• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Ektachrome is back......

Hi Lachian,
of course it was planned as Super8 revival from the origin thought of Kodak AND as an additional suport for still film shooters.
But todays reality looks not in that direction. I would not bet on a great deal with super8.
And let us better not talk about 16mm avaible next!
So it is more like we do the suport to Super8 while shooting (and demand ) still film

with regards
 
But the superiority of neg-pos film systems can be shown mathematically, as can the shortcomings of pos-pos systems.

Ah well.

PE
 
Photo Engineer said:
But the superiority of neg-pos film systems can be shown mathematically, as can the shortcomings of pos-pos systems.

Ah well.

PE
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't doubt that math and measurements can prove c41 is superior to e6. I use c41 and e6 and my calculator, slide rule and micrometer all agree that e6 is superior at showing me what the world looks like when I hold a slide up to the sky. It's 106.8% more bitchin' than c41. Approximately.

 
Photo Engineer said:
But the superiority of neg-pos film systems can be shown mathematically, as can the shortcomings of pos-pos systems.

Ah well.

PE
Click to expand...

It sounds a great deal more interesting than anything else in this thread by a large margin - a quick search brings up references you've made to this before - is it published anywhere, or was it a confidential internal document?

My current favourite bizarre claim I've seen someone volubly defend is that current colour negative film was supposedly designed/ compromised to produce bigger dye clouds for lower granularity when scanned & then get sharpened in software - which from my experience scanning various Portra's, VPS, Fuji etc (on high end kit that doesn't need sharpening to deal with poor scanner optics) seems fairly nonsensical as the latest films are definitely clearly sharper than the 90's stuff! Same with optical chromogenic prints too. The claims also seem largely ignorant of how minilab scanners work, but that's another topic entirely...
 

You have never seen a positive made from one of your negatives, using a print film then. Much higher dynamic range. Too bad.

PE
 

It is not published except in very technical journals. It was not confidential. Basically, it relies on the fact that a print from a negative with a long straight line curve is always printed from that straight line. A print from a slide is printed from curves at the toe and shoulder and thus have compression of the image in those regions. That is why old positive prints are said to look "dupey" which is the real term for this effect. The old films and many modern student films rely on pos-pos prints.

Portra was changed in some sizes, eliminating the rough back coat that gave tooth to the surface for retouching. It had nothing to do with scanning. There is a limit to sharpness though due to the limitations of digital, not the film. If grain is too fine, you actually cannot realize it from the scan, because the grain and sharpness are not visible to the scanner.

PE
 
Photo Engineer said:
You have never seen a positive made from one of your negatives, using a print film then. Much higher dynamic range. Too bad.
PE
Click to expand...

It's not too bad. I wouldn't do such a thing. The positive is finished when I develop it and I'm satisfied with it; it has less detail in the shadows, which I don't care about, and I'm careful to not overexpose. Hey I like c-41 too, but have no interest in the labor of turning negatives into positives when I can just shoot positives when I feel like it. It's more fun that way, 102.4%.
 
My read has been as Photo Engineer suggests - and not based on "knowing" so much as literally... what I've read. To wit, dynamic range of C-41 is greater than E-6, and so at least (on my re=entry to shooting color film) I've shot exclusively C-41. Not sure whether the comment on Portra was meant to be a plus or a minus, but I'm shooting Portra exclusively,too, within the C-41 range on the presumed exit of Fuji from the color film space. Why get used to a film that won't be around? Now of course, I'm reading maybe Fuji will have 2nd thoughts. Right? Am I missing something? Love to hear more.
 
Had Rochester only included a new Super-8 projector in the strategy the whole thing were better comprehensible. I think it wouldn’t need to be a sound projector, just a neat solid thing that makes a good three-to-four foot picture.
 
I know of the issue of rubber driving belts turning to goo and the issue of mains voltage, but do we really need a new made S-8 projector?
If people buying slides film already without interest to projecting, is then a interest in projecting S-8 films to expect?
 
Europan said:
Had Rochester only included a new Super-8 projector in the strategy the whole thing were better comprehensible. I think it wouldn’t need to be a sound projector, just a neat solid thing that makes a good three-to-four foot picture.
Click to expand...
Indeed - I would agree European. A new EKTACHROME based Super8 film is just great. (To fellows who can afford pricing of Super 8 rolls). But what about a simple camera to use the Super8 Films?

Some say : " There is no need and you may get it in used condition " - people who stated this are right.
I own Nizo cameras and they are still good enough for the next 10 years. Unbreakable and with realy good features (by the way the design of "BRAUN" is superior.)
But with projection it is a problem. I have two Eumig bought in used condition many years ago but there are some problems like AgX described. I have an Idea of many other people feel the same.
A Brand new film coming fresh developed from a lab is much too precious for projection in 30years old stuff - scratching all films. ...ok you then need a service with overhauling - EVERYTHING is possible.

But a New production from Kodak would be also the best way to push super8.

AS the super8 films are much too expensive I prefer still Films of Ektachrome.

I guess to you it is no problem (remember a old thread) - you are an expert to used equipment and in addition an expert in "overhauling" right.

I own a Simens2000 in best condition - but 16mm is much more expensive in concern of Ektachrome.
Around 145 bucks for 3 min. raw szenes? That's just to a very small group wich will use it for
"homemade" filming. At last I will stand with still Film EKTACHROME!
 

Kodak should offer one of two options : a) a New super8 projetor b) a scanning service with min. HD
resolution.

with regards

PS : I informed about high quality super8 scanning a time ago. There are companies wich support
4k scanning with Super 8. You may say there is no need because HD is quite enough. That is right but 4k is also on Super8 a little better. But a 4k scan is real expensive.
To Kodak it would be no problem with a brand new digital scanning equipment. And then the pricing of Ektachrome Super8 + developing + high resolution scan would be a sensation.
It would be also quite cheap if a high resolution scan would cost 30,- bucks in addition.
But the plan is based on Film classes and Film students.....a plan without knowing the practice?

with regards

PS : A possible good deal to the year 1995 but today a bit to late (the Film students supports)?
 

For perfectly straightforward technical reasons, a print from a negative to make a slide has a density range from about 0.1 to 4.0, whereas a straight Ektachrome slide has a range from about 0.2 to 3.0. Wooo Hooo, how does that suit you? Projected, this type of "slide" will knock your socks off when compared with a dreary old Ektachrome. BTDT!!!

Since print films are no longer made, this is a moot point, but if more people had understood this fact, these films might still be in production today.

But then, Hollywood knows better. They use print films and this type of film is supporting the last Kodak film production units here in Rochester.

PE
 

Yes, I did a little digging last night and figured out you were suggesting an unavailable technology is superior to the available one, which of course means even less to me than the increase in density range. Wooo Hooo! I guess I'll just keep enjoying dreary old e-6.
 
So, the argument not pertaining to Ektachrome's resurrection is that c-41 is better than e6 somehow? What about preference? I vastly prefer my slides over my color negs, also i thought that positive film was thought of as being far superior to print film.
man, photographers are weird...
 
Photo Engineer said:
But then, Hollywood knows better. They use print films and this type of film is supporting the last Kodak film production units here in Rochester.
Click to expand...
What use does Hollywood have for print films?
 
Well, the print films are what are viewed in the theater. And they are 35 mm. With a little thought, those of you that shoot color neg could adapt their workflows to allow for positives to be made from this film. Of course, no one things of that and there are long threads on ECN in-camera use, but then making slides are lost on them. I've done a lot of that in the past. But then I went to prints instead.

Color positive is NOT superior, it is inferior to a slide made via the neg-pos workflow, but was obsoleted by scanners and thus the products were cancelled. You can make superior scans of negatives vs reversal by the same method if done properly.

Also BTDT. You cannot achieve the same level of color correction and image tone scale in a reversal product that you can in a neg-pos system. It is as simple as that.

PE
 
Yes, I’m servicing a Paillard-Bolex H-16 RX-5 right now. The last person who had worked on it smeared graphite grease everywhere, even on the gears of the shutter drive. A view of the governor brake bell that should be clean and dry:
 
Photo Engineer said:
Well, the print films are what are viewed in the theater. And they are 35 mm.
Click to expand...
My point was, which cinemas do still project on film, what films are still released on film, respectively in what number?

In the whole media attention on a film revival in moviemaking, I did not find a single statement on print film, not even by Kodak, not even regarding Imax. It all was about camera films.

If you google Digitalisation Cinema", you even will not even get results from the recent years from Germany. It is no longer a topic to write about, but a accepted fact...
 

There was a great side I remember "shotonfilm.com" but I can't find this side now. It seams to be it is offline...?
There is a New side I do not remember - so it obviously changed :



"Shot on RED - RED Digital Cinema" https//:www.red.com/shot-on-red ...?

That would answer our questions about the use of motion picture film today ...,.

with regards

PS : The last year from a smal minority of production of Hollywood Studios was 2015 (from my point >10%).
In 2016 it became less and today just a couple of heros who "Shot on Film" are allive so as :


This " last man standing " - he will proceed with film

with regards
 

I think E6 was always though of as superior as it was fine grained whilst C41 back in the day wasn't
The advent of Ektar, Portra and Fuji Pro changed that somewhat. A fine grain equivalent with E6 whilst having a wider latitude.
I think people shoot E6 for either the colour palate of a particular stock, or of course if they want to project.

If people shoot colour film commercially now it's mostly Portra or Fuji Pro as opposed to Kodachrome or E6 previously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register