Film stock

[Paranoid]

Just a quick question. What is the difference between Ektachrome and Kodachrome? and which one is better?

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

[#Pedro]

Kodachrome is FAR better. It?s a silver-based stock with a special development process, nearly not available in other labs than Kodak. The colors are only added during developing. It has a micro fine grain, a high color sturation and contrast. Very sharp results, realistic skin reproduction. Weak green reproduction. Low speed, only 40 ASA tungsten or 25 ASA with conversion filter for daylight. K40 original comes very close to a the quality of a 16 mm copy.

Ektachrome VNF is a mid speed film of 125 ASA. The contrast is VERY flat too allow easy video transfer, the color of the layer is not neutral black as K40, its kinda blueish/greenish. Daylight shots look like crowded, due to the low contrast. Significant grain. Scenes look out of focus.

Its good for all kind of shots at night, where lights appear in the szene. Only then the result is acceptable.

The discontinued Ektachrome 160 was MUCH better.

Pedro

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

[Nigel]

I will agree overall with what Pedro said. However--Shoot a roll of each on the same subject. See which one you like more. I did not like the 7240 until I filtered it using an 85B filter outside. Good Luck

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

[Matt Pacini]

The old farts on this board have heard me rant and rave on this too much, probably, so I'll keep it short.

I shot over 250 rolls of Super 8 for my feature, Lost Tribes, about half Kodachrome, and half Ektachrome.
(Made the mistake of not thinking the lower light scenes would work on K-40).

Anyway, I will never, ever shoot Ektachrome again. It is nowhere even close to being as nice as Kodachrome. Some like it's look, but it is grainy beyond belief in Super 8, and has muddy, weird looking skintones, and the grain is SO bad, it looks like you have a glas cage with a million gnats flying around, attached to the front of your camera!
And to top it off, it's about 30% MORE EXPENSIVE than K-40!!!!!
You can't tell a big difference in a littel 4 inch viewer screen, but once you see it transferred to video, or (god forbid) projected, you will feel this sick feeling in your stomach, that you ruined a scene by shooting on this excrement of a film stock.
(Did I make my point ya think?)

Matt Pacini

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

[Mr Blackstock]

I spoke with a guy at vanbar in melbourne the other day about the differences, he suggested the kodachrome was a "sixties" type look, whereas the ektachrome was better?

Although i use tri-x, judging from the responses i might avoid ecktachrome.

Plus-x would be hard for me to get, how is it different from tri-x? Would it be better for low light shooting than tri-x?

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

[marjan]

It was interesting to read your comments. I have a question now:

can you scann some frames from your movies and show us examples? I would be very much interested to see it. Does any page with scanned frames already exist?




------------------
yours,
marjan

[Picture House Films]

I think most super8 users, myself included, will tell you that good old K40 is best, but from a production perspective it's up to you to decide whats best for your work. From the start you should consider how you want your Cecil B deMill-shaming epic to appear on the screen. Is it to be standard widescreen or Cinemascope, is it to be high resolution or low? Cover these aspects in your pre-production stages before filming begins. It will save you time, money and head pain. However also cosider buying a roll of each type of super (and single) 8mm and use each one filming test shots in the kind of locations and conditions you prefer. It feels like a waste of precious stock but becomes a handy reference for advance planning later on. Give it a go!


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

[Matt Pacini]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by marjan:
"can you scann some frames from your movies and show us examples? I would be very much interested to see it. Does any page with scanned frames already exist?"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm having trouble with my web hosting, so I can't post a URL to view frames from my film, but anyone who emails me, I'd be happy to email you some Kodachrome frames to show you how nice it looks.

Matt Pacini
[email protected]

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

[#Pedro]

recently I shoot a roll of VNF at our Munich christmass marked in the historic city in the evening. I got the roll as a present from my film supplyer. This time, using the ultra-contrasty Angenieux lens and ONLY filming night szenes with tungten (gas lamps, halogen lamps etc), the results came out GREAT and ATHMOSPHERIC. But BEWARE from daylight shots. With this stock, the input image must be VERY sharp and contrasty to compensate the weak output. The last time I used it with the Schneider lens, but with the Angenieux lens, the result is dimensions better, I can?t believe it. And I have the courage to PROJECT it...
Resume: it?s a very special stock for very special using conditions, NO UNIVERSAL STOCK.
Pedro

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

[marjan]

Hi Matt,

I would be interested to see frames of Ecktachrome more than Kodakchrome that I already use...

If you have those too, you can send me on [email protected]


thanks in advance :-)

------------------
yours,
marjan