will k40 ever be upgraded

andy · Post by **andy** » Fri Aug 06, 2004 12:09 am

Hello, reading thru various posts, it has become clear that k40 aint
the sharpest film there is, this has been my main gripe since using the film after my k25 stocks ran out. Its a fairly old emulsion now, would kodak ever invest in upgrading the film, to offer better sharpness and less grain. I am mainly referring to 16mm here, but think how much better super 8 could look with a new k40.

Post by **super8man** » Fri Aug 06, 2004 2:41 am

Here we go again with "if its old it must be broke"

OK, rant on people... Personally, the film is sharper than my dvd player and WEGA picture tube...soooo, I think it is just fine...just buy more K40!!!! Better to have one film than none at all!

Post by **marc** » Fri Aug 06, 2004 3:34 am

super8man wrote:Here we go again with "if its old it must be broke"

OK, rant on people... Personally, the film is sharper than my dvd player and WEGA picture tube...soooo, I think it is just fine...just buy more K40!!!! Better to have one film than none at all!

Agreed! Don't mess with a good thing!

Post by **monobath** » Fri Aug 06, 2004 4:03 am

Kodachrome is one of the finest grain reversal films that there is. Perhaps the finest. It has very high resolving power. No need to change it. I just want Kodak to keep producing it and processing it.

Post by BK » Fri Aug 06, 2004 4:43 am

Rather than upgrade it bring back the look of KII!

Bill

Post by **MovieMaker** » Fri Aug 06, 2004 8:42 am

With proper lighting and good equipment IÃ‚Â´ve seen K40 shots that were excellent - especially close-ups that were absolutely close to 16mm.

As the others pointed out: Be happy with what you got. And: Recently Kodak was more than a suprise when releasing new emulsons. Wait what the future brings.... and itÃ‚Â´s a bright future!

MovieMaker

Post by **matt5791** » Fri Aug 06, 2004 9:27 am

I have to say that whilst I am a keen user of the new negative emulsions, I love the look of K40.

Just received back a reel I shot in Rome a couple of weeks ago - it really does produce the most beautiful saturated colours.

Slightly off topic, I also just received back some slides I shot on Fuji Velvia 100 - that really is a beautiful film emulsion.

Matt

Post by **David M. Leugers** » Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:53 am

I'm beginning to find all this traffic on this website about K40 kinda amusing. Just to refresh everyone's memory, we NEVER had anything but K40 in Super 8mm. I have shot lots of R-8mm and some 16mm K40 and I like it. K25 was slightly different and many were fans of it, so was I. Mostly because it was daylight balanced and I didn't have to fool with filters (very nice when using a Bolex with prime lenses). Sometimes I liked the look I got from K40 better in certain circumstances. K25 is dead, long live K40!

Oh, and to those of you who did not believe K40 was ever issued in R-8mm, what do you think all those home movies of Christmas in the 1950's were shot on? 8)

David M. Leugers

http://members.cox.net/home-theater/ · Post by **JCook** » Sat Aug 07, 2004 7:50 am

Why?

When it's gone this game is over!

John

Post by **Actor** » Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:01 am

andy wrote:Hello, reading thru various posts, it has become clear that k40 aint
the sharpest film there is, this has been my main gripe since using the film after my k25 stocks ran out. Its a fairly old emulsion now, would kodak ever invest in upgrading the film, to offer better sharpness and less grain. I am mainly referring to 16mm here, but think how much better super 8 could look with a new k40.

Hey, rather than complain that it hasn't been improved, just pray that it doesn't get discontinued.

Post by **Angus** » Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:08 am

David M. Leugers wrote:
Oh, and to those of you who did not believe K40 was ever issued in R-8mm, what do you think all those home movies of Christmas in the 1950's were shot on? 8)

David M. Leugers

K40 did not exist until 1973 or 1974....back then it would have been Kodachrome II

But K40 certainly was issued in R8...I have two unopened boxes of it dated 1983 and 1989

Post by **David M. Leugers** » Sat Aug 07, 2004 2:42 pm

Angus

Right on about the label of Tungsten ballanced Kodachrome! Of course, K25 was not the same either in the 1950's... Point is is that the difference between Daylight balanced Kodachrome and Tungsten balanced Kodachrome is slight enough to not get into a big fuss about having to use K40 today instead of K25. Any Kodachrome is better than no Kodachrome. K40 is a great product in it's own right.

David M. Leugers

Post by **Angus** » Sun Aug 08, 2004 8:48 pm

Oh I'd agree there is very little difference between K40 and K25, and I would rather have K40 than no Kodachrome at all.

Post by **cineandy** » Sun Aug 08, 2004 9:31 pm

Angus, you say there is very little diference between k40 and k25,
hmmm, i agree, theres not much in it in the super 8 format, but side by side the same scene on 16mm, k40 aint no where near that of the quality/colour and sharpness of k25. Reckon i have exposed at least 500 rolls of k25 (16MM) and 16mm k40 is nowhere near the quality of k25. I have now used about 50x 16mm k40, i have found k40 is more forgiving if you over expose a scene in error, also i prefer k40 in cloudy bright conditions. Did shoot a concorde take off at distance on k40 last year, the results were awful, the stock simply has not got the resolving power of 25.

Post by **crimsonson** » Sun Aug 08, 2004 10:20 pm

While I can't argue the resolving power of K40, my only qualm is the look. It needs a lot of effort to remove the dated asthetics of K40. Maybe something closer current negative stock would be nice.

Filmshooting

will k40 ever be upgraded

will k40 ever be upgraded

Re: will k40 ever be upgraded