My Kodak Super 8 conference call!

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Matt Pacini:

I'm not so sure about replacing K-40 with any kind of Ektachrome though.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, there really won't be much of a choice. As I pointed out in Andreas's forum, the REAL and immediate danger isn't "what happens when K40 is gone?" but, rather, "what happens when the only two K40 labs are gone?" I can assure you that there will still be a lot of Kodachrome left long after Kodak Switzerland and Dewanes pull the plug. The worst possible scenario would be if Dewanes shut down and that left us with Kodak only for processing. Eeeeek! So finding an E-6 alternative to K40 is really about extending the life of super 8, in general, and not just about the future of K40, regardless of how much we may love it. If Kodak decides to let it go, no amount of bellyaching on our parts will change that.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Matt Pacini:

For Super 8 to compete with video (which it's not doing very well), the format needs a higher speed stock, that has grain that is at least SOMEWHERE near the fine-grain capability of K-40.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Impossible. High speed and fine grain are mutually exclusive. Believe me, if Kodak could do it for super 8, don't you think they'd do it for their more profitable stocks as well?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Matt Pacini:

In other words, one of the big selling points of video for ametuers, is to shoot in low light.
I agree with Nigel, replacing it with 100D & also 100T would be preferable than another slow-speed reversal stock.
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shooting with 100 ASA or 40 ASA is barely a one stop difference. In fact, there really is no difference if you are shooting 100 daylight with tungsten light and using a correction filter that eats a stop or so. If you don't have enough light at ASA 40, then ASA 100 probably isn't going to help you much. Even 200 ASA won't compare with the low light ability of video. Beyond that, I'll gladly give up a stop to have finer grain. After all, one thing that super 8 has plenty of is depth of field, so losing a stop is no problemo, IMHO.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by cal godot:
Excellent work, Roger. You da man!</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by cal godot:
You must have extreme patience with bureaucratic-types.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, but my endless debates with you certainly gave me plenty of experience to fall back on. [img]wink.gif[/img]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by cal godot:
Are ECO stocks still manufactured?</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not currently and the original ECO stock was not E-6. The new stock will need to be an original formulation. Just imagine, a new super stock. Too cool.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by cal godot:

What is it that establishes the normal contrast in post? Is it an automatic change due to the tranfer or is there a process involved?</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, it's the oldest trick in the book. Any time you have positive to positive duplication, you get an increase in contrast. That is why K40 looks wonderful projected but very contrasty when printed or telecined. By making the original stock flat and muted, the natural increase in contrast that occurs during duplication or telecine will put things back to "normal". Basically, you're taking advantage of a disadvantage and using the increase in contrast to your benefit.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by cal godot:

Q: Do people outside the South have gnats? [img]wink.gif[/img] </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, unfortunately, we have them all.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Nigel:

You can't talk about what 100D is like after you filter it for Tungsten light--Since it is not an even comparison.

The reason for 100D is to give us a true Daylight balanced stock which we don't have at this point. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that a daylight balanced stock would be nice but, really, how many low budget super 8 film makers have access to HMI's? If super 8 is going to do more than just survive, then Kodak has to accommodate the majority and not the minority, in my opinion. The majority of super 8 users are not pros working with daylight balanced HMI's but, rather, struggling independents scrambling with Home Depot quartz work lights and second hand Lowel tungsten kits.

So the comparison regarding what happens to filtered 100D is a valid point. And if the daylight stock is going to actually be used outside during the day, then why settle for something as grainy as 100D when a much slower stock would offer finer grain and a sharper picture with no loss of performance in daylight?

I understand your concerns regarding the pro stocks and I agree there's room for growth there. However, super 8 is pretty much on life support, by my estimation, and premature diversity would sap Kodak resources with no appreciable, immediate return for their investment. The independent super 8 film maker is what's kept super 8 alive, not the pro market, which hardly ever tries to maximize the super 8 image, anyway. More often than not, pros use super 8 for "effect" and not as a viable story telling medium. Considering more and more producers are producing the grainy "super 8 crap look" electronically, better to support the larger constituency of independent film makers that still (for the time being) see super 8 as a viable alternative to 16mm. These people are either projecting original or, more often than not, performing DIY telecine and editing on their home computer. Kodak needs to get up to date on servicing the needs of this rapidly expanding group. There's good money to be made there and, if Kodak can benefit from it, then maybe we all will.

Now, I could be totally wrong, but my feeling is that, unless the larger amateur market is nourished, there won't be any means for growth in the smaller pro market because super 8 will have died on the vine before that could happen. As such, super 8 needs to return to its roots of providing fine grain, low cost positive emulsions that can be readily processed by a variety of local labs. Introducing more and more exotic neg stocks that only higher budgets can afford to shoot and transfer will, in my opinion, only hasten the demise of super 8 due to a lack of volume. Nurse super 8 back to a healthy state with some practical, useful and economical stocks first, then accomodate the smaller pro market that only occasionally employs super 8 for their projects. Again, I would also like to see more diversity in all the stocks but we need to be careful about the order of importance, here.

But, while we're on the subject of daylight, nothing would make me happier than to see the rebirth of K25 daylight in a 200 foot super 8 cartridge! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Roger

[Nigel]

I have worked a bit with 5285--100D. Granted it is only available in 35mm at the moment. However, it is a very very fine grained film that I think would be less grainy than the 7240 in Super8.

I think HMI's are not part of the equation here. Many many many amateur shooters are outside using daylight with some bounce for fill.

Diversify Diversify Diversify--That is my Mantra for Super8 It always has been and it will be into the future.

I hope that the rumours of the new Vision2 500T being cut are true.

Thanks again and Good Luck

[Nigel]

Roger--

You can't talk about what 100D is like after you filter it for Tungsten light--Since it is not an even comparison.

The reason for 100D is to give us a true Daylight balanced stock which we don't have at this point. We have K40 and 7240 both are Tungsten balanced (K40 balanced to 3400k and 7240 to 3200k).

I think that at this point it is about diversifying the film selection to be a bit more useful over a greater range of situations.

Thanks

[Hanthx]

Wonderful job Roger.

[chas_ucla]

yeah, great job, man!

Now, how long do you have to keep your "Kodak vow of silence" before you can divulge the rest? ;]

[Matt Pacini]

Roger, my point wasn't whether or not K-40 was going away eventually, my point was, why replace it with another reversal stock?
You said yourself, most S8 shooters are finishing on video, therefore don't need a projection stock of any kind.
So given that fact, I can't see any reason for another reversal stock, ESPECIALLY one that isn't even made anymore.
I mean, asking Kodak to put a stock they ALREADY manufacture into Super 8 cartridges is hard enough.
Asking them to make one just for us S8 shooters seems pretty damn unlikely, if you ask me, and I think pretty much all of us would rather shoot neg if given the choice.
By the way, what's the ASA of that Ektachrome your'e talking about?
Isn't it something ridiculous like ASA16 or something?

I'm thining maybe Vision2 50D and Vision2 100T would be pretty decent additions to the lineup. I'd be willing to try them.
But if I'm going to have to shoot on another reversal stock..... gee, I think I'd just give up and stick with K-40 or give up altogether and shoot 16mm exclusively.


Matt Pacini

&lt;font color="#a62a2a" size="1"&gt;[ March 05, 2003 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Matt Pacini ]&lt;/font&gt;

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 05, 2003 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Matt Pacini ]</font>

[Roy Brown]

Nice Job Roger,

My only comment is when Kodachrome goes away my use of Super 8mm will drop dramatically. Its not that I won't still shoot some B/W or try whatever color reversal is out there but the magic of Super 8 to me is projecting and Kodachrome is King.

Roy

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
Roger, my point wasn't whether or not K-40 was going away eventually, my point was, why replace it with another reversal stock?
You said yourself, most S8 shooters are finishing on video, therefore don't need a projection stock of any kind.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, to take that logic to the fullest extent, one really doesn't need film at all if finishing on video. The footage from the new Panasonic 24P miniDV looks really, really good. So, this isn't about what's most practical for low budget directors but, rather, what is the most economical for those that want to shoot on film.

Working in super 8 negative is not economical and never will be. Why? Because it costs too much to satisfactorily transfer to video and video is the ONLY way you will ever see anything you shoot in super 8 negative. While the WorkPrinter and CineMate units can physically handle negative with no problem, keeping the film clean is a nightmare, which is one of the reasons why we stopped transferring neg.

Transferring neg requires hyper clean technique compared to transferring reversal. The reason is that, with the exception of shots of sky or snow, reversal footage is mostly dense with areas that thin out in the sky area. As such, if a tiny speck gets by the cleaning process (and it always will), it will not be noticed because it is hidden by the overall density of the grass, trees, subject matter, etc.

That same scene in negative is totally different. There are NO areas of density on negative that even begin to match the density of reversal. Further, the dark areas of the neg are really only the highlights of the picture. That means that the trees, grass, etc that previously hid the occasional reversal spec no longer serve that function. Instead, those areas are very, very light on the negative. Heck, even the sky areas of the negative aren't as dense as the ground areas of reversal. The previously mentioned spec will show up as a huge white blob because it gets inverted during telecine. Adding to the DIY neg telecine problem is the issue of color and contrast correction which is much easier off a positive image than working from negative as the orange masking has to be negated accurately before any type of viable color correction can be achieved.

So, transferring negative is a royal pain in the butt and NOT something that the majority of super 8 users can do readily whereas a lot of people ALREADY achieve a pretty satisfactory home brew telecine using existing reversal. A true low con telecine stock would make it even better. A true low con telecine E-6 stock that can be processed by virtually any lab would be a dream for the majority that shoot super 8 and telecine on a low budget.

Beyond that, reversal, unlike neg, can be projected readily so that aesthetic and pre-editorial decisions can be made easily. And, most importantly, there will never, ever, in our lifetime, be a fine grain super 8 negative stock that even remotely resembles Ektachrome 40, much less Kodachrome 40, in terms of sharpness or compact grain. Negative stocks are going to have more grain than reversal stocks. That's just the way it is.

And, finally, the simplicity of shooting super 8, getting it back from the lab quickly, and then immediately watching the fruits of one's labors is pretty hard to beat. We haven't had that freedom since the late 70's or early 80's. Shooting negative would only compound the cost, complexity and delay of the entire 8mm experience for the majority while only satisfying the needs of the few that have a budget to support it. I think neg has it's place but, as Kodak will tell you, super 8 neg is not their biggest seller. Reversal is. Why fight that if the idea is help super 8 survive?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
So given that fact, I can't see any reason for another reversal stock, ESPECIALLY one that isn't even made anymore.
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, given that your fact isn't a fact, and the fact that I really don't understand your question, I'll just say that, no, we don't need another projection density reversal stock NOW but my efforts are an attempt to plan for a more secure future for super 8, in general, that's all. We all love K40 and I hope it stays around forever but I know it won't, as nothing does. More importantly, I would like to see more than two places in the known terra firma that can process my color footage and not have to pay out the yin-yang for it.

In all, rather than besiege Kodak with a huge wish list of impractical and unrealistic items, I tried to approach them with something that would increase their bottom line, make life easier on them, provide a new product that IS needed (and currently lacking) in super 8 and, hopefully, pave the way for more products in the future.

I agree with Nigel that we need more diversity in super 8 but such diversity has a price. I would rather see a slower, deliberate string of individual emulsion releases where the success of one provides the capital and incentive for the next than to see a whole bunch of "what ifs" thrown out there that fail all at once because Kodak doesn't have the resources to support them nor the money to market them.

I've received a LOT of emails since my post and I often get the feeling that people want Kodak to come up with all these "cool stocks" quickly so they can be played with before super 8 dies. To me, this is short sighted and does nothing to address the issue of super 8 survival over the long haul. Kodak has to make a good profit on these items and the majority has to find them affordable and accessible or the whole thing is pointless, in my opinion.

Roger

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 05, 2003 10:41 PM: Message edited by: MovieStuff ]</font>