Jump to content


Photo

Quick question about film duration, ektachrome 64T


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Brian Rose

Brian Rose
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Student
  • Kansas City area

Posted 13 October 2005 - 03:01 PM

I forget, so perhaps someone could help me out: how much time can one get out of a single 50 ft Super 8 cartridge, at 18 fps? 24 fps? Also, what seems to be the opinion so far about the new ektachrome 64T?
Best,
BR
  • 0

#2 Seth Mondragon

Seth Mondragon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 13 October 2005 - 03:39 PM

Hi Brian, my understanding is that you can get about 3 minutes is you run it at 18fps and about 2 1/2 minutes at 24fps. If you haven't found it yet, check out the forum on www.filmshooting.com. It's dedicated to Super8, 8mm, and 16mm. They also have a TON of feedback on the new 64T stock....many of them have used it already. Check it out.
  • 0

#3 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

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

Posted 13 October 2005 - 04:08 PM

I forget, so perhaps someone could help me out: how much time can one get out of a single 50 ft Super 8 cartridge, at 18 fps? 24 fps? Also, what seems to be the opinion so far about the new ektachrome 64T?
Best,
BR


The Kodak website has a film length calculator, that calculates run time for any motion picture film format:

http://www.kodak.com...d=0.1.4.3&lc=en
  • 0

#4 Anthony Schilling

Anthony Schilling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1053 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR

Posted 13 October 2005 - 04:30 PM

18fps 3:20, 24fps 2:30, I like to think of a cart in terms of 3600 pictures rather than running time.
  • 0

#5 Alessandro Machi

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

Posted 13 October 2005 - 05:40 PM

For those of us who shoot Kodachrome 40 and shoot scenes that we know will look good with little or no visible grain, Ektachrome 64 is a complete and utter disappointment as a replacement stock for Kodachrome 40. (in my opinion).

However, for those shooting Ektachrome 64 as a second film stock for a music video or commercial, who want a grainy feel, or for student film projects where timely processing is a must, Ektachrome 64 is an excellent stock because of same day processing possibilities and excellent color reproduction.
  • 0

#6 santo

santo
  • Guests

Posted 13 October 2005 - 05:47 PM

For those of us who shoot Kodachrome 40 and shoot scenes that we know will look good with little no visible grain, Ektachrome 64 is a complete and utter disappointment as a replacement stock for Kodachrome 40.


Unless you are looking at projecting your original material, you need to start shooting Vision2 200t. Beats the hell out of K40. You're a video editor, aren't you, Alex? Didn't you send your nice little short ALPHABET SONG out on video for festivals? I don't understand your complaint.

Edited by santo, 13 October 2005 - 05:50 PM.

  • 0

#7 Alessandro Machi

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

Posted 13 October 2005 - 06:10 PM

Unless you are looking at projecting your original material, you need to start shooting Vision2 200t. Beats the hell out of K40. You're a video editor, aren't you, Alex? Didn't you send your nice little short ALPHABET SONG out on video for festivals? I don't understand your complaint.


I've had a tool taken away from me, that's what my complaint is about, but it's also not a complaint, it's an observation based on what I have shot over the years with Kodachrome and what I recently shot in Ektachrome.

The "Goodbye Kodachrome" project I just finished editing has me upset at what I will be losing in the way of a minimal grain option in Super-8.

I'm open to the idea of shooting Vision 200 at 50 ASA, then pulling it one stop in processing to see if the grain is less than Kodachrome.
  • 0

#8 Seth Mondragon

Seth Mondragon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 13 October 2005 - 06:54 PM

Alex, am I gonna have to start bugging you on this forum as well to let me see The Alphabet Song? :)
  • 0

#9 santo

santo
  • Guests

Posted 13 October 2005 - 06:57 PM

I'm open to the idea of shooting Vision 200 at 50 ASA, then pulling it one stop in processing to see if the grain is less than Kodachrome.


In my opinion unneeded extremes from what I've experienced, but good luck with that.
  • 0

#10 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 14 October 2005 - 08:38 AM

i shot 13 rolls of 64t recently and i don't think it's very grainy. it looks a little grainer than kodachrome in some shots but mostly because it also looks sharper plus the extra shadow latitude brings out some grain that's hidden by the deep blacks of k40. it's certainly in the same class as kodachrome and i doubt if many people would notice the difference without a side by side. you saw what you saw, sure, but it's not what i saw so i think you should consider taking another look.

i've only seen the footage projected so far though. i'll get back to you with more info after we've scanned it tomorrow.

/matt
  • 0

#11 Alessandro Machi

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

Posted 14 October 2005 - 10:43 AM

i shot 13 rolls of 64t recently and i don't think it's very grainy. it looks a little grainer than kodachrome in some shots but mostly because it also looks sharper plus the extra shadow latitude brings out some grain that's hidden by the deep blacks of k40. it's certainly in the same class as kodachrome and i doubt if many people would notice the difference without a side by side. you saw what you saw, sure, but it's not what i saw so i think you should consider taking another look.

i've only seen the footage projected so far though. i'll get back to you with more info after we've scanned it tomorrow.

/matt


Mattias, when you saw the Ektachrome 64 projected, how close to the screen were you?

I use a very unforgiving monitor in my video editing suite. The difference in grain between the Kodachrome footage and the Ektachrome footage is stunning. However, I did notice that most of my Kodachrome shots were taken several years ago, maybe the newer Kodachrome isn't as good as older Kodachrome and that makes the difference even more noticeable?

Or, what I think is even more of an issue is as the color of Ektachrome 64 is balanced out in video post between warm tones and blue tones, the grain becomes more noticeable. If the warmer tones are desaturated in post, the grain level subsides. However, this doesn't seem to happen with Kodachrome, I can color correct it as I see fit and it doesn't seem to add more grain to the image.

I'm curious to see what your experience is like with the Ektachrome actually transferred to video.


Alex, am I gonna have to start bugging you on this forum as well to let me see The Alphabet Song? :)


I gotta put that on a DVD and send you a copy.
  • 0

#12 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 14 October 2005 - 11:07 AM

Mattias, when you saw the Ektachrome 64 projected, how close to the screen were you?

next to the projector. maybe four or five meters away projecting a two meter wide image. i did look at it up close too though, as well as from afar.

I'm curious to see what your experience is like with the Ektachrome actually transferred to video.

i'm curious too. i'm happy that 64t seems to capture the information so that you *can* color correct. the reason nothing happens with kodachrome is because there are no subtle shades. ;-)

/matt
  • 0

#13 Anthony Schilling

Anthony Schilling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1053 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR

Posted 14 October 2005 - 11:46 AM

K-40 is not as grainless as many proclaim, as I notice when sitting right in front of the moniter with K-40. and if its low speed doesn't get enough light... grain city. I haven't projected the 64T yet, but notice a slight increase in grain, however it makes uo for it in just about all other areas.

I agree with Santo about 200T beating the daylights out of K-40. If they ever come out with V2 50D in S8, whoa.
  • 0

#14 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

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

Posted 14 October 2005 - 02:50 PM

The Kodak VISION2 200T Color Negative Film 7217 has very fine grain to begin with. Shooting it at EI-100 or even EI-50 will reduce the graininess by capturing more scene information on the finer-grained slow and mid speed emulsions used in the film. Pull processing can help keep the image densities in a more "normal" range for printing or transfer.
  • 0

#15 Alessandro Machi

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

Posted 15 October 2005 - 12:22 AM

K-40 is not as grainless as many proclaim, as I notice when sitting right in front of the moniter with K-40. and if its low speed doesn't get enough light... grain city. I haven't projected the 64T yet, but notice a slight increase in grain, however it makes uo for it in just about all other areas.

I agree with Santo about 200T beating the daylights out of K-40. If they ever come out with V2 50D in S8, whoa.


Kodachrome from the early 90's definitely had virtually no grain. I'm not sure if perhaps something has changed in recent years in regards to Kodachrome. Kodachrome is still good, but not quite as good as the Kodachrome I had developed and transferred to video 10-12 years ago.
  • 0

#16 Nate Downes

Nate Downes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1638 posts
  • Florida, USA

Posted 15 October 2005 - 08:32 AM

With E64T, the processing can help or hinder the graininess, to a point. I've found this with 35mm film already, stands to reason I'd find it with Super8 as well.
  • 0

#17 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 16 October 2005 - 07:39 AM

ok, the grain does increase in telecine. not in size obviously but it's more visible. it's a kind of blueish noise that really pops when transferred to video, while i didn't see it at all projected. is that what you saw too alex? i'm looking into a post solution to this. i think it's mainly a black balance issue. clips to come.

/matt
  • 0

#18 Alessandro Machi

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

Posted 16 October 2005 - 09:40 AM

ok, the grain does increase in telecine. not in size obviously but it's more visible. it's a kind of blueish noise that really pops when transferred to video, while i didn't see it at all projected. is that what you saw too alex? i'm looking into a post solution to this. i think it's mainly a black balance issue. clips to come.

/matt


Yes, but for me that is only half of the grain issue. When I make sure the reds and oranges pop, the red/ orange grains seem to clash with the blue grains, making the overall grain even more visible. DNR would definitely take away some of the grain, but I don't know at what cost to the detail.
  • 0

#19 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 16 October 2005 - 10:14 AM

i looked at the blue channel only and it's quite horrible. the grains are up to 10 pixels in size, while for the green and red they are around one or two pixels. blurring the blue channel quite a bit really helps and doesn't seem to affect sharpness. black balancing doesn't work though since the blue grain is pretty much uniform across the whole range.

/matt
  • 0

#20 Robert Hughes

Robert Hughes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Minneapolis

Posted 16 October 2005 - 04:28 PM

"i looked at the blue channel only and it's quite horrible. the grains are up to 10 pixels in size, while for the green and red they are around one or two pixels"

Mattias, that sounds like a telecine issue. I've seen noise in the blue and red channels when trying to recover underexposed material in telecine; perhaps the video preamps are running too high gain. Have you checked the film under a loupe or microscope to see if the grains are really there?
  • 0


Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

CineTape

CineLab

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS