Jump to content


BE SMART ON YOUR 64T DEVELOPMENT (if you care about your money and results)


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 santo

santo
  • Guests

Posted 21 January 2006 - 01:12 PM

So we're back at square one again. People are getting back their 64t replacement for k40 and the reactions are mixed. Some jump for joy as they see that, beyond any shadow of a doubt, this modern film stock is a dramatic improvement over garbage k40. But others don't feel that way. Some who have actually tested a roll -- and there are a pile of idiots on filmshooting/conspiracy/retard/slotcars.com who have not but are all fired up to trash the stock -- are getting substandard images back. Overly grainy, junk all over the frames, a variety of other problems.

I used to use K40 for the only purpose it was good for: testing a camera to make sure it's working properly. It was cheap and easy to get developed. Shooting any other reversal stock required sending it out to a lab to be developed with added expense. Shooting negative in super 8 requires a few hundred bucks in telecine just to look at what you've got. This new super 8 64t promises a much better alternative to K40 (and maybe worthwhile to shoot shorts with, even) and, because in Canada we can drop it off at the local Shopper's Drug Mart just like K40, like the one I use on Yonge and Eglinton here in Toronto. Just tell the person at the counter it's a drop off for Qualex. Unknown to most of them, they have a little sheet in a book beside the cash register with a price list that lists "8mm colour film development $12". With K40 that was "free" of course.

So why the problem? Is 64t a poor replacement for K40? Or, by logical and deductive reasoning can we determine what's at fault here? As is always the case with super 8, logic and deductive reasoning takes a back seat for most shooters who are nostalgia based in their thinking regarding their implimentation af this format. By eliminating this bias and examining the facts, and looking at historical record, we see exactly what the problem is.

Stinky Dwaynes has a horrible history with K40. In fact, it is a matter of record documented extensively on filmshooting/conspiracy/retard/slotcars.com that they were so bad with their K40 development that Kodak had no choice but to reroute all their US K40 to Switzerland toward the end of k40's run! Incredible. The difference, as I experienced and documented myself along with others, was amazing. K40 isn't worth a crap as a filmstock, but there is no reason it had to be plagued by blue flashes and blue streaks and junk/poop all over the frames and month and a half long wait times. But that's what we got until Kodak had no choice thanks to the overwhelming onslaught of complaints -- again documented extensively as a small sample on filmshooting/conspiracy/retard/slotcars.com. The difference from when you got one of those Dwayne's white boxes with the rubber band and a black plastic canister from Switzerland was astonishing. K40 still sucked, but at least it was properly developed and the film was clean and decent in only a couple weeks tunaround.

So why the concern? Isn't it easy to just avoid and send 64t elsewhere? Well, people can drop off or mail their 64t to a bunch of places now, and there is competition for quality lab work. But the problem is this: most people don't realize they are sending their stuff off to go to Stinky Dwaynes. If you drop your film off at Walmart in the States, it goes to Stinky Dwaynes. If you drop your film off at Shoppers in Canada, it goes to Stinky Dwaynes.

Stinky Dwaynes, Santo challenges you to remove stinky from your name. Santo challenges you to improve your services and give those you spent their money and effort on shooting 64t, a very nice super 8 stock which is superior to K40, quality development. We aren't seeing complaints about 64t from your competitors at places like Forde or elsewhere. Yes, you no longer hold exclusive ability in North America at developing the only volume super 8 colour reversal stock. However, you can emerge as the premier developer of the new superior replacement. The ball is in your court, and you can count on Santo knocking it back in there as many times as required until you shape up and win the game, or are knocked out of the tournament.

For reference, here are two threads discussing this issue on filmshooting/conspiracy/retard/slotcars.com:

http://www.filmshoot...ghlight=#118080

http://www.filmshoot...hlight=shoppers

In case those links don't work, go to the main discussion board and find topics: So The E64T Is Perfectly Ok For Projection Then?....... and Canadian 64t e-6 processing drop off- shopper's drug mart
  • 0

#2 A.Oliver

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

Posted 21 January 2006 - 02:13 PM

Hi, well i may have been very mean to kodak, moaning about the 64t. I assumed Dwaynes knew how to process E6 ok. My first efforts with 64t are grainy, with a lot of muck on the film thrown in. Though i cannot blame Dwaynes for the sideways weave and jittery image. Now plan to use a few more 64t and ship to Fordes for processing. Going off topic, still think you're a bit mean regarding k40, its an ok ish stock, i actually prefer k40 in the super 8 format, used a lot of 16mm last year. Then two nites ago i showed some 16mm, 6ft screen, 16mm k40 intercut with k25 'big mistake. The only reason i would like to see 16mm kodachrome 40 to continue for another year is so i can use up my stash of k25.
Anywhere in Europe who can do a quality 64t process?????
  • 0

#3 santo

santo
  • Guests

Posted 21 January 2006 - 02:37 PM

Hey, I'd be pissed too if I got poop results like you did!

Developing. Well, you're up against a lot of stupid people, let's face it. They say one thing and then every example we can see and film mtf charts proves them wrong. Here is an excellent example of this nonsense.

http://www.super8.nl...lish/e_news.htm

Take a look here at what these clowns say about 64t. In any decent example seen on the internet, 64t destroys K40 in shadow detail and latitude and over-all sharpness. So what planet are these guys living on? This is far too typical. To quote directly:

"The biggest and maybe only disadvantage is that the 7280 is less sharp and shows less details. That's in a way very logical because K40 is the absolute king when it comes to this.
The advantages are bigger than you might expect. You can process this film yourself with the E6 process that you can buy everywhere [be carefull with chemical waste]. This does not only save money but also time. The colors are very neutral and 7280 has more details than 7240 which is a large benefit. Keep in mind that the introduction of this new film means we filmmakers can use the super8 format for many more years! [18 September]."


What colour is the sky on their planet? E-6 is very environmentally freindly. Kodak had no choice but to make it so. K40 was problematic. Second, what the f--- are they talking about here?

The idea that k40 is "the king" for detail and sharpness is one of the biggest jokes of all time. Don't these people know anything? K40 was the softest film stock in the world. It had poop for detail. You watch it on a big screen and it's nothing next to anything and it was soft as hell. Shoot a few tree branches in the fall or spring and have a look at how soft and fuzzy those got. It was trash. What it had was over the top contrast. Contrast which fools fools on projection, but destroyed its ability to be telecined properly. I mean, anybody could look at the mtf chart and see that k40 was a complete joke at detail and sharpness next to anything else. Decent lenses and telecine would drive that point home with complete finality.

k25rip, why don't you examine all the resources you have in Europe? I mean you've got a tonne of people in Germany who are serious about super 8 and I would be shocked if you don't have several alternatives to develop 64t there. I am certain there are a few who are top notch. E-6 is well known for its ease of processing, and any quality lab can do a terrific job with it.
  • 0

#4 A.Oliver

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

Posted 21 January 2006 - 02:57 PM

This 64t proceesing will certainly be a learning curve, in Europe we've been spoilt by quality kodak processing. Now its a matter of searching for a decent E6 lab. Once upon a time a photographic magazine here in the uk would carry out an annual report on the quality of E6 processing offered by various processing companies (35mm still E6). Seem to recall the difference in quality and colour saturation was incredible.
Santo, which is the sharper stock 100D or 64T?
Dwaynes 16mm kodachrome processing, is this any good?

Edited by k25rip, 21 January 2006 - 02:58 PM.

  • 0

#5 santo

santo
  • Guests

Posted 21 January 2006 - 03:28 PM

Now that I've damned Dwayne's, I'm going to give them credit. Simply because I have a reputation for telling it like it is no matter if misguided amateurs or professionals or businessmen hate it, reality and truth and accurate predictions of future developments is all you'll find in any post I've ever put on the internet no matter who it pisses off or pleases. Backed up by logical conjecture and examples.

Dwaynes has an very good rep for developing 16mm K40. The problem with their super 8 k40 is, by all accounts, directly related to to their use of their 16mm k40 development machines on the smaller stock. It is a thinner film base, apparently, and that is largely reponsible for the problem. I don't know what their problem is with super 8 64t, except that it exists and is real and shown in many examples and does not exist in other examples not developed there. I would guess that, and this is conjecture and I'll label it as such, that they are not using the "full process" for e-6. It can work "okay" by cutting down a few steps with "acceptable results". You'll have to look at Kodak's e-6 pages for details.

This variation is, I'm pretty sure but can't back up 100%, the reason for this incredible variation in e-6 quality.

I will make a prediction. I predict that, in the super 8 world, that e-6 processing will be advertised by labs in the near future as taking advantage of the "9 step process" (is it a 9 step process? I'd have to look that up) rather than the "6 step process" as a stamp of excellence. I would imagine, without conclusive proof here, I admit, that that is what is happening primarly with these unsatisfactory e-6 developers.

Please, an expert explain the differences between the extended step process and the shorter step process.

I have no doubt that there are other factors involved in inferior super 8 processing, but anything of any significance shows up far stronger in super 8 than it does in any other motion picture format (including telecine quality). There is no hiding in super 8.
  • 0

#6 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 21 January 2006 - 04:43 PM

Dwaynes 16mm kodachrome processing, is this any good?


What I've seen is pretty good. I haven't shot any 16mm Kodachrome myself in a long time, except one test a couple years ago, which I sent to Dwayne's. It was OK but I decided I'd use 7245 for the project (I ended up mixing 7245 and 7274) for various reasons.

I'm not "going there" with other Kodachrome comments. Like any other photographic material, it takes some skill to get good results. And like *any* projection-contrast film, poses some issues for printing & telecine.

-Sam
  • 0

#7 Robert Hughes

Robert Hughes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Minneapolis

Posted 22 January 2006 - 04:38 AM

FWIW I just received 3 rolls of Super 8 Kodachrome processed this month at Dwayne's that came out perfectly. No blue streaks, scratches, or any other processing related defects. Dwayne's - bashing is the sport of the week for people with nothing better to do.

Edited by Robert Hughes, 22 January 2006 - 04:40 AM.

  • 0

#8 Anthony Schilling

Anthony Schilling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1053 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR

Posted 22 January 2006 - 01:44 PM

I've had perfect results with 64T at Forde Labs. Yale and Spectra have also been noted to be giving good results. See, there are at least 3 labs doing quality S8 color reversal processing in the US compard to one doing inferior work before with K14.
  • 0

#9 Stephen Phipps

Stephen Phipps

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 January 2006 - 02:44 PM

Same here... never had a problem with Dwayne's and K40. I suggest Santo contact Dwayne's directly and offer his services on a consulting-type basis. Wouldn't be surprised if they took him up on the offer. I've been to Dwayne's in person and met some of their staff... they're very eager to do a quality job. No doubt Santo knows what he's talking about with Dwayne's and 64T as others have also complained. Sometimes it takes qualified experience and suggestion from an outsider to get another to see the "whole picture". Since Dwayne's is going to end up with the lion's share of 64T processing due to their Walmart connection and reasonable prices, I'm sure they're going to welcome any help they can get.

FWIW I just received 3 rolls of Super 8 Kodachrome processed this month at Dwayne's that came out perfectly. No blue streaks, scratches, or any other processing related defects. Dwayne's - bashing is the sport of the week for people with nothing better to do.


  • 0

#10 Anthony Schilling

Anthony Schilling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1053 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR

Posted 22 January 2006 - 04:29 PM

I've been known to bash Dwayne's in the past, but in reality they are nice folks and have the best prices on processing... I just kind of see it as, ya get what you pay for. If I got the same results from Dwayne's at $4.50 less per cart and free prep, as I did from Forde... THEN I would be surprised.
  • 0

#11 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 22 January 2006 - 05:16 PM

What colour is the sky on their planet? E-6 is very environmentally freindly. Kodak had no choice but to make it so. K40 was problematic. Second, what the f--- are they talking about here?


I like the idea of people living on another planet with a different coloured sky! :) Makes me smile.

I think what they meant with the comment about being careful with the chemicals was refering to processing at home. (pouring chemicals down the sink) Obviously people didn't process K40 at home so Kodak dealt with the chemicals and it wasn't an issue the end user had to deal with, even if it was highly toxic! :)

love

Freya
  • 0


Technodolly

CineLab

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc