Ektachrome 160 sucks!!!

**c_77** · November 30th, 2002, 10:04 PM

Okay, I heard about this stuff and refused to believe it. Just got some sound rolls processed and the sound is great but the images were bad, real bad. The new stuff, VNF 7240 looks like K40 compared to this junk. Maybe I need to experiment with more lighting but I have my doubts. The color looks worse, and the sharpness, and the grain...Sorry I just needed to bitch!

**Greg Crawford** · November 30th, 2002, 10:41 PM

Save the film for when you want to do some strange experimental stuff.

Light a scene with mercury vapor street lights...shoot in a blinding snowstorm or turn it into Black & White.

Bite the bullet...stop trying to save money get some real film...your worth it!

**c_77** · December 1st, 2002, 12:25 AM

I was expecting it to look okay because it was only 40 asa higher than the VNF, but it was such a dramatic degrade in quality and it wasn't even more light-sensative. I read somewhere that the new Ektachrome VNF wasn't any better but now I totally disagree. These two stocks are a lot different. Even when you look at the unprocessed film the VNF is taupe colored and the 160 is a weird purple. If I could I would shoot Kodachrome but I film mostly in low light, oh well...

**Matt Pacini** · December 1st, 2002, 01:03 AM

I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, this stock sucks big time.
I'm not crazy about the 7240 either.
They both pale in comparison to K-40.
Really, try shooting some low light in K-40.
You will be amazed at how well it turns out.

Matt Pacini

**Regular 8 Freak** · December 1st, 2002, 01:40 PM

sure aint K-40 huh? Matt is right,it's incredible the images you CAN get with standard K40 in low light situations!!!!

**Greg Crawford** · December 1st, 2002, 02:42 PM

Dear c_77,

Please explain what you shoot in low light, maybe we can give you some ideas on how to light it, or know better why you feel K-40 would not work.

**c_77** · December 1st, 2002, 06:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by bossjock-dp:
Dear c_77,

Please explain what you shoot in low light, maybe we can give you some ideas on how to light it, or know better why you feel K-40 would not work.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I film live music; mostly on the spot type of stuff.

That said I have even had bad experience with getting enough light with Ektachrome. The built in light meter in my cameras are pretty unreliable. The most light I've had for filming was a band that used two halogen work lamps, which I wish I had used K40, and the least would either be those typically weak and diffused stage lights (never again), or even a regular lightbulb.

I have found it is a very fine line with reversal film between what amount of light will produce a solid image and what will not. Nevertheless, I think I will at least try out some Kodachrome and see what happens.

Thanks,
Chris

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 01, 2002 04:23 PM: Message edited by: c_77 ]</font>

**imissedthesixties** · December 2nd, 2002, 01:05 AM

Here's the thing...

I'm just about to try out my first roll of Ektachrome (soon as I recieve it) and I'm glad this discussion is going on, however... the new stock is 7240, right? This 160 stock, where is everyone getting it and why does it suck so bad? I would love to keep shooting in kodachrome but the wait time is so ridiculous that I'll accept a slightly blander quality. I've seen results on a friend's feature film and I will admit it looked great indoors in low light but the outdoor stuff will always look better in K-40, just because it creates a more natural exposure.

Unfortunately, I will be shooting these rolls of Ektachrome in NY outdoors, so I hope my colors come out right and not bluish (like some people were saying). Any advice? My camera is not all that, just an 18fps silent Sankyo joke.

did you ever wonder why all the other filmstocks can be processed within a few days by a local lab and yet everyone likes Kodachrome the most and no one has the processing capabilities except two places?? Makes no sense to me, but, whatever..

**c_77** · December 2nd, 2002, 03:19 AM

I got a hold of some Ektachrome sound film. This is the old 160 stuff, process EM-26.
It was cold stored and dated 97/98.

I have been shooting 7240 VNF up till now. It really is an improvement. I only use it cause I have to.
The 7240 has decent sharpness,
good reds, and grain I can live with.
When I expose it properly it never looks bluish!

I think you set the filter switch to sun; activating the 85 filter for outdoors.

As far as processing, Ektachrome is a liability.
Until lately it always takes at least 6-8 weeks from various labs with mixed results.
If you don't film anything controversial try Yale labs. Just don't shoot any
Christina Aguilera videos for them to work on...

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 01, 2002 11:32 PM: Message edited by: c_77 ]</font>