Rally for ECO super 8 and mag-prints?

[MovieStuff]

It seems to me that most everyone that shoots super 8 would like to do one or all of the following:

A) Transfer to video without contrast issues

B) Be able to project their final product

C) Have a sound striped print

D) Edit their original physically, if need be

E) Shoot on striped film

Now at one time, thousands of years ago, there was a 16mm film stock called 'ECO'. It was an Ektachrome stock with an ASA of about 8 or something rediculous. However, the film had SUPER fine grain, almost on par with K40. Most importantly, if was flat as a pancake. In fact, when you projected the original, it looked just awful; all muted and bland.

-BUT-

There was a matching print stock that made it look just wonderful when printed! Also, the flat nature of ECO made video transfers a breeze.

I would think ECO in super 8 sound cartridges and the associated print stock with mag stripe would be a wonderful thing for super 8. It would solve a multitude of problems, environmentally, since it is an Ektachrome process and not a dye-transfer process like K40. People could see positive images when editing and still get the lower contrast normally associated with negative, but with finer grain. The ability to have striped prints would also be fabulous and would breath new life into super 8 festivals.

It seems to me that with all the advances in emmulsions and grain, that Kodak could release a new, striped ECO for super 8 that would be a bit faster and still have the terrific grain characteristics of the original ECO.

I think I'll give the Great Yellow Father a call. Doubt it will do any good, but I'm gonna give it a try.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

Well, I put in my call today and was told someone would call me back on Monday. Again, I may be whistling Dixie, here, but I'm going to give it a try anyway.



------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[MikeBrantley]

So this stock would be great as an aquisition medium on the way to prints or video transfers, right? That sounds like a great addition to Kodachrome, but for my purposes (where I simply want to project my camera originals) it would be a poor substitute.

Also, if Kodak can pre-stripe such a stock, why can the company not offer pre-striped Kodachrome, Ektachrome and the black-and-white stocks? I'd love to have pre-striped B&W, and I would not have sold my Canon 514XL-S sound camera if such a thing existed. My understanding is that Kodak dumped pre-striped product because of environmental concerns and a market too small to warrant the investment necessary to overcome those concerns. Would that be different with pre-striped ECO?

I'm all for new stocks, but I'm crossing my fingers that K40 will be around for a long, long time. Maybe the odds are stacking up against it, but that's my sincere hope.

------------------
--Mike Brantley

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeBrantley:
So this stock would be great as an aquisition medium on the way to prints or video transfers, right? That sounds like a great addition to Kodachrome, but for my purposes (where I simply want to project my camera originals) it would be a poor substitute.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, it would not look very good as a projected original. It would be best for printing, blowing up to 16mm or transferring to video. When ECO was around, there really was no such thing as a Rank like we know it today. Everything was film chain, so this stuff was REALLY flat to deal with those old tube cameras.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeBrantley:

Also, if Kodak can pre-stripe such a stock, why can the company not offer pre-striped Kodachrome, Ektachrome and the black-and-white stocks?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No reason that they can't. They just don't see the market potential, I guess. Their reasoning might be that silent cartridges will work in all cameras while sound cartriges might not make up a big enough market to be worthwhile. Hell, I'd be happy if they even put striped film in silent cartridges! But the sound ones would really be handy again.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeBrantley:

My understanding is that Kodak dumped pre-striped product because of environmental concerns and a market too small to warrant the investment necessary to overcome those concerns. Would that be different with pre-striped ECO?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I've never heard that there was any environmental issues related to sound striping. The only issue I've heard is on two fronts: A)the processing of Kodachrome and B) the base they use for their film stocks is not as "environmentally friendly" when it's burned or disposed of. Relating to "B", I understand that Kodak is eventually going to polyester based stocks, like Fuji. Bye, bye cement splicers!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeBrantley:

I'm all for new stocks, but I'm crossing my fingers that K40 will be around for a long, long time. Maybe the odds are stacking up against it, but that's my sincere hope.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's to hoping! Honestly, I think the writing is on the wall for Kodachrome and I think that something like striped ECO could really be the shot in the arm that super 8 needs. Now, the thing is that they can't really prestripe the print stock. It has to be striped after the fact. Kodak used to cut two grooves in the emmulsion where the stripe would go. I always found their sound striped prints terrific and really miss it. Anyway, we'll see what they say on Monday. (Hah!)


------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[Matt Pacini]

Roger, sounds interesting, except for one major thing: ASA-8?????????????
My God, I'm suffering now, trying to shoot on ASA-40, I would just give up if I had to light for ASA-8.
Impossible! (unless you shoot everything in direct sunlight, with reflectors.

Matt Pacini

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

[MovieStuff]

Well, as I mentioned before, my hope is that current film technology would let Kodak make it faster, like around ASA 40, but without increasing the grain.

Back in the 70's if you wanted fast film, then the grain was HUGE. I've got some old 400 ASA negatives that I shot back then and it looks like ASA 1000 pushed three stops. Grain city, just terrible. Now you can shoot with ASA 400 negative and your prints are sharp as a tack. So, maybe this new fine grain technology can be used on the ECO to keep the grain typical of Ektachrome under control and still get a higher ASA rating.

Now, as far as ASA 8 goes, I never really found it that bothersome, if one understands depth of field. One of the biggest problems, asthetically, for super 8 is that it has too MUCH depth of field. How many times have you gone for a telephoto shot to isolate your actor and found that the background was still in focus? And if you are lighting indoors with a handful of Lowel 1Ks, you'll have more than enough light for ASA 8. Granted, if you are lighting a large area, then ASA 8 can be an issue. However, ASA 40 isn't generally going to solve your problem, either. We're only talking about less than 2.5 stops, so you'll need a bunch of light for a larger area regardless of whether you're shooting ASA 8 or ASA 40.

Still, any little bit helps. I know I would rather shoot ASA 40 than ASA 8, even if the difference is only mental in nature! So maybe Kodak could up the ASA on ECO and still keep it sharp.

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[Matt Pacini]

Roger, aren't all the advances made in the last couple decades + in negative film?
So wouldn't it be a stretch to think that Kodak could improve upon reversal technology?
Especially since it would not match Kodachrome as we all know, no matter what they did.
Plus, I know about all the enrironmental concerns, etc., but it appears that Kodak has figured out a workaround to this problem, don't you think?
I mean, we're all able to buy Kodachrome, and I would think as long as we do, they will keep selling it, right?

Thsi could be a case of self-fulfilling prophecy:
We all think they're on the brink of discontinuing K-40, so we get paranoid and start shooting other stocks, which in turn makes K-40 sales drop, which causes Kodak to discontinue it!
Then all you K-40 naysayers will say, "see, we told ya so!".
My scheptisism is based on me having heard all this stuff for 20+ years.
Remember, logically, nobody 20 years ago, and I mean nobody, would have thought that people would still be shooting Super 8 in 2001.


Matt Pacini

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

[Matt Pacini]

P.S. Roger, I agree with what you're saying about Super 8 and seemingly infinite depth of field.
I tried to get limited depth of field whenever I could, to give it that "35mm look".
If you'll notice in the images of mine posted to your Workprinter website, all the backgrounds are soft, except the one in China, which I didn't shoot (unfortunately), and the full shot of the pond which obviously needs to be in focus.
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/printer_images2.html

Of course, these were pretty low light levels too, so that's one of the overlooked beauties of shooting Kodachrome, and that is that is will still render details in the shadows and not get any grainier at low light levels, even right around F1.4-F2.
Love that K-40!!!!
If they ever discontinue it, that's the end of S8 shooting for me, because I hate the grainy look.

Matt Pacini



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

[Balsa Bill]

I used to shoot 16mm ECO years ago (1969-70).
It had an ASA of 40 Tungsten and 25 Daylight with an 85 filter. As I remember it was muddy when projected but the work prints looked great.

I saw something about an ASA 8 Ektachrome available in Double Super 8. It's actually a low contrast stock used for making prints from Kodachrome. It was on somebody's website. Don't remember who.

------------------
Balsa Bill

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Balsa Bill:
I used to shoot 16mm ECO years ago (1969-70).
It had an ASA of 40 Tungsten and 25 Daylight with an 85 filter. As I remember it was muddy when projected but the work prints looked great.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi, Bill!

Are you sure about the ASA of ECO? I could be wrong but I thought that one of the old VNF's was about ASA40 and the ECO was slower, like around 8.

I know the place I worked for shot SOMEthing that was ASA 8 on 16mm. I could have sworn it was ECO. Am I totally off base here? I mean, it would be great, if I was. Having some low con positive material at ASA 40 to replace Kodachrome would be terrific, especially with today's grain technology.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html