Jump to content


Photo

petition for k40


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 joshwatson

joshwatson

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Other

Posted 10 May 2005 - 02:21 AM

please sign and pass along to friends to sign, at least we can say we tried...

http://www.petitiono...0/petition.html
  • 0

#2 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 10 May 2005 - 05:23 PM

Listen carefully: If you want your voices to be heard do NOT waste time with an internet petition. Take $0.37 out of your pocket and send a letter (more if you're out of the US; sorry) and write a REAL LETTER to KODAK. I am going to find an address and put out a form letter so that everyone knows who to contact. You can personalize such a letter by telling them how K40A is your favorite S8 stock and without it you'd switch to DV blah blah blah. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME WITH INTERNET PETITIONS. THEY DON'T WORK BECAUSE ABSOLUTELY ANYONE CAN HIT A SUBMIT BUTTON ON ONE OF THEM PERIOD. SEND REAL SNAIL MAIL AND YOUR VOICE WILL BE HEARD.

Regards.
~Karl Borowski
  • 0

#3 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 12161 posts
  • Other

Posted 10 May 2005 - 05:26 PM

Hi,

What on earth is the point in making a lot of noise about it? The Kodachrome process is horribly complicated; there are much easier ways to achieve the same result now.

Phil
  • 0

#4 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 10 May 2005 - 08:29 PM

Aren't you that guy that thinks that video is better than film because its cheaper and instantaneous? I don't know why you'd be posting here if that is your attitude towards film in general. If you don't have the patience for the more standard film processes. There's no way in HELL you'll understand the reason people love Kodachrome so much.

Regards.
~Karl Borowski
  • 0

#5 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3323 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 10 May 2005 - 08:30 PM

Hi,

What on  earth is the point in making a lot of noise about it? The Kodachrome process is horribly complicated; there are much easier ways to achieve the same result now.

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Coming from someone who claims Kodachrome 40 is grainy. :unsure:
  • 0

#6 Josh Hill

Josh Hill
  • Sustaining Members
  • 258 posts
  • Other
  • New York, NY

Posted 11 May 2005 - 03:05 AM

Does no one remember when FilmIs4Ever used to stir up poop on the forum?
  • 0

#7 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 12161 posts
  • Other

Posted 11 May 2005 - 03:31 AM

Hi,

Well, it's reversal, it's grainier than neg of equivalent speed. It's also a positively ancient formulation...

Phil
  • 0

#8 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3323 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 11 May 2005 - 06:48 AM

Hi,

Well, it's reversal, it's grainier than neg of equivalent speed. It's also a positively ancient formulation...

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



I would respectfully disagree. I'd bet that Kodachrome 40 if shot in 35mm would be equal to or have less visible grain than the 50 ASA stock. Don't you find it probably that a reversal film that requires more light and less contrast than it's negative counterpart probably would at the very least put out a pretty picture when properly lit?

Would Kodak really market a reversal film IF it was both more contrasty and more grainy as having vivid colors and superb clarity/sharpness?
  • 0

#9 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 11 May 2005 - 03:57 PM

You can't make generalized statements of sharpness, graininess, color, tone scale, etc. between color negative and color reversal films. Look at Kodak's published technical data for each film to make comparisons, or test them yourself.

But in general, a motion picture negative film is more suited to duplication, either by printing or scanning.
  • 0

#10 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3323 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 11 May 2005 - 04:04 PM

You can't make generalized statements of sharpness, graininess, color, tone scale, etc. between color negative and color reversal films.  Look at Kodak's published technical data for each film to make comparisons, or test them yourself.

But in general, a motion picture negative film is more suited to duplication, either by printing or scanning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Too be more specific, film to film replication is not kodachrome 40's strength.

However, with the advance in contrast dynamic range when transfering to video, Kodachrome was actually becoming a more viable stock.

And digital intermediates can also prevent contrast build up issues.
  • 0

#11 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 11 May 2005 - 04:51 PM

Does no one remember when FilmIs4Ever used to stir up shi t on the forum?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


USED TO???
  • 0

#12 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 11 May 2005 - 05:08 PM

My two cents worth:


1. I'm going to assume this is just the 48,000 internet rumor about Kodak killing Kodachrome 40 for Super 8, unless you offer concrete evidence to the contrary.

2. Phil, I've shot about 400 rolls of Kodacrhome 40 on Super 8, and a bit of the neg stock, and I can tell you that K40 is the best looking stock on S8. It's sharp, it's got little, itty bitty grains, and frankly I won't shoot anything else in S8 because the neg stock (for all it's obvious benefits) is just too grainy for this tiny format.
I'm guessing you either had a bad camera, old film stock, or perhaps you were actually shooting Ektachrome and thought it was Kodachrome? (Ektachrome looks like excrement in S8).
Either way, I don't agree that anything else looks like Kodachrome.

Matt Pacini
  • 0

#13 Bob Last

Bob Last
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Other
  • San Jose, CA and Philippines

Posted 11 May 2005 - 08:19 PM

My two cents worth:
1.  I'm going to assume this is just the 48,000 internet rumor about Kodak killing Kodachrome 40 for Super 8, unless you offer concrete evidence to the contrary.


It's all over the net, Matt.

Kodak Announcement

 
  • 0


Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

The Slider

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies