40. It is the cheapest way to go and the Pre-paid mailers made it so convenient. Just drop the film in the envelope send it off to Switzerland. I love it, been doing since I was 13, and now it’s coming to an end.

[mattias]

Grain is relative...K40 has smaller grain that 160 (and 64?!).

k40 does not have smaller grain than 64t, it's just softer thus less visible. you might argue that that's just semantics, but it's important semantics. to me there's a big difference between less grain and smaller grain. add some gaussian blur to a sharp stock and you get less grain too, while probably still more sharpness than k40.

my point is that the main reasons k40 is low grain despite the rather high granularity is that the blacks are super dense and that it's rather soft. if you like that, fine, but don't be fooled.

/matt

[etimh]

Grain is relative...K40 has smaller grain that 160 (and 64?!).

k40 does not have smaller grain than 64t, it's just softer thus less visible. you might argue that that's just semantics, but it's important semantics. to me there's a big difference between less grain and smaller grain. add some gaussian blur to a sharp stock and you get less grain too, while probably still more sharpness than k40.

my point is that the main reasons k40 is low grain despite the rather high granularity is that the blacks are super dense and that it's rather soft. if you like that, fine, but don't be fooled.

/matt

Don't really get what you mean by the term "softness," but there is a real, logical explanation for K40's finer "granularity."

I believe it has to do with the unique properties of the film itself. The fact that K40 doesn't have the relatively large dye-forming molecules manufactured into its emulsion results in the finer grain, I think.

This also accounts for the special processing necessary for Kodachrome, unfortunately. The dye-formers are introduced in the processing which makes it a unique among reversal stocks.

Unless we get another film stock manufactured in a similar manner to Kodachrome, we will have emulsions with a larger inherent grain structure, and, unfortunately, images with noticably higher grain.

Tim

[mattias]

The fact that K40 doesn't have the relatively large dye-forming molecules manufactured into its emulsion results in the finer grain, I think.

quite the opposite. look closely at a k40 frame and you'll see that the grain is quite large, just not very sharply defined and thus less visible as grain. the downside is of course that it makes the actual image soft too, which is what i don't like about it. i'd rather take a sharper image with more defined yet not necessarily bigger grain, like what you get from the negative stocks, and from what i've seen also from 64t.

/matt

[marc]

As I have stated in the past, it must be the dye transfer process that "masks" the grain and probably the reason for it's softness. I guess this is why Kodachrome is the only emulsion that I know of that actually looks granier when overexposed.

[B Movie Mogul]

I have to go with longevity. Like stated, processed Kodachrome will outlive all of us. My old roommate had old Kodachrome movies that had been stored in a shoebox in his parents' attic since the 1970s, and they still looked like they were shot yesterday.

[Alex]

I know you can't have a million polling options, but I vote for....

The challenge of making it look like 16mm. (by shooting it only when the conditions are right).

Isn't that the grain option?

Wow, that's what I ended up voting for, even before I read your comment.

Whew, I'm glad I guessed right!

[cinelys]

I have choosen "Small grain size" , but regarding all the other S8 stock
price is also a main reason !

[Angus]

For me there are a bundle of reasons but I voted "colour palette" because that is the one thing that no other film offers. There is no other film that uses dye-couplers on two 'colour' layers like Kodachrome does, so in axing it we are losing something that is not replacable by using any other stock in the world.

I like the way that when the conditions are right, Kchrome looks so beautiful that no other stock or capture method can match it. Think a forest on a sunny day, or the sun glinting off a racing car or a deep blue ocean captured from on board a yacht.

I enjoy the economy, the fact that it costs the same as the B&W stocks but processing is included...and it's as easy as mailing the film to Wimbledon.

I like the fact that if I am a little careful, my images will remain viewable long after I am enriching the soil and feeding the worms.

I like the fact that it K40 was designed for small gague film making, it is therefore suited to the purpose of making super 8 films because that was it's job...rather than something designed with other uses in mind assuming the role of a small gauge movie film.

I like the fact that K40 is still available at stores, generally it is the ONLY super 8 film available over the counter at camera shops...you have to go to a specialist like the Widescreen Centre to find the others.

Those who don't like the high contrast have a point - IF they are not intending to project. Remember K40 was intended for projection, not ever intended for telecine...and if you use a decent telecine setup it looks good on video - those capturing at home find a video camera with manual aperture settings for god's sake...under-expose 1-2 stops and Kchrome suddenly becomes OK for telecine! Or use 200T if telecine is your thing.

It's also hardly a bad thing that K40 works in every super 8 camera ever manufactured, because 25/40 ASA was always the speed that most users were expected to use.

[Alex]

Grain is relative...K40 has smaller grain that 160 (and 64?!).

k40 does not have smaller grain than 64t, it's just softer thus less visible. you might argue that that's just semantics, but it's important semantics. to me there's a big difference between less grain and smaller grain. add some gaussian blur to a sharp stock and you get less grain too, while probably still more sharpness than k40.

my point is that the main reasons k40 is low grain despite the rather high granularity is that the blacks are super dense and that it's rather soft. if you like that, fine, but don't be fooled.

/matt

On the other hand, television tends to make orange and red colors look "soft" whereas blue colors look sharper. So it should be possible to "sharpen" Kodachrome by adding blue without taking out the reds and oranges, and Ektachrome can perhaps be de grained by adding more warmth and blurring out some of the sharpness.

However, will the intermingling of more warmth to the Ektachrome add a grain because of the battle between the blue and orange particles, that I hope to find out soon enough.

[John_Pytlak]

Long term storage of ANY color film should be cool, dry and vented, as specified in SMPTE Recommended Practice RP131. Heat and humidity greatly increase the rate of dye fading and acetate base deterioration ("vinegar syndrome"). Don't store films in a damp basement or hot attic.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

I thought packed in vaccum and in a freezer at a constant temperature was the best? Like the FICA method?

[matt5791]

Long term storage of ANY color film should be cool, dry and vented, as specified in SMPTE Recommended Practice RP131. Heat and humidity greatly increase the rate of dye fading and acetate base deterioration ("vinegar syndrome"). Don't store films in a damp basement or hot attic.

I always try and store film in the best possible environment.

However I was amazed recently to find some Kodachrome slides shot by my father and dated 1963 in the attic - they have pretty much always been stored in the attic I think - and they honestly look like they were taken yesterday - really amazing.

Obviously I have not put them back in the attic!

Kodachrome really does archive well. There were some ektchrome slides with them of a similar vintage, but unfortunately the colour had drifted quite a lot in many of these.

Matt