E64 Results

[audadvnc]

We have kicked the grain issue into the dust by now. Anyone shooting 8mm should realize it's the smallest guage, grainiest photographic format on the planet. Pros, experts, rank newbies agree; Super 8 is grainy. If you don't want grain, don't shoot S8.

[tlatosmd]

But has there ever been any stock in S8 potentially more grainy than 64T? And even as ickily multi-colored grainy?

I found 64T to be significantly better than K40 in all aspects except for grain. Lattitude, shadow detail,

Those two are the same for 64T, actually. No reason to mention them twice as it would have that many advantages.

resolving power

You nonetheless seem to be a minority in seeing that. Most people see candy-colored grains.

and color accuracy were all better than K40 both in projection and telecine.

Even though 64T colors are far more blown-out in saturation, looking much more vintage?

Notice I said color accuracy, K40 has overly saturated colors that gives it is look but 64T is more accurate according to color test charts.

Nope, the one stock with more vintage saturation is 64T, not K40. It's in the data sheets, and it's what people can see.

I still think better latitude and far bigger grain makes some people think 64T would be sharper. You can see more details in the shadows due to this latitude, so it must be 'sharper' because you see more detail. You see more grain so you think it must be 'sharper' as it doesn't seem to 'blur' grain so much. Plus, less contrast might seem more 'realistic' if you've been there at the set, but coupled with the over-saturated, blown-out colors and huge grains, people who haven't been there will think it looks like a 1970s amateur homemovie.

[timdrage]

GRAIN IS GOOD!

[John_Pytlak]

There are only two labs in the world that process Super-8 KODACHROME film, and after next September, there will be only one. The E-6 process is offered by multiple labs, and the EKTACHROME films can even be processed at home. Customers can influence which EKTACHROME film is available, but it cannot bring back Super-8 K-40.

[freddiesykes]

Thank you.

[mattias]

listen, just shoot the damn thing already. why is it that everyone here who actually shoots film on a regular basis and/or professionally like the stock while the slot car collectors and german politicians don't? that's the million dollar question.

/matt

[Justin Lovell]

heheehe

[T-Scan]

The E-6 process is offered by multiple labs, and the EKTACHROME films can even be processed at home.

And any other possible new reversal films will be E6 as well. If anyone read how complicated the K14 process is... well it's freakin rediculas, and a miracle it's gone on this long.

[T-Scan]

The E-6 process is offered by multiple labs, and the EKTACHROME films can even be processed at home.

And any other possible new reversal films will be E6 as well. If anyone read how complicated the K14 process is... well it's freakin rediculas, and a miracle it's gone on this long.

[Juno]

listen, just shoot the damn thing already. why is it that everyone here who actually shoots film on a regular basis and/or professionally like the stock while the slot car collectors and german politicians don't? that's the million dollar question.

/matt

I did'nt kow that this board was just for professional filmmakers and everyday shooters ( or whatever you consider a regular basis). :?

[sarmoti]

I have to second that, it seems like the people on this forum that shoot film for a living like the 64 better and that the amateurs and hobbyists like K40 better. Are you guys exposing and filtering it correctly? Aside from grain, I clearly see that the 64 emulsion is superior. I don't know what I'm missing, maybe it's just different tastes...

[Lunar07]

We have kicked the grain issue into the dust by now. Anyone shooting 8mm should realize it's the smallest guage, grainiest photographic format on the planet. Pros, experts, rank newbies agree; Super 8 is grainy. If you don't want grain, don't shoot S8.

Have you shot R8 K25? Of course there is grain. But not the dancing dots type of grain. There is solidness about the image. There is grace in the colors. It keeps action intact. Let us not forget that in movie making sharpness and detail are not that important. The important factor is how you structure you action. Dancing dots will not do for a good message. The issue is not the grain. Also, I have seen countless R8 and S8 footage transfered and played on TV screens and it looked solid. For a project that will end on a TV screen, R8 and S8 are good enough. If something can not be viewed in a theather, then it should be dismissed???? I do not understand it when people talk of the grain issue and how it prevents the format from being excellent for what it is for certain media of distribution.

I have to second that, it seems like the people on this forum that shoot film for a living like the 64 better and that the amateurs and hobbyists like K40 better. Are you guys exposing and filtering it correctly? Aside from grain, I clearly see that the 64 emulsion is superior. I don't know what I'm missing, maybe it's just different tastes...

Kodak introduced this stock for amateurs. But they introduced a stock that does not work with lots and lots of amateur cameras. So the frustrations can be understood. The beauty of S8 is that you have cameras that can shoot film on auto pilot. Point and let the camera determine the exposure. Kodak play games with the words "amateur" and "pro" and use them in relative ways that fit their strategies.
Is E64T amateur or pro format? Kodak says it is for the amateur crowd. But it is clear that the ASA and balance prevents it from being used in an amateur camera. How can we blame the K40 crowd after that?
Kodak screwed up for amateurs and pros all alike.
First of all, why should I worry about a CC filter in daylight? Is it our fate and destiny to use these damned filters anyway?
If Kodak meant business for all sorts of crowds then they should have given us 50D or 100D. Enough of this CC nonsense.
E64T maybe good enough for some. But we are ALL screwed.

[Jon]

Enough said, if i was to Have to choose video or Ektachome 64t It would have to be film the look of the film is natual and colors are true other then the grain i can probably live with it for home movies maybe just more tests to work out the bugs in this case grain ha ha

T- Scan i think your right it dos have a more modern look

well only time will tell just have to keep at it


"I Love Film Film Forever"

[sarmoti]

Kodak introduced this stock for amateurs. But they introduced a stock that does not work with lots and lots of amateur cameras... Is E64T amateur or pro format? Kodak says it is for the amateur crowd. But it is clear that the ASA and balance prevents it from being used in an amateur camera. How can we blame the K40 crowd after that?
Kodak screwed up for amateurs and pros all alike.
First of all, why should I worry about a CC filter in daylight? Is it our fate and destiny to use these damned filters anyway?
If Kodak meant business for all sorts of crowds then they should have given us 50D or 100D. Enough of this CC nonsense.
E64T maybe good enough for some. But we are ALL screwed.

Well, I'd say amateur for the most part since I people using S8 for pro purposes would shoot negative unless their output was projection of the camera original or they needed a specific reversal look.

I honestly can't see the issue of screwing a damn filter on to a camera, if that's a huge concern why would anyone that has an issue with that bother with the complications of shooting film at all.

I guess that if you're using an auto exposure mechanism that's not through the lens you could always use an ND on the lens to compensate but oh my god... That involves screwing a filter onto the lens!!!!!!!!. Aside from that I doubt that the original photosensitive cells on most S8 cameras are still accurate, there's got to be a trim pot somewhere inside the autoexposure system that would allow you to calibrate it to the 64's sensitivity.

I don't think that Kodak screwed up, they were forced get rid of the Kodachrome process and did the best they could to give you something to replace it with. They're not going to spend millions in R&D for such a small market so they did the best feasable thing, introduced the stock that was closest in every respect to the one they replaced. The other option would have been to kill color reversal S8 altogether. Am I the only one that sees that Kodak is supporting you as much as it's able to?

Try going to Microsoft and asking them to introduce a new version of Windows for Commodore 64 computers, that's what Kodak did for you.

[MovieStuff]

Kodak introduced this [E64T] stock for amateurs. But they introduced a stock that does not work with lots and lots of amateur cameras. So the frustrations can be understood.

This is a very valid point. Well put.

Roger