Jump to content


kodachrome


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 cruz

cruz
  • Guests

Posted 17 October 2005 - 09:29 AM

I just got a roll of kodachrome, I have no idea how should I expose it. It looks to be 10 years old, how do you think should I expose it i.e. overexpose it or underexpose, what characteristic does it have is it a negative or diapositive?
  • 0

#2 Nate Downes

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

Posted 17 October 2005 - 09:56 AM

I'd overexpose slightly. Your colors will be off, magenta-tone normally. It is a K14 reversal stock, you can get it processed at your local Ritz Camera, take 2 weeks, or through WalMart or Target.
  • 0

#3 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

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

Posted 17 October 2005 - 12:20 PM

Whether a roll of ten-year old KODACHROME film produces good images depends very much on how it was stored. Film characteristics change with age, and cold storage slows those changes. But ambient radiation (e.g., cosmic rays) eventually cause undesireable changes, even with refrigerated stock.
  • 0

#4 Will Montgomery

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

Posted 17 October 2005 - 05:23 PM

So Kodachrome 16mm is gone too???

I thought it was just Super 8, but my Kodak rep said the 16mm is no longer available either. The only 16mm color reversal stock available is 7285 Ektachrome 100T.

Bummer.
  • 0

#5 Alessandro Machi

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

Posted 18 October 2005 - 01:15 PM

So Kodachrome 16mm is gone too???

I thought it was just Super 8, but my Kodak rep said the 16mm is no longer available either. The only 16mm color reversal stock available is 7285 Ektachrome 100T.

Bummer.


Do you have a link?
  • 0

#6 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

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

Posted 18 October 2005 - 09:12 PM

Do you have a link?


Discontinued Kodak motion-picture products are listed here:

http://www.kodak.com...=0.1.4.17&lc=en
  • 0

#7 Will Montgomery

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

Posted 18 October 2005 - 11:32 PM

Do you have a link?


No link, that's just what the Kodak sales rep told me. Pretty sure Dwayne's has some left.

Looked in John's Kodak link above... didn't see reference to 16mm (did they ever make 35?) just Super 8.
  • 0

#8 A.Oliver

A.Oliver
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 348 posts
  • Other
  • Croydon UK

Posted 19 October 2005 - 05:43 AM

No link, that's just what the Kodak sales rep told me. Pretty sure Dwayne's has some left.

Looked in John's Kodak link above... didn't see reference to 16mm (did they ever make 35?) just Super 8.


Wow, i wished, 35mm kodachrome 25 in motion picture, would have probably blown all modern stocks away in good lite.
  • 0

#9 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

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

Posted 19 October 2005 - 05:51 AM

Wow, i wished, 35mm kodachrome 25 in motion picture, would have probably blown all modern stocks away in good lite.


For motion pictures, even K25 would have a hard time "blowing away" the new Kodak VISION2 50D Color Negative Film 5201/7201. And color negative films are MUCH more suited to modern duplication methods required for release prints or telecine.
  • 0

#10 A.Oliver

A.Oliver
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 348 posts
  • Other
  • Croydon UK

Posted 19 October 2005 - 12:24 PM

For motion pictures, even K25 would have a hard time "blowing away" the new Kodak VISION2 50D Color Negative Film 5201/7201. And color negative films are MUCH more suited to modern duplication methods required for release prints or telecine.


Being an amateur and only ever requiring a camera original for direct projection, i agree kodachrome is no good for duplication etc.
Just looked at the MTF curve for k25 and 7201, am i reading the curves correctly?, k25 appears to have the greater resolving power compared to the new 7201. I know k25 is a thing of the past, just curious.
http://www.kodak.com...rves/7267MT.pdf
  • 0

#11 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

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

Posted 19 October 2005 - 03:36 PM

Being an amateur and only ever requiring a camera original for direct projection, i agree kodachrome is no good for duplication etc.
Just looked at the MTF curve for k25 and 7201, am i reading the curves correctly?, k25 appears to have the greater resolving power compared to the new 7201. I know k25 is a thing of the past, just curious.
http://www.kodak.com...rves/7267MT.pdf


Hard to compare those curves, as K25 used the old method of publishing only the "visual response" MTF curve, where more recent films have all three (red, green, blue) curves published. I think 7201 holds a slight edge over K25 for sharpness.
  • 0

#12 Alessandro Machi

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

Posted 19 October 2005 - 04:39 PM

For motion pictures, even K25 would have a hard time "blowing away" the new Kodak VISION2 50D Color Negative Film 5201/7201. And color negative films are MUCH more suited to modern duplication methods required for release prints or telecine.



And yet we see more and more films from the 60's and 70's being retransfered that look positvely spectacular. These older films probably have internegatives with just as much contrast build-up as a Kodachrome original, yet these newly transferred internegatives being broadcast on television look quite spectacular.
  • 0

#13 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

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

Posted 19 October 2005 - 07:53 PM

And yet we see more and more films from the 60's and 70's being retransfered that look positvely spectacular. These older films probably have internegatives with just as much contrast build-up as a Kodachrome original, yet these newly transferred internegatives being broadcast on television look quite spectacular.


Master positives and duplicate negatives normally have a "gamma" very close to the original negative, near 0.55 to 0.60. Even with possible contrast build-up, easily handled by modern telecine. A reversal original or projection print has a much higher gamma, usually greater than 1.6 to 1.8 projection contrast, and much more difficult to telecine transfer without lost shadow and highlight detail.
  • 0

#14 Alessandro Machi

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

Posted 19 October 2005 - 08:24 PM

Master positives and duplicate negatives normally have a "gamma" very close to the original negative, near 0.55 to 0.60. Even with possible contrast build-up, easily handled by modern telecine. A reversal original or projection print has a much higher gamma, usually greater than 1.6 to 1.8 projection contrast, and much more difficult to telecine transfer without lost shadow and highlight detail.


Even internegatives from the 60's and early 70's?
  • 0

#15 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

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

Posted 19 October 2005 - 09:25 PM

Even internegatives from the 60's and early 70's?


Yes.
  • 0

#16 Alessandro Machi

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

Posted 19 October 2005 - 11:16 PM

Yes.


Your talking a double whammy here John. First the stocks from 30 years ago weren't more contrasty than now, they you're talking about a copy made from a more contrasty stock. The end result wouldn't rival what can be done nowadays.
  • 0

#17 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

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

Posted 20 October 2005 - 05:50 AM

Your talking a double whammy here John. First the stocks from 30 years ago weren't more contrasty than now, they you're talking about a copy made from a more contrasty stock. The end result wouldn't rival what can be done nowadays.


Regardless of any possible slight contrast buildup from the duplication process, a projection contrast original is much higher in contrast than any duplicate negative. KODACHROME motion picture film is just much harder to duplicate without distorting the tone scale. It was designed primarily for direct projection of the processed camera original.
  • 0

#18 Alessandro Machi

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

Posted 20 October 2005 - 07:03 AM

Regardless of any possible slight contrast buildup from the duplication process, a projection contrast original is much higher in contrast than any duplicate negative. KODACHROME motion picture film is just much harder to duplicate without distorting the tone scale. It was designed primarily for direct projection of the processed camera original.


No disagreement from me on that point. However, the digital intermediate step pretty much renders the issue of Kodachrome being primarily a projection print irrelevant. Whatever is on the Kodachrome original can be preserved via the digital intermediate.
  • 0

#19 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

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

Posted 20 October 2005 - 09:35 AM

No disagreement from me on that point. However, the digital intermediate step pretty much renders the issue of Kodachrome being primarily a projection print irrelevant. Whatever is on the Kodachrome original can be preserved via the digital intermediate.


Color negative film is also much more suited to scanning using current motion picture scanning technology. Again: Projection contrast reversal films are best suited for direct projection, not duplication. Their use in professional production today is primarily to obtain a unique "look", typically one of high contrast, high saturation, with some loss of shadow and highlight detail.
  • 0

#20 Alessandro Machi

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

Posted 20 October 2005 - 02:12 PM

Color negative film is also much more suited to scanning using current motion picture scanning technology. Again: Projection contrast reversal films are best suited for direct projection, not duplication. Their use in professional production today is primarily to obtain a unique "look", typically one of high contrast, high saturation, with some loss of shadow and highlight detail.


I've seen 16mm kodachrome shot on the Galapagos Islands and the shots were stunningly good. I admit it's been a while since I saw the footage and perhaps I would view it more critically now, but I seem to recall how incredible it looked.

If I can see a full spectrum of Kodachrome colors from an original image projected on a standard 16mm projector throwing a 6-8 foot image across a screen, in my opinion that should be completely preservable with today's transfering technology advancements.
  • 0


Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Opal

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS