Posted 09 May 2010 - 01:26 PM
Posted 09 May 2010 - 02:59 PM
Posted 09 May 2010 - 06:36 PM
I agree 100D is not as sharp as I would like, not as sharp as K40. I disagree on the contrast and the whites, unless you have only witnessed video transfers... the projected image is less contrasty than K40, with a lot more shadow detail within the rich colors. The whites are white, not dinghy like K40. I've compared a fair amount of both (I've shot a lot more k40 than 100D so far) and the Kodachrome just looks dark, contrasty, muted, and muddy in comparison. I think a lot of people are clinging to some iconic ideal of what Kodachrome was but isn't.
Each to his/her own. I find 100D suffers from blown out hightlights and lacks the sharpness of 64t. Its a high contrast disneychrome colour film that appears to be sharp due to its high contrast. I certainly get no fix with DS-8 100D and 16MM 100d. K40 is sharper than 100D and looks better projected, their is a bite to a k25/40 image that 100d sadly lacks, unless on BCU. I hated 64t at first, but after using 100d, prefer 64t over 100d any day. Hats off to kodak for supporting super 8 and releasing 100d, and yes i'll probably be using quite a bit of the stuff....
When compared to 64T, 100D is much finer grain, similar sharpness... cleaner and more saturated colors. I found the 64T too cold and blue with a straight 85 filter, and too orange with an 85B. 64T had a really narrow, optimal sweet spot in bright sunlight... otherwise is was way too grainy.
Posted 10 May 2010 - 03:59 PM
Posted 10 May 2010 - 04:15 PM
Posted 10 May 2010 - 04:37 PM
You chose a bad example to make your case..my footage. I admit its contrasty, but the blown highlights were mostly due to my homebrew telecine and clipping from the video camera I used. Although some of the area's are hot, when projected the detail is there. Perhaps a clip from a pro telecine may serve as a better example.
Your film, exactly mimic's my finding with the stock, i've 100d with blown out highlights, i doubt a pro transfer would be able to correct this?.
Art how does the actual footage look projected? are the highlights actually blown out?
LOL, all this negativity from me regarding 100D yet i'm loading up the bolex ds-8 with some for this weekend...
ps, hope you didn't mind me posting your link?
Posted 10 May 2010 - 05:56 PM
The worst of it were that some sections (sidewalk on :27, the streets at 1:23, pavement at 1:51, man's shoulder at 2:06) were just on the verge of appearing blown out when projected, but just barely. Also the darker-shadowed areas appeared much brighter, less contrasty. I might also mention that the saturation was richer off the wall, I needed to crank them down a bit after the transfer to avoid chroma noise/bleeding.
I'm sure a reputable telecine facility has much more flexibility.
PS Don't mind you linking to it at all. I made it public by posting it so I that I can get feedback from others, good or bad.
I'm with you on the negativity part...I ordered some more yesterday. But I don't view it as negativity, but a discussion...which is what makes this forum and everyone's opinions and experiences great to learn from.
Posted 11 May 2010 - 02:46 AM
I am old enough to remember what Kodacrome IIA used to look like, before Kodachrome 40A came along in the mid 70s. Now that was a BEAUTIFUL film, with deep, deep blue skies and warm, gentle, brownish skin tones.
I was working for a very well respected advertising photographer in Stockholm in 1974-75 and I remember the hellish problems we had when the new Kodachrome 25 and 64 daylight 35mm stills fims were introduced. This photographer used to work extensively with Nikon F2's and Kodachrome II 135-36 daylight film and he was absolutely infuriated with KODAK in Stockholm over the first really bad results he got with Kodachrome 25 and 64. One week it turned out magenta and the next green in the processing. A couple of months later, after endless Wratten gel filter testing, he did a big job with lots of people and cars in a big rented film studio for two days and all the eighty or so rolls came back all GREEN from the processing. KODAK replied to his complaints that it was an amateur film - that's KODAK for you, in a nut shell. No economic compensation, just new rolls of the same rotten film.
The problems was pretty much the same with Kodachrome 40A, the 3400 K° tungsten film that we had to filter with W85 for normal daylight shooting. The same magenta-colored skin tones and the same problems with green hues, especially in skies and whites. Which made it almost impossible to filter correctly. I was using 81A and B a lot, to achieve the warm look of the forever gone Kodachrome II, but never got close. The processing of KII was really toxic and that's why KODAK had to change the processing formula.
THIS is my iconic Kodachrome Super 8, the film with which I am comparing all other reversal films. Shot in 1969, the Kodachrome IIA Super 8 rolls still look absolutely stunning. And so does the 35mm Kodachrome II Leica slides I have from the early 70s. THIS was the film Simon and Garfunkel was singing about.
All the best,
Bengt F, Stockholm, Sweden
Edited by Bengt Freden, 11 May 2010 - 02:49 AM.
Posted 12 May 2010 - 07:09 PM
I hated 64t at first, but after using 100d, prefer 64t over 100d any day.
That's my experience too. The first time I shot E64T with a 85B filter, I hated the awful, multicolored grain but LOVED the colors.
Then I started to read all those fascinated 100D reviews and I imagined this stock with the colors of E64T but without the grain.
What a deception when I shot my first reels! A grainy film (although neutral and more contained), with average resolution and unnatural ultra-warm colours.
I applaud Kodak too for keeping the format alive, but I still need a colour reversal stock that makes me say "Wow!" when I get the films back from the lab...
Posted 13 May 2010 - 02:35 AM
When it comes to Kodachrome, I agree the footage from the early 70's Kodachrome II had great colors... but that's been over since 74. The latest K40A looked great 8 years ago, but at that time it's only competition was the crummy video of the day, and more muted Ektachrome 7240. Since working with Velvia 50, E100D, and even 64T... K40 really lost its edge.
Posted 02 June 2010 - 06:04 AM