E64 Results

Post by **Jon** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:04 pm

Shot two Rolls Ectachome 64 christmas morning with nitzo 4080 and lights
picture was ok color good but the grain was realy bad on the wall even on faces I lite every thing best i could
anyway not acceptable but aleast its memories

Got my time lapse back to I Shot of roof truss going on turn out good
there was still grain
Don't get me wronge grains good just not that much after all it is super 8

Post by **Arislan** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:34 pm

Would you say Ektachrome 7240 is overall better than 64T?

Post by **audadvnc** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:38 pm

Perhaps the question should be whether 7240 processed in E-6 is better than E64T, because VNF processing is going away, partially due to environmental toxicity concerns.

Post by **Arislan** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:44 pm

They're really trying to spoil all our fun

Luckily there are many places processing VNF. Unluckily, it looks like Kodak now lists it as discontinued >_<

Post by **cineandy** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:54 pm

[quote="Jon"]Shot two Rolls Ectachome 64 christmas morning with nitzo 4080 and lights
picture was ok color good but the grain was realy bad on the wall even on faces I lite every thing best i could
anyway not acceptable but aleast its memories

Got my time lapse back to I Shot of roof truss going on turn out good
there was still grain
Don't get me wronge grains good just not that much after all it is super 8[/quote]

Hi, totally agree with you, grain too excessive. This has put me off super 8. Will now use the format for home movies only. Kodak should of given us 64D, at least there would have been less grain. I carried out a side by side test with 64t and double super 8 k25. The difference is amazing, 64t resolving power is not good. Once i have tried wittner 50 and 100d, if still not happy, will sell my beaulieus and keep the leicina special for home movie use only.

Post by **mattias** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 1:12 pm

cineandy wrote:64t resolving power is not good.

what do you mean? while i haven't shot any k25 since a long time ago the 64t is certainly both sharper and has more latitude than k40. i agree it has a lot more grain though, so if your definition of resolving power is "little grain" i guess you're right, but then your definition is wrong. ;-)

/matt

Post by **cineandy** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 1:37 pm

[quote="mattias"][quote="cineandy"]64t resolving power is not good.[/quote]
what do you mean? while i haven't shot any k25 since a long time ago the 64t is certainly both sharper and has more latitude than k40. i agree it has a lot more grain though, so if your definition of resolving power is "little grain" i guess you're right, but then your definition is wrong. ;-)

/matt[/quote]

K25 images were a lot,lot sharper, roof tiles can be identified, while 64t images were a mass of grain. Images on infinity were more sharper and clearly defined on k25, image too was cleaner. 64T may transfer ok, but it doesn't project well on a 4ft screen. I mentioned that a 64D film will give less grain compared to a tungsten version. I am sorry, but i do not agree with you, k40 images look cleaner, sharper, less grainy and a lot more stable than my 64t results. I didn't mention the unstable images and sideways weave with the 64t. ( 64t was exposed thru two cameras). 64T is a dreadfull stock. I will shoot two more cartridges, then look for alternatives.

Post by **mattias** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:46 pm

I'm sorry to hear that. Unsteady images suggests a gate problem, in which case sharpness will suffer too. I've shot 12 carts and didn't have any problems. I'm a little disappointed with the grain but it's ok given the many pros. And I've projected it too btw.

/matt

Post by **S8 Booster** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:59 pm

didnt you plan to post some samples mattias?

s/hoot

Post by **mattias** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 6:42 pm

i did. it's often hard for a dp to get access to the material, but luckily i'm doing the online editing this time so you'll see some within two weeks.

/matt

Post by **Arislan** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 8:14 pm

I hope people are writing in their complaints to Kodak rather than just post on the forum.
I guess I will move to 16mm full time if a new colour stock isn't released. I just hope that isn't Kodak's intention, to make people stop using Super 8.

Post by **Angus** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:54 pm

I haven't shot 64T yet but I do worry that it will not be suitable for projection from super 8...in the way K40 was.

I have my stash of K40 which will give me one last Kodachrome spring or summer...then I shall try 64T...and if I don't like it then watch for most of my cameras appearing on eBay to fund purchase of.....shock horror....a digital video camera.

Post by **mattias** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 12:11 am

for the record i saw none of the grain problem when i projected. in fact i thought it looked fantastic projected, like a print from older 16mm color negative. the dancing blue and red dots didn't appear until it was on tape.

/matt

Post by **Justin Lovell** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:30 am

i agree mattias, the projected 64t and even the 7240 that I shot looked great, but transfering seems to enhance the grain.

Post by **T-Scan** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:10 am

jusetan wrote:i agree mattias, the projected 64t and even the 7240 that I shot looked great, but transfering seems to enhance the grain.

I third that, it projects beautifully.

Filmshooting

E64 Results

E64 Results

Re: E64 Results

Re: E64 Results

Re: E64 Results