Nothing more needs to be said.....

[MovieStuff]

Previously, Alex wrote:

"About the 35mm kodachrome 40. I spoke with the Assistant Director of the Beer Commercials, he told me it was a special run of Kodachrome 40 film that Kodak did because the commercial house that requested it had pull and did a lot of film work."

Now he writes:

"Then an AD who at that time worked on at least some of the Coors commercials tells me they used either 35mm or 16mm Kodachrome for the product shots only...."

What utter nonsense. There would be no need for a "special run" unless it was for 35mm since 16mm Kodachrome has been available forever. This and the fact that Kodak has no records of producing K40 with 35mm motion picture perfs throws serious doubt on your claim. Furthermore, the fact that you now change your story from "a special run of K40 in 35mm" to "either 16mm OR 35mm" only reveals your crabbing on the "facts" of this story.

Further, you wrote:

"All I can do is tell what I observed, and what I vividly remember the AD (assistant director) telling me."

But you didn't observe them shooting 35mm Kodachrome, did you? So, in fact, there were no "observations" related to this discussion at all.

Continuing you wrote:

"Kodak switched about a year and a half ago to a very contrasty print stock because it looked "richer" and had truer blacks. In the process, they fucked over every DP who was shooting a film at that time and was lighting to the strengths of the film stock they were using, unaware that the new and "improved" print stock would not be compatible."

Again, nothing but fantasy. Emmulsions are improved all the time and Kodak doesn't "surprise" the professional motion picture industry with a radical change in their product line without notice. Even if they did, there would be plenty of surplus stock to accomodate the needs of any production. The only DP that would get "fucked" would be the lazy bastard that didn't stay up to date on ASC releases and standards. Even then, as I said, there would be enough stock to serve his needs. Hell, you can STILL buy S8 sound film in some places and that hasn't been made in quite a while. Beyond the fact that your statement simply isn't true, I don't begin to see what relevance it has to the discussion at hand.

Finally, you wrote:

"So now you are equating Kodachrome with second generation negative stock...I suppose a second generation Pro-8mm film stock printed to another film stock would look equal to first generation Super-8mm Kodachrome 40...lets ask Matt what he thinks about that one."

What crap. What I clearly said is that for 35mm film television production (not super 8), a print pulled from a negative and transferred to video will look like reversal (which K40 is). This is not my opinion. This is a fact and is supported by the fact that Kodak makes a special low contrast printing stock especially for Rank transfers. If the normal projection stock didn't have the higher contrast, there wouldn't be any need for the low con stock, which was/is used when optical effects and/or AB rolls were evident. Therefore, IF someone in the 80's needed the "reversal look" in 35mm, all they had to do (and they, in fact, did) was to pull a normal projection print from their negative and transfer that on the Rank. There would be absolutely no need to shoot K40 and risk the potential complications.

I don't know where you come up with these stories, Alex, but for a guy with "20 years experience" you sure seem blissfully unaware of printing and transfer standards and practices.

Oh yeah, you also wrote:

"Your technical explanations for Kodachrome 40 may sound technically correct...but I don't think they pan out artistically speaking."

I would comment but, frankly, I haven't got a clue what you even mean.

By the way, lest we forget, did you or did you not say I hated Super 8? Maybe I missed it in your latest Magne Carte, but I don't think we've seen an answer to that question, yet. We certainly wouldn't want the conversation to veer off into another topic, now would we, Alex?

Roger

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

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited August 18, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited August 18, 2001).]

[Alex]

Simply because I share an experience I have had does not make me a liar.

LIAR! (what Roger is thinking as he reads the first sentence I wrote above)

I doubt Kodak has any motivation to admit they made 35mm Kodachrome 40 even if they had documentation.

-Alex



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


[This message has been edited by Alex (edited August 18, 2001).]

[cameraguy]

Yo, You guys both have valid email adresses right? Please use them for the endless arguing cause at this point I don't think anybody gives a rats ass who is right/wrong/liar/backstabber anymore

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

[Matt Pacini]

And the winner is...... Moviestuff!

I have to agree with Roger, shooting Super 8 is a freakin' nightmare at times. You really have no leeway, you need to be really careful and have everything dead on.
In 35mm (and to a lesser extent, 16mm) you have much more margin for error. You can push a stop, or two, without making the footage look like a grainy mass of shit, for instance.
I dream of when I can shoot in 35mm, or even Super 16.
I love Super 8, simply because I can't afford to shoot any other film format, and it allows me to make films that look like movies, not like crappy video projects.
I also love having lightweight equipment that I can put anywhere I want instantly, or sneak into a prime location unnoticed.
I love being able to buy a killer, first rate camera for $300-$700.
But I don't love having to lug 10K+ worth of lights around to get F2.8 exposure, noisy cameras, praying that the camera doesn't break, because the damn things are not made anymore, and if it's even fixable, I have to FedEx it to some place far away, and wait weeks to get it fixed.
I also don't love the lack of respect I get from potential distributors who reject my work outright, because they equate it with home movies (those who are not enlightened, anyway, which is almost all of them).
And I don't like grain the size of hubcaps on screen, unless I shoot with Kodachrome 40, which means lots of light, and limiting me to a certain look.

Those who unconditionally love Super 8, and would shoot it even if they could afford 16mm, S16 or 35mm, are either insane, or using this as a way to be a non-conformist, because if you had much experience with Super 8, and were trying to really push the envelope and make it look great, you would have the disappointments that guys like Me & Roger have had.
It's an awesome format, because it's cheap, and it's lightweight.
Other than that, I would rather shoot in larger format, any day, and I hope that day comes soon!
Having said that though, I must admit, there is something that is inherently fun and exciting about Super 8. I do enjoy it, even though it's frustrating at times, and having had some occasionally really depressingly bad results, from mistakes that would be tiny little problems in 16mm or 35mm, it makes me one nervous filmmaker!

Matt Pacini

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

[MovieStuff]

Oh, come on Alex. It's never "enuff said" with you.

Roger

[Matt Pacini]

Well Alex, perhaps you are still in the learning only stage, I have long since left behind the notion that I'm just doing this to be learning.
Obviously, I learn every time I do anything, but at this point I'm trying to make as good of quality art as I can possibly sqeeze out of the format I have chosen to use, which is exactly what those in the industry are doing with 35mm also.
I am not in any way being "uppity towards the format" by stating it's shortcomings. Those who ignore the shortcomings are destined to run into them head on, and will be surprised after reading some of the BS spouted by "experts" on this board and others.
There are many things that require the utmost in care and attention to detail while shooting in S8, and I feel bad for some of the newer shooters on this board, because they are being told, basically: "hey, just go out and shoot something. Super 8 is wonderful, it will look great, especially if you use Pro8".
Then they get their film back, and it looks like shit, which totally negates their storytelling.
My 2 cents (er... shillings?)
Matt Pacini


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

[MovieStuff]

Bravo, Matt.

At last, the truth from a fellow traveler who done been 'der.

I admire ANYONE that can shoot something in super 8 and do a good job. Like creating a frescoe, brain surgery or painting on the head of a needle, mistakes in Super 8 are magnified. This is not a slam against the medium. It is simply the truth and, as Matt has implied, woe to the traveler that doesn't heed the warning signs.

Does that mean people shouldn't shoot super 8? Of course not. It's the cheapest thing going that still looks like film. But the real benefit from shooting super 8, in my opinion, is that it forces the user to be careful and get organized; habits that hurt no one and only benefit those that move on to other, more expensive mediums.

Having browsed trough the archives of this forum, I have read a LOT of technical BS that, if believed by the average reader, would have the potential super 8 user think that camera or film technology is going to save their sorry asses once they get on location. It don't work that way and anyone that promotes a "magic bullet" is up to their ears in snake oil; beware. There are posers in every industry.

Film making is hard work. There is nothing convenient about it, no matter what format a person shoots in, IF you are trying to produce quality results. Super 8 may be based on amateur products, but that doesn't mean the resulting product has to be amateur in nature. Likewise, it doesn't pay to think like an amateur, either. This forum is full of a lot of good information as well as some BS. If you're serious about film, do your own research and don't listen to anyone.
Including me.

Roger "I hate Super 8" Evans

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited August 19, 2001).]

[jocko]

Hey Matt,
I've used Pro8 and it doesn't look like shit..are all the stocks as tight grained as K-40?..No..but the 50D gives it a run for it's money..and the vision 200T is also right there..listen..I don't love super-8 sound..for a few dollars more I shoot 16mm..but on some of my shoots..I like the freedom of a little S8 camera..and I like negative stocks..so until kodak makes avalible other super-8 neg stocks..I do business with the devil..yes super8 sound does make it sound like you just grab a canon514 and shoot neg stocks..and it will come out like 35mm..but like anything else in this business it's buyer beware..I'm sure people gave you bogus info when you started filming your feature..and you learned what worked and what didn't as you went along..you can bad mouth super8 sound till the cows come home..but to make a broad statement that Pro8 stocks look like shit..is wrong..and then in another message say buy neg stock from kodak..as if kodaks 200T is going to be better than Pro8 200T..I know you don't like Super-8 sound..and I finally got a taste of the bad service you and other's have talked about(on a transfer)..so I take my business to someone else(the transfer station).lately I've been shooting 16mm ( my Nizo 6080 took a shit..aperture motor belt slipping)
so S8 has to wait..who knows maybe I'll never go back ..unless kodak makes Ektachrome 100D in super-8..yummy

Neil
JOCKO FILMS

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

[MovieStuff]

Hah! I thought I was the only one that liked the look of Ektachrome. Welcome to the 'hood, bro!

Roger "I like Ektachrome" Evans

[Alex]

It's amazing seeing you get it and not get it at the same time.

The more you want to be an artisian making money and doing amazing work, of course you want to work in 35mm.

duh!

The more you want tools to try and learn from and experiment with, the more valuable super-8 is.

No need to compare.

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

and the losers are....

anyone who used the experience of Super-8 to advance their career and learning, then show disdain and uppityness toward the format afterwards.

enuff said.

-Alex

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


[This message has been edited by Alex (edited August 19, 2001).]