Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Ektachrome - is it really that bad?

  1. #1
    Inactive Member sharonhardy's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 17th, 2002
    Posts
    23
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    Hello...I have an Ektachrome question, as I haven't shot with many Super 8 film stocks.

    A while back, I used my regular 8mm camera and shot some stuff with 125 ASA color film. I am trying to get a similar look using Super 8. Basically, it was pretty grainy, the colors were a bit exaggerated, and it looked kind of like a 50s home movie.

    I've heard that Kodachrome has very fine grain, and I'm worried that it may be too fine for my purposes. But I've also not heard many good things about Ektachrome. Does anyone know if I could get this similar 50s home movie look with Ektachrome? Thanks!

  2. #2
    Inactive Member c_77's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 20th, 2001
    Posts
    200
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    The colors on Ektachrome aren't exaggerated. It is more of a documentary filmstock. I haven't experimented with many stocks either, but if anything gives you exagerated colors that would be Kodachrome. I found that all of the home movies my grandma made from the 60's were on Kodachrome. She used it indoors and outdoors, even without extra lights. I assume it was a more common film.

    I've used the old Ektachrome 160G and it is very grainey, and the colors seemed quite muted. The newer Ektachrome is a very different filmstock. It is still far grainier than Kodachrome but not to the point of distraction like the older stuff.

    I think you were using Ektachrome before because I don't think Kodachrome is anywhere near that fast. I would try experimenting with Ektachrome VNF 7240.

  3. #3
    Inactive Member Matt Pacini's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 27th, 2001
    Posts
    567
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    I've used both the Ektachrome 160 & the neew 120.
    The 120 is better, but still looks pretty crappy.
    "the home movie look" can be described many ways, and is quite subjective.
    Yes, lots of home movies were shot with Kodachrome, but I'd also like to mention that Kodachrome 40 isn't the only Kodachrome there has been; there were other types before K40 came out for S8, and many "home movies" were shot with regular 8, not Super 8.
    So "home movie look" can be defined by being grainy, for instance, and/or being shaky hand-held shooting (which is one reason I hate shaky footage).
    I like the look of K40.
    I hate the look of Ektachrome.
    I don't thin ANY film stock in Super 8 can be defined as not being grainy, although the K40 comes close.
    I'd say get a roll of each, shoot under different lighting situations, get them processed and look at them, but if you're going after accurate skin tones, forget the Ektachrome, because it tends to shift towards blue a bit, and it just renders skintones horribly, for some reason.

    Matt Pacini

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •