Jump to content


Photo

New 64T Ektachrome


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Paul Mattei

Paul Mattei
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Other
  • Savage, Minnesota

Posted 16 March 2006 - 05:13 PM

:) Has anyone tryed this new film yet?? What do you think? Is it OK to use the built in 85A filter or do you need to use a lens-front screw on 85 filter????
  • 0

#2 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 16 March 2006 - 06:43 PM

:) Has anyone tryed this new film yet?? What do you think? Is it OK to use the built in 85A filter or do you need to use a lens-front screw on 85 filter????


Some correction to what I've said before.

The film was introduced in 1991, not 1989 as I have said before. It even says so on the box: Kodak copyright 1991

You might want to use 85 because shadows tend to go blue/cyan even at normal temperature

That's something you learn to love if you become an Ektachrome junky. I'm one, specially like the pre-90's Ektachromes
  • 0

#3 David W Scott

David W Scott
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 132 posts
  • Director
  • Toronto

Posted 17 March 2006 - 09:39 AM

I just got my first test roll of E64T back.

Kodak recommends using an 85B filter. I opted to use a Cokin 85B, out of convenience because I already have a filter stage for my Super 8 camera, and didn't have to buy an odd-ball screw-in filter.

My daylight footage was oddly coloured. To my eyes, highlights were kind of pink. The shadows were bluish, even with the 85B and really warm, sunset colour temperatures.

Tungsten footage (obviously exposed with no filter) had very accurate colour rendering. I was extremely impressed.

Of course, YMMV.
  • 0

#4 A.Oliver

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

Posted 17 March 2006 - 10:25 AM

Hi, used 3 cartridges of 64t, images are too grainy, will never use the stock again. Some like the stock, imo its the worst super 8 stock i have ever used, even e160 was better than this stock.
  • 0

#5 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2250 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 17 March 2006 - 11:03 AM

hi everyone , i have never used any S 8 Ektachrome , hated 16mm years ago , is there a Fuji stock ? when i did use tranny film [stills] be it 35mm or 120 , always used Fuji . john holland , london.
  • 0

#6 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 17 March 2006 - 12:27 PM

Hi, used 3 cartridges of 64t, images are too grainy, will never use the stock again. Some like the stock, imo its the worst super 8 stock i have ever used, even e160 was better than this stock.


It amazes me that people who know how to shoot kodachrome and like Kodachrome don't really like Ektachrome 64T stock, yet many others who probably don't like kodachrome that much like the Ektachrome 64T.

This tells me that Ektachrome 64T has it's place, but it may not actually be as a replacement for Kodachrome other than the fact that it is a color reversal film. At this point, I would say Velvia 50 (made by Fuji) and Kodak's 7201 (50 ASA negative) are the leading candidates for a real Kodachrome replacement.

Kodak's 7201 being the leading candidate because it should be around for a very long time.
  • 0

#7 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 17 March 2006 - 01:23 PM

It amazes me that people who know how to shoot kodachrome and like Kodachrome don't really like Ektachrome 64T stock, yet many others who probably don't like kodachrome that much like the Ektachrome 64T.


It's because Kodachrome is so different from anything else. All E6/E4 films had their own look, but still they were a lot closer to each other and to the look of general film photography, than Kodachrome.
KR was like a film from another planet. And it divided the world of photography.

In the old days (pre '76), Kodachrome was by far the best choice in reversal photography, and was the professionals choice, and was also great in super8.
But in those days Ektachromes didn't look like they look today, they really had a lot of problems.
And were even more unnatural than Kodachrome.

What I find funny is that there are still some people who say that nothing beats Kodachrome for accurate realistic colors. If you mean saturation level, maybe, but if you put a McBeth chart, the colors are all over the place.
It's a great film for its classic look, but really its far from being realistic.

But also worth noting that Kodachrome now is nothing what it used to be decades ago. It really has changed to worse somewhere along the way. The "new" 64 and 40 really look like crap compared to
older versions.

E64T is a more "down to earth" film, so naturally those used to Kodachrome colors are disapointed.
And furthermore, E64T introduces its own set of problems tied to Ektachrome films.
But still its a good compromise between the vintage look of Kodachrome and modern look of new ektachrome films.
  • 0


Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Opal

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

The Slider

Technodolly

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera