Jump to content


Photo

Ektachrome 100D


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 William Fischer

William Fischer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Student

Posted 21 October 2012 - 09:41 PM

Ektachrome 100D is advertised as having "intensely saturated color," and some 16mm tests I've seen bear that out. Other tests, however, look very unremarkable color-wise. I'm using this particular stock for a short student film, and we've done fairly well with it, but I was wondering if anyone had advice for getting the most out of its advertised color potential.
  • 0

#2 John Salim

John Salim
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Other
  • Essex, UK

Posted 22 October 2012 - 12:24 PM

Ektachrome 100D is a great looking film when projected, and does have a close 'Kodachrome look' to it.

You could try under exposing it by a third of a stop to give slightly more saturated colour, but don't under expose too much more otherwise you'll have a noticably dark film !

I'm advising on projected film not scanned film.

John S :rolleyes:
  • 0

#3 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 October 2012 - 07:58 AM

If you are having the film scanned, you are likely bumping up against a colorist who is scaling back the colors and trying to make them look more natural.

In reality, color saturation in the DI world is not film dependent. You could easily shoot daylight negative film, such as Vision3 50D or 250D, and gain all the latitude and other advantages. Then, have the colorist color time adjust to be more saturated.

If you want the most accurate Ektachrome 100D scan, including the saturated colors, be sure to tell your scan/telecine house to color correct based on the actual film. Tell them you want an accurate scan of the data on the film rather than a "corrected" scan.

Compare you scan to the projected image. I bet the actual projected image will be far more saturated.






Ektachrome 100D is a great looking film when projected, and does have a close 'Kodachrome look' to it.

You could try under exposing it by a third of a stop to give slightly more saturated colour, but don't under expose too much more otherwise you'll have a noticably dark film !

I'm advising on projected film not scanned film.

John S :rolleyes:


Edited by David Cunningham, 23 October 2012 - 07:59 AM.

  • 0

#4 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 October 2012 - 08:03 AM

Here is a good example of the importance of the colorist and how he/she can make any film "saturated" too look like Kodakchrome.

Here is a Pro8mm scan that intentionally took this Vision3 50D negative and pushed the colors during color correction:





Then, here is the same film scanned at another house where the colorist went for a more natural, although slightly washed out, approach.




This colorist thing is the prime example of why I still like to shoot reversal when possible. It's much easier to tell the colorist what you want your scan to look like when you say "make it look like the actual film". When talking about negative, clearly there is no "what it actually looks like".
  • 0

#5 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:19 AM

Here is a good example of the importance of the colorist and how he/she can make any film "saturated" too look like Kodakchrome.

Here is a Pro8mm scan that intentionally took this Vision3 50D negative and pushed the colors during color correction:





Then, here is the same film scanned at another house where the colorist went for a more natural, although slightly washed out, approach.




This colorist thing is the prime example of why I still like to shoot reversal when possible. It's much easier to tell the colorist what you want your scan to look like when you say "make it look like the actual film". When talking about negative, clearly there is no "what it actually looks like".


Yes but, while the first video is much nicer than the second, there is a significant loss of detail in the shadow areas due to the vivid palette. Normally, I like a nice contrasty look, but this appears "pushed" to me. I've always found reversal a bit problematic simply due to the lack of latitude.

How did you expose this when you shot it?
  • 0

#6 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 October 2012 - 06:43 PM

Yes but, while the first video is much nicer than the second, there is a significant loss of detail in the shadow areas due to the vivid palette. Normally, I like a nice contrasty look, but this appears "pushed" to me. I've always found reversal a bit problematic simply due to the lack of latitude.

How did you expose this when you shot it?




This wasn't my work. Check the links and you will see more details about it, as well as all my comments... most notably my complaint about the loss of shadow highlights. :)

Dave
  • 0

#7 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 October 2012 - 06:49 PM

Yes but, while the first video is much nicer than the second, there is a significant loss of detail in the shadow areas due to the vivid palette. Normally, I like a nice contrasty look, but this appears "pushed" to me. I've always found reversal a bit problematic simply due to the lack of latitude.

How did you expose this when you shot it?



Also note that reversal will always, as you indicated, have less latitude and highlight detail in the first place. So, pushing the colors in the scan (leading to loss of highlight detail) basically just makes it look like under exposed reversal, even though it appears that the original negative was slightly over exposed... probably at least 2 stops in many places. It's a very interesting comparison of scan techniques.
  • 0

#8 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 23 October 2012 - 07:28 PM

This wasn't my work. Check the links and you will see more details about it, as well as all my comments... most notably my complaint about the loss of shadow highlights. :)

Dave



Oops! Sorry 'bout that! :P
  • 0

#9 William Fischer

William Fischer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Student

Posted 23 October 2012 - 09:31 PM

Ektachrome 100D is a great looking film when projected, and does have a close 'Kodachrome look' to it.

You could try under exposing it by a third of a stop to give slightly more saturated colour, but don't under expose too much more otherwise you'll have a noticably dark film !

I'm advising on projected film not scanned film.

John S :rolleyes:

I'm getting a 1080p scan of the film; what would going down a third of a stop do to the look in that event?
  • 0

#10 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 24 October 2012 - 09:14 AM

I'm getting a 1080p scan of the film; what would going down a third of a stop do to the look in that event?



Assuming your concern is more about bright highlights than shadow highlights you will likely increase your color saturation a hair ( hardly noticeable ) and darken (make more contrasty) your shadows/overall image. You really won't notice a negative effect on your image until you get closer to 1/2 or any real loss of primary subject detail (that you metered on) until 1 full stop.

At least... that's my experience.

A good colorist will be able to bring your highlight details up to where you want them as long as you are less than a 2/3 stop under exposure, and maybe even more. The DI process really changes the whole game. But, in an unsupervised transfer, you really can't be sure what you are going to get. You could go with DPX log files, but then you would have to color grade and do highlight masks on your own. That gets complicated and time consuming.
  • 0

#11 William Fischer

William Fischer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Student

Posted 30 November 2012 - 12:03 AM

Thanks for all the feedback; David, I followed your advice on our notes to the scan house, and the film looks pretty damn good.

On a slightly different topic; Kodak's own website gives Ektachrome a 3-Star rating for "Well-lit Studio (T)" conditions. The majority of our film is set to be shot in a studio lit with HMIs. Does anyone have any experience using Ektachrome under these or similar conditions?
  • 0

#12 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 01 December 2012 - 02:29 PM

Thanks for all the feedback; David, I followed your advice on our notes to the scan house, and the film looks pretty damn good.

On a slightly different topic; Kodak's own website gives Ektachrome a 3-Star rating for "Well-lit Studio (T)" conditions. The majority of our film is set to be shot in a studio lit with HMIs. Does anyone have any experience using Ektachrome under these or similar conditions?



Do you have a link to the scan? I'd love to see it. Who did the scan?

I have no experience with 100D in anything other than natural light (looks great) or indoors with old-school incandescent bulbs which turned out CRAZY yellow/orange. I'm very curious to see what people's experience is with 100D and HMIs since their color temp can vary with age. It shouldn't matter much with an HD or 2K transfer since it can be color correct for after. Be sure to shoot a color chart if you aren't going to supervise the transfer/color correction.
  • 0

#13 William Fischer

William Fischer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Student

Posted 03 December 2012 - 10:27 PM




The second link is a scan pushed one stop brighter, which was thrown in free of charge. Both are 1080p scans done by Debenham Media Group, with the film developed at AlphaCine. When we compared it to the raw film inspected by eye, there wasn't any major difference aside from the sky being less hot on the film.

Everything was shot on a Bolex fitted with a large Canon zoom lens (don't know the exact specs for it; I'm the director on this, not the DP), with a .6 ND on everything up until we hit golden hour. The footage will eventually be cropped to match S16 footage; our regular camera had blown a fuse for this shoot.
  • 0

#14 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 04 December 2012 - 10:45 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr6QXNZmul4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUTXUzilH0Y

The second link is a scan pushed one stop brighter, which was thrown in free of charge. Both are 1080p scans done by Debenham Media Group, with the film developed at AlphaCine. When we compared it to the raw film inspected by eye, there wasn't any major difference aside from the sky being less hot on the film.

Everything was shot on a Bolex fitted with a large Canon zoom lens (don't know the exact specs for it; I'm the director on this, not the DP), with a .6 ND on everything up until we hit golden hour. The footage will eventually be cropped to match S16 footage; our regular camera had blown a fuse for this shoot.



Nice shots in there. I definitely like the Neutral scan much better for almost all shots. The silhouette shots were really cool.

I do, however, kinda feel like some of the definition is being lost somewhere. I have never heard of Debenham Media Group. I looked them up, but can't seem to find what equipment they use. They are way more expensive, but I'd love to see this film re-scanned on the Scannity at Cinelicious.

My only other note is that it seems a bit "jittery". That's one of the things that makes my question what hardware is being used by Debenham Media Group. I can't tell if the jitter is an incorrectly pin-registered scan or the camera itself. I've found my Bolex to be almost rock solid in the jitter department. So, just curious on your thoughts on that.

Can't wait to see the finished film!
  • 0

#15 William Fischer

William Fischer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Student

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:26 PM

You might know them by their consumer division, MyMovieTransfer:

http://www.mymovietr...CFSemPAod32QAhg

The Bolex we were using is school equipment; they've seen a lot of years and all of them have a bit of jitter. Right after we were done shooting, they were sent off for repairs.

Cinelicious is completely out of our price range. We're looking in to whether or not we can afford to go with Nolo in Chicago, but for now, MMT is our best option for the budget we have.
  • 0

#16 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 05 December 2012 - 10:09 AM

Ah yes, I know them. They use an upgraded/updated Y-Front system much like Cinelab. It looks like they do good work, especially for test shots, etc.

Nolo is fantastic. I have not personally used them but I have loved every scan I have seen come out their door. The arriscan is by far a better scanner than the y-front. In fact, it's a scanner, not telecine like the y-front. You will likely notice a remarkable difference. However, I have heard rumors that the arriscan is not as well suited for reversal/print as negative. Just a thought and question to ask them before you invest in their services.

It's good to know the jitter was the camera, not the service.

Keep posting more shots and have fun!
  • 0

#17 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 08 December 2012 - 11:07 AM

However, I have heard rumors that the arriscan is not as well suited for reversal/print as negative.

All scanners and telecine machines do better with negative. Scanning reversal on any traditional telecine including a Spirit requires slight refocusing and adjusting which is a pain for operators.

Reversal is amazing for projection and I suggest anyone shooting 16mm try it sometime so they can see the amazing color and sharpness of Ektachrome projected (I love Kodachrome in 16mm even more.) But for scanning you are always better off with negative as there are several more stops of latitude when scanning.
  • 0

#18 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 08 December 2012 - 02:37 PM

Reversal CAN be scanned correctly, it just definitely needs to be a scanner and not a telecine. You need the HDR/multi flash system to get the full detail and color. I'm sending some off to be scanned by the Lasergraphics Director this week. I'm really hoping it looks good.
  • 0

#19 William Fischer

William Fischer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Student

Posted 08 December 2012 - 05:05 PM

All scanners and telecine machines do better with negative. Scanning reversal on any traditional telecine including a Spirit requires slight refocusing and adjusting which is a pain for operators.

Reversal is amazing for projection and I suggest anyone shooting 16mm try it sometime so they can see the amazing color and sharpness of Ektachrome projected (I love Kodachrome in 16mm even more.) But for scanning you are always better off with negative as there are several more stops of latitude when scanning.

We have projected tests that we couldn't afford to scan, and I am amazed by the colour. I really wish I had the budget to get the finished edit printed and projected, but there's only so much a college kid can afford.
  • 0

#20 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 08 December 2012 - 06:13 PM

Im not so sure the Debenham jitter was in camera. I used them several years back and had serious jitter on a short film I had transferred with them. I thought it was my camera too (Elmo 1012S-XL) until I realized that the projected print looked better. I wonder about their equipment.

I liked the colorists job but if they have jitter issues, they need to address that. I am tempted to have my footage scanned at a different house to see if it was the footage or them. I would be careful of them though until this issue is figured out with certainty.
  • 0


Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks