Jump to content


Photo

unsteady images with 64T


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 A.Oliver

A.Oliver
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 348 posts
  • Other
  • Croydon UK

Posted 04 January 2006 - 03:53 PM

Hi, first roll of the new 64t back today, amazing service by Dwanes and the UK/US mail. This is the first and probably last roll i will ever shoot of this dreadfull filmstock. Bitterly disappointed with the results, i though i was watching agfa moviechrome 160 stock not a kodak stock. I exposed 20ft thru the 814xls and 30ft thru the leicina special, all footage was exposed on two seperate sunny days. Here are a my gripes, the projected image is not steady, there is a lot of weaving, excess grain and the overall image lacks the sharpness of k40. I cannot believe in the year 2006, kodak can produce such a poor filmstock. There must be a 100asa E6 film that offers less grain and higher resolving power than the 64t stock. Anyone exposed the new 64t stock??? How was image quality and steadiness?? Come on kodak, give us a better super 8 reversal, anyone just getting into super 8 and seeing the 64t results will turn there backs on the format straight away. Just think images filmed in 1965 on kodachrome will be sharper, less grainy and steadier than what we can achieve today with a so called replacement filmstock.
  • 0

#2 zrszach

zrszach
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Student
  • Olathe, Kansas

Posted 04 January 2006 - 04:44 PM

Hi, first roll of the new 64t back today, amazing service by Dwanes and the UK/US mail. This is the first and probably last roll i will ever shoot of this dreadfull filmstock. Bitterly disappointed with the results, i though i was watching agfa moviechrome 160 stock not a kodak stock. I exposed 20ft thru the 814xls and 30ft thru the leicina special, all footage was exposed on two seperate sunny days. Here are a my gripes, the projected image is not steady, there is a lot of weaving, excess grain and the overall image lacks the sharpness of k40. I cannot believe in the year 2006, kodak can produce such a poor filmstock. There must be a 100asa E6 film that offers less grain and higher resolving power than the 64t stock. Anyone exposed the new 64t stock??? How was image quality and steadiness?? Come on kodak, give us a better super 8 reversal, anyone just getting into super 8 and seeing the 64t results will turn there backs on the format straight away. Just think images filmed in 1965 on kodachrome will be sharper, less grainy and steadier than what we can achieve today with a so called replacement filmstock.


Hmm... well, I actually just ordered 2 cartridges of 7280 from film emporium for testing purposes. Only because I first ordered K40 but received an email telling me that they had none left. Hopefully it will turn out fine. Is that the Dwayne's lab in Parsons Ks.? That's where I was planning on sending my film.

Wouldn't the stability issues be a camera problem? The film shouldn't have anything to do with the projected image stability.

http://k14movies.com/

Edited by zrszach, 04 January 2006 - 04:47 PM.

  • 0

#3 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 04 January 2006 - 04:54 PM

Hi, first roll of the new 64t back today, amazing service by Dwanes and the UK/US mail. This is the first and probably last roll i will ever shoot of this dreadfull filmstock. Bitterly disappointed with the results, i though i was watching agfa moviechrome 160 stock not a kodak stock. I exposed 20ft thru the 814xls and 30ft thru the leicina special, all footage was exposed on two seperate sunny days. Here are a my gripes, the projected image is not steady, there is a lot of weaving, excess grain and the overall image lacks the sharpness of k40. I cannot believe in the year 2006, kodak can produce such a poor filmstock. There must be a 100asa E6 film that offers less grain and higher resolving power than the 64t stock. Anyone exposed the new 64t stock??? How was image quality and steadiness?? Come on kodak, give us a better super 8 reversal, anyone just getting into super 8 and seeing the 64t results will turn there backs on the format straight away. Just think images filmed in 1965 on kodachrome will be sharper, less grainy and steadier than what we can achieve today with a so called replacement filmstock.


I'm sorry you are so disappointed. Yet many are finding very good results with E-64T. Yes, it has a bit more grain than K-40. But exposed properly, the colors are generally more natural than K-40. Sharpness is usually perceived as equivalent. Many really like the wider availability of E-6 processing, and can now even process it at home.
  • 0

#4 A.Oliver

A.Oliver
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 348 posts
  • Other
  • Croydon UK

Posted 04 January 2006 - 05:01 PM

Hmm... well, I actually just ordered 2 cartridges of 7280 from film emporium for testing purposes. Only because I first ordered K40 but received an email telling me that they had none left. Hopefully it will turn out fine. Is that the Dwayne's lab in Parsons Ks.? That's where I was planning on sending my film.

Wouldn't the stability issues be a camera problem? The film shouldn't have anything to do with the projected image stability.

http://k14movies.com/

Hi, yes it was Dwaynes lab, absolute first class service from them. Cameras are in perfecting running order, k40 exposed thru both cameras are extremly stable, no camera fault. 64T filmstock fault.
Andy
  • 0

#5 zrszach

zrszach
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Student
  • Olathe, Kansas

Posted 04 January 2006 - 05:40 PM

Hi, yes it was Dwaynes lab, absolute first class service from them. Cameras are in perfecting running order, k40 exposed thru both cameras are extremly stable, no camera fault. 64T filmstock fault.
Andy


So how would the stock create an unsteady image? :blink: makes no sense to me... You said that you have only got 1 roll back. How could you draw conclusive results from that? And if the cameras are in good working order, It sounds like that 1 cartridge may have been at fault. not the film inside.

Edited by zrszach, 04 January 2006 - 05:41 PM.

  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19761 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 January 2006 - 06:21 PM

So how would the stock create an unsteady image?


The stock itself couldn't -- but the slitting of the film, perfing, and manufacturing of the Super-8 cassette can have an effect, although that could happen to any stock, K40 included.
  • 0

#7 A.Oliver

A.Oliver
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 348 posts
  • Other
  • Croydon UK

Posted 04 January 2006 - 06:24 PM

So how would the stock create an unsteady image? :blink: makes no sense to me... You said that you have only got 1 roll back. How could you draw conclusive results from that? And if the cameras are in good working order, It sounds like that 1 cartridge may have been at fault. not the film inside.

Hi, sideways weave, would that be a cartridge fault????? could be, or is the new filmstock thicker than k40 and not as durable. I did read a test report which also mentions unsteady images. The unsteady images could be a duff cartridge, however the fact the images are grainy and not as sharp as k40 leads me to one conclusion, its a poor replacement stock for k40. Anybody out there with 64t wobbly images??????????? Why should us super 8 users have to settle for such a poor replacement filmstock.
BTW, also duplicated my test shots carried out on the 814xls with a bolex ds-8 with k25. Bolex results are stunning, which leads me to one conclusion, 64t is soft and grainy. I may be able to transfer the results in around 6 weeks time to mini dv via a rank mk3. Then i can try and post some frame grabs, of both stocks or put them onto a tape if anyone would like to see the difference in quality.

Edited by k25rip, 04 January 2006 - 06:30 PM.

  • 0

#8 S8 Booster

S8 Booster
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 132 posts
  • Other
  • retired

Posted 04 January 2006 - 06:34 PM

quite a bit on 64t on filmshooting.com search thr archives.
k40/64 compare: (1 sample)
K40 verses 64T footage (142 MB as full rez mpeg)

s/hoot

Edited by S8 Booster, 04 January 2006 - 06:36 PM.

  • 0

#9 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19761 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 January 2006 - 06:42 PM

Looking at the frame comparisons, ignoring the improper filtration of the E64T, I'd say that actual resolution was similar (look at fine details in the background like street sign words, the grill on the motorcycle) but the blacker blacks and higher contrast of K40, plus the slightly finer-grain, make the image look sharper.

But I have to admit that my overall impression is that I prefer the look of the K40 all-around. The only thing that is better about the E64T is the shadow detail.
  • 0

#10 zrszach

zrszach
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Student
  • Olathe, Kansas

Posted 04 January 2006 - 06:52 PM

Hi, sideways weave, would that be a cartridge fault????? could be, or is the new filmstock thicker than k40 and not as durable. I did read a test report which also mentions unsteady images. The unsteady images could be a duff cartridge, however the fact the images are grainy and not as sharp as k40 leads me to one conclusion, its a poor replacement stock for k40. Anybody out there with 64t wobbly images??????????? Why should us super 8 users have to settle for such a poor replacement filmstock.
BTW, also duplicated my test shots carried out on the 814xls with a bolex ds-8 with k25. Bolex results are stunning, which leads me to one conclusion, 64t is soft and grainy. I may be able to transfer the results in around 6 weeks time to mini dv via a rank mk3. Then i can try and post some frame grabs, of both stocks or put them onto a tape if anyone would like to see the difference in quality.


Well, I?m just using the E-64T for some camera tests. Mostly because I can get it processed for $9 a roll. :D
If I get wobbly images, you will be the first person I tell.
  • 0

#11 S8 Booster

S8 Booster
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 132 posts
  • Other
  • retired

Posted 04 January 2006 - 07:09 PM

some reprots very steady images and some the contrary but no one seem to define if there were pre-production or production carts.

s/hoot
  • 0

#12 A.Oliver

A.Oliver
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 348 posts
  • Other
  • Croydon UK

Posted 05 January 2006 - 12:10 PM

some reprots very steady images and some the contrary but no one seem to define if there were pre-production or production carts.

s/hoot

Hi, my 64t dated from october 05, so i wonder if it was a pre-production cartridge. Anyway, have ordered two more rolls of 64t from kodak plus 16mm k40. If these cartridges have the same problem i will try the Wittner 100D stock.Then perhaps after 21 years of loyalty towards kodak, ( except 1 cartridge of agfa 40 in 1990) i may try the Wittner 50d velvia stock. Anyone tried wittner 100D yet????
  • 0

#13 Erdwolf_TVL

Erdwolf_TVL
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 05 January 2006 - 01:23 PM

I've done one test cartridge and I was happy with the results. Registration was good, the colours were rich and saturated. (I have about 10 64T cartridges that still need to be processed.)

Grain only bothered me against still, uniformly coloured surfaces (the sky, for example.) Against tarmac, grass, concrete and trees the grain is invisible.

The only reason why I would buy 64T again, though, is because of its price. I much prefer the smooth look and versatility of colour negative printed to positive. It only costs three times as much...
  • 0

#14 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 January 2006 - 01:43 PM

Grain only bothered me against still, uniformly coloured surfaces (the sky, for example.) Against tarmac, grass, concrete and trees the grain is invisible.


Get used to that. You can see singing grain in slow-speed 35mm prints in flat, mid-scale area. It's just an artifact from how projecting film works.
  • 0

#15 zrszach

zrszach
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Student
  • Olathe, Kansas

Posted 14 January 2006 - 03:19 PM

I just shot my first cassette of E64t yesterday and everything sounded fine in the camera. It actually sounded great. I love the sound of a camera running through film. Ill try to get some grabs up here asap!
  • 0

#16 A.Oliver

A.Oliver
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 348 posts
  • Other
  • Croydon UK

Posted 14 January 2006 - 05:18 PM

I just shot my first cassette of E64t yesterday and everything sounded fine in the camera. It actually sounded great. I love the sound of a camera running through film. Ill try to get some grabs up here asap!

please keep us updated, will be very interested in your results/gripes/findings.
Andy
  • 0


Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Opal

The Slider

Glidecam

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets