should kodak replace 64t with 100d in super 8?

[Carlos 8mm]

Kodak is offering Ektachrome 100D Double Super 8 film in 400 fT cans.

I think that this 8 could be the first step for the releasing of Ekta 100D in S8 carts in the next future.

And yes, a new Ekta 125T or 160T would be great...

[JCook]

I don't know why, but every time someone posts a poll here there isn't any buttons available for me to select from, probably my firewall settings, oh well.

I'll vote for both 64T and 100D because I know a lot of you would put 64T to use. However if only given the choice of one I'd chose 100D due to it's finer grain (I'm a projectionist) and daylight properties, no HMIs required.

That being said I do have a handful of silent and sound K40s left, enough to get me through the upcoming summer.

Hopefully 100D will be more affordable soon otherwise I'll be looking to upgrade to an HDV camera...there has to be a balance between the costs associated with ones hobbies and the return. A thirtyfive dollar 100D round trip roll of 3 minute film is very hard from my perspective to justify, no matter how much fun I have pulling the trigger. I could ~ pay off a new Sony HVD-A1U with about the same amount of funds required to shoot 180 minutes (3 hours) at current 100D prices.....not that I plan to shoot sixty carts any time soon but you get my point. I probably do shoot at least twenty to twenty five/year.

Regards, John

[Mitch Perkins]

There are no Super 8 stocks in the Kodak consumer catalogue anymore; they're all in the professional catalogue. This tells me that the target group has changed, in Kodak's estimation.

But, in Kodak's estimation, 64T is what we needed as well. Good thing 64T is in the professional catalog. Being a professional stock makes it look soooo much better. ;)

What, specifically, do you think is wrong with the look of 64T? I put this question to all it's detractors.

The (properly exposed) 64T I've seen has been full-on breath-taking beautiful. The improperly exposed 64T I've seen looked like crap - same as any other stock - so what's new here?

Mitch

[mattias]

What, specifically, do you think is wrong with the look of 64T? I put this question to all it's detractors.

it's grainy. other than that it's fantastic. i also think it can be beautiful, but people here seem obsessed with getting professional results that rival 16mm and yada yada. no, wait, they're obsessed with talking about it, since very few actually produce anything. :-)

/matt

[MovieStuff]

But, in Kodak's estimation, 64T is what we needed as well. Good thing 64T is in the professional catalog. Being a professional stock makes it look soooo much better. ;)

What, specifically, do you think is wrong with the look of 64T?

It doesn't look as good as 100D. ;)

Roger

[T-Scan]

I second Roger- I've had some great results with 64T, but far better with 100D.

[wado1942]

So, I'm relatively new to reversal film. In fact, I've only shot 1 roll of 64T, 4 rolls Plus-X and 4 rolls of Tri-X. Most of my film shooting has been 50D 16mm negative. How is it that a Ektachrome 100D film can be finer grain than 64T of the same basic type? I understand the basic technologies behind their negative films as far as T-grains and ultra-thick emulsions go. Is there something about being tunsten ballanced reversal that makes it look inherantly worse than a higher speed daylight? Also, that stuff about Kodak releasing a higher speed tungsten Ektachrome won't happen any time soon because they just discontinued their higher speed Ektachrome in favor of the 64T.

[T-Scan]

64T is not T grain, 100D is and is much finer. I'm in the process of projecting and splicing this week, it's easy to notice the difference in grain is huge. In fact, I can't even see it on the 100D.

[Angus]

What Roger said....64T is not as good as 100D.

However I suppose if I were to drag out my old 1000W "movie light" I'd be happy that I have some 64T...maybe...on the other hand using it in the traditional amateur way in a private house I'd probably get away with the 25ASA sensitivity of 100D...

64T can look very good with close-ups of brightly coloured subjects...but for general daytime shooting 100D is much better. It's beautiful stuff...I really must try to telecine and post some clips sometime...(ah...time...)

Kodak have, for the foreseeable future, taken the decision that we shall get only one colour reversal stock. There are most likely marketing reasons for this, but its strange that we get two B&W reversal stocks...maybe we should consider ourselves lucky in that regard.

I believe Kodak have stated that producing 100D in DS8 in no way implies that they are considering it for super 8 carts. Shame, but at least the DS8 material makes it relatively easy for repackagers to sell it onto us in carts...

[wado1942]

That's interesting that they're not using T-grain in 64T. I wonder why. Of course I think everything should be T-grain. T-max is my favorite b&w film and I really wish they would produce that instead of Plus-X/Tri-X for super-8. I don't really understand why they still have 2 black & white stocks for super-8 anymore since there's hardly any difference between the 2 when using their new processing.

[filmamigo]

Is there something about being tunsten ballanced reversal that makes it look inherantly worse than a higher speed daylight?

John P. explained that in order to register an image with a reasonable colour balance under tungsten, the tungsten balanced films have much larger blue grains. (Larger grains are faster-reacting to less light.) These large blue grains are the source of many complaints against E64T, especially when exposed under daylight. Some folks have described "dancing blue ants". The grain is coloured, not monochromatic or evenly spread across all colours.

[filmamigo]

That's interesting that they're not using T-grain in 64T. I wonder why. Of course I think everything should be T-grain. T-max is my favorite b&w film and I really wish they would produce that instead of Plus-X/Tri-X for super-8.

I recall reading about Kodak's tests of T-max for B&W cinematography. They were conducted with the well-regarded B&W lab on the Ryerson University campus, and apparently included school and public test screenings of various stocks and processes.

Like you say, everyone expected the T-max to be a big improvement, and Ryerson was pushing them on introducing the product. Much to everyone's surprise, the results of the testing weren't in favour of T-Max. The T-max exhibited less apparent sharpness and more apparent granularity on screen. Kodak dropped the T-max idea, and folks were happy to keep Tri-X and Plus-X.

I wish I could find the original article I read -- a quick Google didn't find the source for me.

[wado1942]

That's interesting about the T-max because I think it's great for still photography and it's the only b/w film I buy. But eh, doesn't daylight film have larger RED grain? And red, being the last layer of the emulsion already has the lowest gama making it naturally the grainiest. So I'd think that daylight film would be worse with dancing RED ants. Or maybe people just don't notice red as much?

[Mitch Perkins]

What, specifically, do you think is wrong with the look of 64T? I put this question to all it's detractors.

it's grainy. other than that it's fantastic. i also think it can be beautiful, but people here seem obsessed with getting professional results that rival 16mm and yada yada. no, wait, they're obsessed with talking about it, since very few actually produce anything. :-)

/matt

Yep.

Mitch

[David M. Leugers]

T-max is my favorite b&w film and I really wish they would produce that instead of Plus-X/Tri-X for super-8

Like already stated, Kodak tested this and was disappointed. What the hell is wrong with Plus-X? One beautiful S-8mm film. I love Tri-X also, but some don't because of the grain. Both stocks produce sharp images with great variance in gray tones as well as deep blacks. If they can make a better stock, great! But T-Max was not the answer...



David M. Leugers