Jump to content


Photo

Wittner Chrome 200D results?


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Harry Alen

Harry Alen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 25 April 2014 - 09:14 AM

Hi! I test shot two Wittner Chrome 200D cassettes with Canon 512XL - the other was read as 160D (by the camera standards) and the other was notch hacked to read as 250T. I made sure not to use the built-in filter with the notch hacked film either outdoors or indoors. I thought that the "underexposed" notch hacked film would look better but I think there are signs of not exposuring ok in both filmed and processed films.

 

How does your cameras reas Wittner Chrome 200D and how has your results been:

1) in daylight (with or without ND filter)

2) indoors (with of without ND filter)

 

My experience is that the "overexposure" at 160D really makes the images look "flat" compared to 100D which reads/exposes as it should bu almost all the cameras. Also the underexposure is not as good as I thought it would. A little better in some pictures (but sometimes worse), but the image is clearly underexposed and not that colourful and too grainy too.

 

Am I doing something wrong? All Ektachromes I film turn out 100% good! Is it simply because 200D is not a standard for Super 8 or do I need to check my eyes at the doctor :)

 

Thank You for sharing your experiences with Wittner Chrome 200D!


Edited by Harry Alen, 25 April 2014 - 09:18 AM.

  • 0

#2 Jose luis villar

Jose luis villar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • SPAIN

Posted 25 April 2014 - 09:29 AM

Hi Harry, the  Wittner 200d is too grainy for super 8, nothing comparable to what was 100d, i shot once and never again.


  • 0

#3 David Cunningham

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

Posted 25 April 2014 - 12:55 PM

Hi Harry, the  Wittner 200d is too grainy for super 8, nothing comparable to what was 100d, i shot once and never again.

 

And it's not even then it's just grainy.  That would be tolerable in itself.  But it's big, chunky, mushy looking grain that is incredibly distracting.  I like a good grainy film from time-to-time.  But, not 200D.  It's too bad.  It's basically the only option left.  :(


  • 0

#4 Richard Hadfield

Richard Hadfield
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Other

Posted 25 April 2014 - 03:46 PM

And it's not even then it's just grainy.  That would be tolerable in itself.  But it's big, chunky, mushy looking grain that is incredibly distracting.  I like a good grainy film from time-to-time.  But, not 200D.  It's too bad.  It's basically the only option left.  :(


A friendly reminder to people that want to shoot reversal film. There is an expensive option.... FUJIFILM 100 Velvia, which is sold in the USA by The Reel Image for $39.50.

Link: http://thereelimage....r-web-showroom/
  • 0

#5 David Cunningham

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

Posted 25 April 2014 - 03:50 PM

Woo! I forgot about that. Good point!
  • 0

#6 Jose luis villar

Jose luis villar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • SPAIN

Posted 26 April 2014 - 11:51 AM

The only hope is Ferrania ...


  • 0


Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Abel Cine

The Slider

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Technodolly

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Tai Audio