There we go with my notion again, 64T would have been a nice replacement for VNF, but definitely not for K40.Arislan wrote:Would you say Ektachrome 7240 is overall better than 64T?
Mattias, there have been many people in disagreement to you and Nigel already on 64T's supposed sharpness, including Jürgen, Frank Bruinsma, all the people at the national French S8 meeting that Jürgen visited, and Kodak's own data sheets (thanks to Booster for that one). In fact, 64T is less sharp than K40 as suggested by Kodak's data sheets, it only starts to equal K40 not sooner than with so little light on the set you won't be able to expose K40 anymore. What's worse, 64T's tremendous grain is even multi-colored like nasty video noise.
The only two technical advantages 64T has over K40 are speed and latitude, the latter resulting in more shadow detail, which in connection with its far more pronounced grain seems to make some people think it would be 'sharper' than K40.
Kodak promised us replacing K40 with a more modern and technically more professional emulsion due its professional ASA number, helping S8 to get rid of its 1970s homemovie image, and instead gave us what looks much more vintage, amateurish, and homemovie-like at the end of the day, when the processed film is flickering across the screen. Before we saw its first S8 stills, you and Nigel kept complaining time and again about K40s 'unnatural', 'vintage', 'over-saturated' colors, but when we saw 64T is even much, much more saturated than K40, you started saying that that was what you'd always longed for and that you'd always hated K40 for its 'unnatural, bleak' color. After we confronted you with your older statements, you went on to speak of 'sharpness'.
Arislan, several international protesting petitions have been started quite succesfully about Kodak's decision of axing K40 in favor of 64T, but Kodak didn't seem to care.
