Kodachrome

[Nigel]

I thought it was grainy--Yes. But I think it looked like it was a good stock when Ranked. I haven't gotten my 200T back from Xfer yet but I bet it will be the same as far as grain goes. Grain is part of what makes S8--S8. If I was going for the slick grainless look I would shoot more S16 and 35. My 7240/S8 is good looking and worth me shooting the stock again. Good Luck

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

[tim.callaghan]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nigel:
If I was going for the slick grainless look I would shoot more S16 and 35.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which all than more makes me think that I will finally use K40 as I can't afford to shoot 16/S16/35? I'm not looking for grainless, but I'm trying to make it look less like it was shot on S8, which would indicate using the finest grain stock I can get my hands on ie K40. It will probably still look like K40, but once Xfered there will be less grain tell tale signs. Would you agree or not?

I'm still gonna go through a short testing list though!

Tim


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

[crimsonson]

'but I'm trying to make it look less like it was shot on S8'

Nothing says Super 8 more than K40!

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


[This message has been edited by crimsonson (edited September 17, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by crimsonson (edited September 17, 2001).]

[Matt Pacini]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by crimsonson:
[B]"Nothing says Super 8 more than K40!"

I both agree and disagree.
Nothing sasy Super 8 more than K40 OVEREXPOSED or AT EXPOSURE, like I've said before, because it gets that cheesy highlights blown out, and not good saturation, unless you underexpose it, which if I remember, crimsonson was one of those disagreeing with me on that point.

What REALLY screams Super 8, is tons of grain, which all the other stocks have, and which is much more obvious than whatever look K40 has.

Matt Pacini

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

[crimsonson]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by crimsonson:
"Nothing says Super 8 more than K40!"

I both agree and disagree.
Nothing sasy Super 8 more than K40 OVEREXPOSED or AT EXPOSURE, like I've said before, because it gets that cheesy highlights blown out, and not good saturation, unless you underexpose it, which if I remember, crimsonson was one of those disagreeing with me on that point.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Matt:
Overexpose, at exposure or underexpose, my humble opinion of K40 as a stock for traditional narative is not favorable because it reminds of Turner Colorized Classic, which if I am not mistaken has some parallels - B&W stock with color added. K40 in development, Turner in post.

It is an aethetic decision, thus, the final judgement will fall on the director/DP/producer of a particular project...

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

[MovieStuff]

Well, we've finally hit on something that I have said all along regarding super 8 and its proponents that like to point out how many Hollywood movies and music videos use super 8 as a measure of its over all acceptance by the professional world. Pro 8mm likes to point this out every chance they can. They have an entire webpage devoted to it. However, what they DON'T point out is that Hollywood DPs didn't choose super 8 because it looked like 35mm and would cut seemlessly into the rest of their production. They chose Super 8 because it LOOKED like Super 8.

Super 8 can look terrific on video, but it does take a lot of work. Right now, I would say that K40 is about the only stock that doesn't jump off the screen screaming,"This was shot in Super 8!". Even then, the best that k40 is going to do is look like a 16mm print, which isn't bad, but K40 will never look like 16mm neg Ranked to video, in my opinion.

Roger

[Frameline]

Gentlemen,Gentlemen Please!
Over here in the UK we were informed in no uncertain terms that K40 is a dead or dying film emulsion and that no one wants it these days beacause of the video onslaught.
Now when was this statement made? Oh! yes,I remember it now,it was 1983..............
Must go and by some more K40,my stock is getting low.Still,brand new freshj stock is readily available.
Barry,an ageing Super-eighter.

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

[Matt Pacini]

Barry,an ageing Super-eighter, that's been my point all along.

K-40 is available now, and there isn't any reason to think it will not be available in the near future.

All else is rumors with no evidence to back it up, period!

Matt Pacini

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

[Frameline]

Matt: How true.Live and film for today and let tomorrow look after itself.
Barry
U.K.

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

[#Pedro]

I think, in order to compare other film stocks with K40, it is very neccessary to have them first available in S8. It?s hard to estimate the quality difference using the stock in a larger film format or as still reversal prints. The knock-off in S8 is the resolution power and the grain structure, besides the color reproduction and contrast. This points must be tested with running S8 film first!

Another very important point was not mentioned up to now. I mean, you can?t load simply the Kodak plastic cardrige with any other film stock. Remember, that there is no real pressure plate, the film is "floating" in the gate at an average distance to the lens. Other films with other types of layers may result in other running conditions which may affect sharpness and even result in bouncing pictures because the layer affects the transport mechanism of the ancient cameras, that once were designed to run K40 stock.

It?s also significant, that the cardige quality in the last two years got worse. I never had had jamming cardriges in former times or bouncing pictures. But in the last two years, it happened several times.
Up to now, I did not send back such a cardrige to Kodak, but I promise I will do so the next time!

Pedro

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