Kodachrome

[MovieStuff]

I wouldn't worry about the shelf life of Kodachrome. That stuff is good for years. Also, I don't think you'll have any problem getting as much K40 as you'll need for your project. Remember, you can always call Kodak directly and order as much as you want. They will even pull it from other locations and ship it directly to you. Right now, if you want fine grain, then K40 is the way to go. Just be careful with your lighting and shoot away. From what I've seen, the grain difference between the neg and K40 is tremendous, even when using grain suppression on the Rank during transfer. I would stick with K40 for your production, but that's just my preference.

Roger

Do a test!

Roger

[MovieStuff]

Previously, Nigel wrote:

"Kodak pulled the plug on K25. I see this as a very active step towards pulling Kodachrome 40."

That may very well be the case. However, I simply read their action as an indication that emmulsions had improved to where K25 was more or less redundant, since people could just use a faster Kodachrome instead. Personally, I don't think they discontinued it because it was Kodachrome. I think they discontinued it because it was a really slow film with little use anymore in today's market. I think it would have met the same fate if it had been Ektachrome. Who needs a reversal that slow, anyway? (I'm sure I'll catch hell for asking that question, but I live life on the edge, you know?)

As far as the daylight balanced Kodachrome I spoke of, I brought it up because you had mentioned still photographers. I thought that's what you meant by Kodachrome being passed up by "professionals". My mistake.

Roger

[Matt Pacini]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nigel:
"Matt--
I ask you where are your facts?? You asked for mine I ask you for yours."

(Matt Pacini responds):
The burden of proof lays with those making the statements of change, not me.
In other words, my evidence, "facts" stand with what IS the case at this time: Kodak currently sells K-40, and has not in any way announced that it intends to discontinue.

My proof is self evident. I'm not the one making the predictions, therefore I need no proof other than what is actually the current facts :they still sell the stuff, and they say they are behind S8, 100%.

If I said I beleive the moon was going to fly off an hit Jupiter next year, and you said it wasn't, do YOU need proof, or do I need proof? Get it?

And your statement: "Kodachrome has run its course" is hysterical, to say the least, given that I have heard that Super 8 had run its course, about 25 years ago, I think it was!
And for that matter, there are those saying the FILM has run it's course, yet again, we still have both.

It's not that I'm ignorant of technological trends, or that I'm against things changing. I'm just saying, that grand predictions of "what is to come" have given us such predictions as: (I've said this before)
1. By 1980, all telephones will be videophones.
2. By the 1970's, everyone will have personal mini-jets to fly them around, in place of cars.
3. A "paperless society" (remember that one?)
4. Virtual reality will replace real sex.
5. Moving sidewalks so nobody will have to walk anywhere.
blah blah blah. (In fact, read Scientific American and Mechanix Illustrated, they have sections that state things from 100, 50 & 25 years ago, and it's quite funny to see the predictions that didn't come to pass.)

And all these things are technically viable, but again, the predictions fade into the background, and what we have left, is pretty much the same as always:
Real sex(thankfully!), regular phones, regular cars, Kodachrome 40, Super 8, and feature films still being shot almost exclusively on film.


Matt Pacini


------------------

[Matt Pacini]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nigel:
"Matt--
I ask you where are your facts?? You asked for mine I ask you for yours."

(Matt Pacini responds):
The burden of proof lays with those making the statements of change, not me.
In other words, my evidence, "facts" stand with what IS the case at this time: Kodak currently sells K-40, and has not in any way announced that it intends to discontinue.

My proof is self evident. I'm not the one making the predictions, therefore I need no proof other than what is actually the current facts :they still sell the stuff, and they say they are behind S8, 100%.

If I said I beleive the moon was going to fly off an hit Jupiter next year, and you said it wasn't, do YOU need proof, or do I need proof? Get it?

And your statement: "Kodachrome has run its course" is hysterical, to say the least, given that I have heard that Super 8 had run its course, about 25 years ago, I think it was!
And for that matter, there are those saying the FILM has run it's course, yet again, we still have both.

It's not that I'm ignorant of technological trends, or that I'm against things changing. I'm just saying, that grand predictions of "what is to come" have given us such predictions as: (I've said this before)
1. By 1980, all telephones will be videophones.
2. By the 1970's, everyone will have personal mini-jets to fly them around, in place of cars.
3. A "paperless society" (remember that one?)
4. Virtual reality will replace real sex.
5. Moving sidewalks so nobody will have to walk anywhere.
blah blah blah. (In fact, read Scientific American and Mechanix Illustrated, they have sections that state things from 100, 50 & 25 years ago, and it's quite funny to see the predictions that didn't come to pass.)

And all these things are technically viable, but again, the predictions fade into the background, and what we have left, is pretty much the same as always:
Real sex(thankfully!), regular phones, regular cars, Kodachrome 40, Super 8, and feature films still being shot almost exclusively on film.


Matt Pacini


------------------

[tim.callaghan]

Hi,

Anybody gonna give me any viable alternatives to K40 neg or reversal?? rather than go on about who said what. Or, should I post an entirely new thread?

Tim

------------------

[Matt Pacini]

Well, that't smy whole point.
There isn't any reason to panic, and start running around looking for something to replace K-40, until Kodak actually announces they are going to discontinue it, which there is no reason so far to think they will in the near future.

So keep shooting K-40 all you want, otherwise, you can shoot the Ektachrome 125(yuck), the 2 B&W stocks, or the Kodak Vision200T neg stock, or you can get ripped off at Super 8 Sound for the Proneg stocks.
In other words, the amount of different Super 8 stocks available now, far exceeds what has EVER been available for S8 shooters.

Matt Pacini


------------------

[tim.callaghan]

Cheers Matt,

That was kinda what I was after, a few suggestions. I think I'm gonna try the 200T and see what it looks like on DV/SP in comparison to the K40 I have already messed around with. I'm not interested in B&W for the mo. If I'm not impressed with the 200T I'll shoot K40 all the way. I'm just interested to what I might lose in the grain using neg stock to what I'll gain in the latitude of the stock, but obviously I appreciate there is no excuse for poor lighting, which will show more on reversal than neg.

Anyway much fun will be had and much rejoicing, hoohrah!

Tim

------------------

[Nigel]

You are right back to the subject. I would shoot the 7240--I disagree with Matt on this. The 7240 looks like pure shit when it is not filtered correctly. However, when you shoot it with an 85B--Not the 85A in your camera then it looks great. The 200 degrees to cool is just enough to make it look like crap with the 85A.

It is a bit easier to deal with too when compared to the Vision200T. What I mean is that you don't have to get a RANK Xfer in order to see it. You can cut it with your splicer and treat it more like the stocks you are used to. Also it is cheaper to process that the Neg. I hated the 7240 at first to tell you the truth--then I was shooting some of the wildfires that destroyed the West last Summer--To my great surprise it looked good!!

Just remember the 85B is the trick. Good Luck

------------------

[Nigel]

Roger--

Kodak pulled the plug on K25. I see this as a very active step towards pulling Kodachrome40.

When I was tlking about the balance of stocks I was talking about in the S8 market. Not across markets. It would make sense to have Kodak keep the 7240 and introduce the 5285 in S8. It would give shooters more options since it would enhance the line-up by offering 1 Neg stock, 2 B&W, 1 Tungsten and 1 Daylight. This makes sense to me.

Matt--
I ask you where are your facts?? You asked for mine I ask you for yours. Not to force a debate but to say--I wonder if you can prove that Kodachrome is a larger economic asset than liability?? If you can't that is fine with me.

The post is intended as a discussion with solid reasoning behind the statements, not a discussion that is nothing but facts and figures.

Good Luck

------------------

[Matt Pacini]

Honestly, I don't mean to sound like a fanatic, but have you seen the 7240 Ranked, or just on your editor?

Because it looks fantastic on the editor, but I almost vomited after I ranked all those zillions of rolls I shot of it in my film.
And the color/filtration factor does not come into play on my footage anyway, because I only used it for interior shots, so I didn't have a filter on at all (which is correct).

My complaint isn't as much the color, although it looks like crap on skintones, but the grain.
My God, it is just so freakin' grainy!
Not as bad as the 160, thankfully, which was horrible, but I just can't take the grain, that's all.
If you're after grungy images, then great, shoot it.
But if you're trying to do serious stuff, beautiful photography that stands on its own, forget about it.
It's like shooting through a fishbowl full of gnats, for crying out loud!

Matt Pacini

------------------