KODACHROME a question for photo engineers.

[Matt5791]

I take the opposite view. I think that Kodak should thank its customers -- not the other way around! Fuji still makes sound Straight 8 Cartridges after their customers complained when they tried to discontinue it a couple years ago. What is it, 10 years since Kodak scrapped Sound Super8?

Fuji definitely do not make sound film any longer - they stopped about exactly the same time as Kodak stopped sound Super8. They make silent Single 8 film, which they almost discontinued, but then reversed the decision.

Why should Kodak's Super8 customers thank them? They could have given us the 16mm K40 when they scrapped the 8mm K40. There would have been plenty of demand between 16&8mm customers for the 16mm K40. They could have also offered K40 to their 135 customers as well. That's the problem with Western / Anglo Companies: they don't respect their customers!

Well they did supply 16mm K40, for years, and double super8. It was always available and it got the chop at the same time as the Super8 varient. There is only one reason it got the chop - they were not selling enough, it was not economically viable (probably hadn't been for some years) and that's all there is to it. The fact that companies like Wittner have not asked Kodak to make more is a strong indication of this.

I think we should thank Kodak and vice versa.

I'll try to get my K40 scanned in the next week so you can see it for yourself. I have one comparison scene of about 20 seconds where I started with the Filter in, and then put it out. I definitely like the images with it out.

I have never come accross anyone else who says this, but as I say it would depend on the conditions, but I can't see it being practical most of the time.

I think with Kodachrome, it just has to be accepted that it is consigned to history as far as MP goes.

Matt

 

[Rolfe Tessem]

I noticed that earlier in the thread, there was a discussion about appropriate grammar and spelling. Below is an email response received from Kodak recently after an online inquiry about the software used with the Creo (now Kodak) scanners. The demo version posted on the Kodak website supported Mac OS 10.3 -- a version of the the OS that is two generations out of date. Notice that the response begins with a misspelling of my name and goes downhill from there...

Dear Rolf,

I'm very sorry you have bad experience with our Demo version.

The official Kodak web site is under contracture these days so we can't
upload new releases and software update until Feb end.

Regard you question, the answer is yes, our product support Mac OS 10.5
and would support 10.6 with in couple month.

Thanks,
Name Removed

Product Manager,
Digital Capture Group, Scanning Solutions.
Kodak Graphic Communication

 

[PKM-25]

I noticed that earlier in the thread, there was a discussion about appropriate grammar and spelling. Below is an email response received from Kodak recently after an online inquiry about the software used with the Creo (now Kodak) scanners. The demo version posted on the Kodak website supported Mac OS 10.3 -- a version of the the OS that is two generations out of date. Notice that the response begins with a misspelling of my name and goes downhill from there...

To the poster or a moderator, Could you please edit out the person's information so that one day we can have a dialogue with Kodak that is built in mutual trust?

Note sent to moderator.

Thank you.

 

[Rolfe Tessem]

Name removed per request...

 

[PKM-25]

Name removed per request...

Thanks!

 

[iamzip]

I noticed that earlier in the thread, there was a discussion about appropriate grammar and spelling. Below is an email response received from Kodak recently after an online inquiry about the software used with the Creo (now Kodak) scanners. The demo version posted on the Kodak website supported Mac OS 10.3 -- a version of the the OS that is two generations out of date. Notice that the response begins with a misspelling of my name and goes downhill from there...

Good point, their customer service is probably offshore somewhere these days...

 

[TerryM]

... I liked Kodachrome with 8/16mm, and the results could be amazing, but it is just SO slow at 25ASA with the 85filter. ...

Matt, were you shooting at 24 f/s? K40 needs to be shot at 18 f/s, or it won't expose with best results.

 

[Matt5791]

I don't really understand your statement? Are you saying it looks poor shot at a higher frame rate (which it completely wrong) or are you saying by shooting at 24/25fps I will be loosing about 1/3 stop of exposure and thus this will cause a problem in terms of available light?

I always shoot at 24/25 fps.

Shooting at 24/25fps makes no difference to the exposure quality, unless, of course, the aperture has not been adjusted account for the shorter shutter time. Most super8 cameras automatically compensate for shutter speed / fps. But if you are metering manually then of course you will set your meter to the fps or shutter speed concerned.

With the Beaulieu 4008, 25fps equates to around 1/60 second and 18fps around 1/48 second.

With these small formats I am often tyring to shoot at a larger stop anyway because the depth of field is very generous and I often want a shallow DOF. Even shooting Fuji 64D in full sun I might find myself using 2 stops of ND. Thus 25fps helps (a little) with this.

Results are only improved at a higher frame rate, regardless of film emulsion.

 

[Fredrik Sandstrom]

Matt, were you shooting at 24 f/s? K40 needs to be shot at 18 f/s, or it won't expose with best results.

Nonsense, as Matt explained. Correct exposure can be obtained at any frame rate (except when there is not sufficient light, of course). The film stock does not "know" at what rate you're shooting, how could it? I've shot K40 at 64fps (for slow motion effects). I usually shoot 16mm in 24fps (because many projectors don't support other speeds) and 8mm in 16-18fps.

 

[TerryM]

...Shooting at 24/25fps makes no difference to the exposure quality, unless, of course, the aperture has not been adjusted account for the shorter shutter time. Most super8 cameras automatically compensate for shutter speed / fps. But if you are metering manually then of course you will set your meter to the fps or shutter speed concerned.
With the Beaulieu 4008, 25fps equates to around 1/60 second and 18fps around 1/48 second.
...
Results are only improved at a higher frame rate, regardless of film emulsion.

Increasing the Aperture is not entirely equivalent to sufficient Exposure Time. While a larger Aperture will substitute for insufficient Exp Time, it compromises resolution quality. It is definitely preferable to increase the Angle of the Shutter (Exp Time) instead of the Aperture. (Few S8 Cameras can adjust Shutter Angle.) I can't speak for the Beaulieu, but I believe that the intended Exposure Time for Super8 (18f/s) is 1/30th of a Second with a Shutter of 220 Degrees. This would apply to the intended S8 Stocks of 25 & 40 ISO. Results with 25&40 Films will definitely not be improved at a higher Frame rate.

Nonsense, as Matt explained. Correct exposure can be obtained at any frame rate (except when there is not sufficient light, of course). The film stock does not "know" at what rate you're shooting, how could it? I've shot K40 at 64fps (for slow motion effects). I usually shoot 16mm in 24fps (because many projectors don't support other speeds) and 8mm in 16-18fps.

16mm isn't applicable because you can adjust the Shutter Angle (Exp Time). I'm not the only one who would attest that K40 exposes better at 18f/s instead of 24. Other S8 users who've shot a lot more K40 than me are of the same view. The "optimum" Exposure Time was determined when the K25&40 Stocks were designed. Here's a quote from Kodak's information sheet on K40:
"Daylight
Use with a KODAK WRATTEN Gelatin Filter No. 85, 16 to 18 frames per second camera speed (exposure approximately 1/40 second)."

Even for K25 (16mm), Kodak recommends 16 to 18 f/s. Here's their Sheet:

 

[Fredrik Sandstrom]

Increasing the Aperture is not entirely equivalent to sufficient Exposure Time. While a larger Aperture will substitute for insufficient Exp Time, it compromises resolution quality.

That depends entirely on the lens, and what f-stops we're talking about. If we're shooting on a bright sunny day, a larger aperture will improve quality, as diffraction is quite noticable on these tiny 8mm and 16mm images. You definitely want to avoid the smallest apertures.

Here's a quote from Kodak's information sheet on K40:
"Daylight
Use with a KODAK WRATTEN Gelatin Filter No. 85, 16 to 18 frames per second camera speed (exposure approximately 1/40 second)."

Even for K25 (16mm), Kodak recommends 16 to 18 f/s. Here's their Sheet:

I do not read that as a recommendation for any specific frame rate. Those are guides to getting the correct exposure, assuming an fps rate of 16-18 (and probably a 180 degree shutter, although they do not say). If you use a different fps rate and/or different shutter angle, you need to adjust your aperture accordingly (or better yet, use an exposure meter and ignore that table), and there's absolutely no reason the results would be better or worse.

 

[Matt5791]

Increasing the Aperture is not entirely equivalent to sufficient Exposure Time. While a larger Aperture will substitute for insufficient Exp Time, it compromises resolution quality. It is definitely preferable to increase the Angle of the Shutter (Exp Time) instead of the Aperture. (Few S8 Cameras can adjust Shutter Angle.) I can't speak for the Beaulieu, but I believe that the intended Exposure Time for Super8 (18f/s) is 1/30th of a Second with a Shutter of 220 Degrees. This would apply to the intended S8 Stocks of 25 & 40 ISO. Results with 25&40 Films will definitely not be improved at a higher Frame rate.

Use with a KODAK WRATTEN Gelatin Filter No. 85, 16 to 18 frames per second camera speed (exposure approximately 1/40 second)."

Even for K25 (16mm), Kodak recommends 16 to 18 f/s. Here's their Sheet:

Terry - none of this makes any sense at all.

Firstly It is not preferable to adjust the shutter angle because this has other consequences far more objectionable than the lens performing poorly at a wider aperture. Also, you might be adjusting the aperture to a better performing stop for the lens in question anyway. But all of this is virtually academic because the exposure difference is very small.

Further to this there is no "intended" exposure time with these emulsions. The Kodak publications are definitely not recommendations.

18fps established itself as a mainstream rate for amateurs, but it is a compromise on cost over quality. 18fps compromises the quality over the industry standard 24/25fps, but, importantly:

1. The amateur would get more running time out of 50 feet of film. On a home movie of several rolls this equates to quite a few more minutes
2. He gets a little more available light possibilities, important with such a slow film.

On the down side:

1. The amateur has a finished film where the frame rate starts to become almost discernable to the human eye.
2. Pan movements are particularly affected.
3. The longer shutter reduces sharpness
4. Very importantly, unsteady hand held work becomes more apparent.
5. All this contributes to a more amateur looking film.


I have some very beautiful Super8 movies shot on K40 at 25fps. All kinds of subject matter from extreme stuff to landscapes. I have thousands of feet of K40 shot by my father in the 80's at 18fps. I would just never consider shooting at 18fps.

Matt

 

[BetterSense]

To be honest I'm quite surprised at the motion picture industry's continued support of 24fps as an acceptable frame rate. It is acceptable, but only just, in the arena of fidelity. It is quite noticable on pans and projectile motion where it subtly contributes to film's distinctive looks. Ironically, video at 30fps looks smoother, yet the industry has rejected higher frame rates wholeheartedly even when shooting digitally because motion portrayed at these frame rates indeed looks like video and not motion picture film, which generations of people are used to seeing. I find it ironic considering that way way back when the 24fps frame rate was arrived at, almost certainly as a compromise of quality vs. price, if the powers at the time had had the ability to go for a much higher, better fidelity frame rate, they would have, yet with time, their choice has shaped basically an entire civilizations expectations of what a motion picture is supposed to look like, and thus now even CG movies are viewed at 24fps. Imperfection is beautiful.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Douglas Trumbull, the famous Cinematographer, has long advocated higher frame rates for greater fidelity. His methods are used in the "Back to the Future" ride in Florida. He has given talks on this and demonstrated the near 3D quality achieved by such methods.

I have met and spoken with him personally on this and been very very impressed by his work. I was also impressed seeing some of the spectacular outcuts from "2001" that never made the big screen. He gave a talk here in Rochester and everyone was so spellbound, the talk ran over by at least one-half hour if not more.

PE

 

[PHOTOTONE]

The earliest "films" were often shot and exhibited (in peep show galleries) as much higher frame rates. The original silent speed of 16fps was arbitrary. Most often films were shot at a slower frame rate than they were exhibited. When Western Electric was studying industry practices in order to design their sound for film system, they observed that the "average" projection rate for theatres was 24 fps. So this is what they designed their sound on disc, and sound on film systems to run at. After sound was introduced..projection speeds had to become standard and universal.

 

[BetterSense]

That makes sense because, it's far easier to tell if the sound is speeded up or slowed down slightly. PAL DVDs run about 4% fast, which is would generally be unnoticable, but for the sound, which is usually electronically pitch-shifted down roughly 4% to sound natural.

 

[TerryM]

To be honest I'm quite surprised at the motion picture industry's continued support of 24fps as an acceptable frame rate. It is acceptable, but only just, in the arena of fidelity. It is quite noticable on pans and projectile motion where it subtly contributes to film's distinctive looks. ...

These problems may be caused by the 'anamorphic' Lenses they use. They could switch to 30 f/s, and only use as much Film as 22.5 Frames. Super35mm uses a 3-perforation Frame Height whereas Regular35mm uses 4-perf. Regular35 uses an 'anamorphic' Lens because it doesn't use the portion of the Frame for the 'analogue' Sound Track. Super35 uses up the Frame portion used by the analogue Track, and so uses a regular 'spherical' Lens. However, to switch to 30 f/s would mean eliminating the analogue Sound Track, and the 'digital' Sound Tracks would have to be changed. (The 24 f/s standard was chosen in 1927 for the Sound Track.) Given the limited number of action scenes that would benefit from 30 f/s, there isn't a lot of incentive to switch from 24. Decades ago there were a few Movies shot at 30f/s -- I think "Oklahoma" was one. Super35 'spherical' shot at 24 f/s is universally agreed to be better than Regular35 'anamorphic'.

... 1. The amateur has a finished film where the frame rate starts to become almost discernable to the human eye.
2. Pan movements are particularly affected.
3. The longer shutter reduces sharpness
4. Very importantly, unsteady hand held work becomes more apparent.
5. All this contributes to a more amateur looking film.

I have some very beautiful Super8 movies shot on K40 at 25fps. All kinds of subject matter from extreme stuff to landscapes. I have thousands of feet of K40 shot by my father in the 80's at 18fps. I would just never consider shooting at 18fps.

Matt, I calculated the Exposure Time for a 220 Degree Shutter at 24 f/s, and it amounts to 1/39th of a Second -- which is right on with Kodak's recommended 1/40th Second for K40. So, you were safe to shoot K40 at 24 f/s. Other S8 users have stated that they like the look of K40 better at 18 f/s, but I suppose they were using the Filter.
For my part, I only use a Tripod which definitely makes a difference to image quality on slow speed Films. I believe that it is the responsibility of the cinematographer / photographer to make the necessary sacrifices for quality.
My Projector has a 'Disc' Shutter which exposes each Frame 3 times. This reduces the blinking effect. Check your father's Projector to see what type of Shutter it has. I'm curious to know.

 

[Fredrik Sandstrom]

Matt, I calculated the Exposure Time for a 220 Degree Shutter at 24 f/s, and it amounts to 1/39th of a Second -- which is right on with Kodak's recommended 1/40th Second for K40.

There is NO such recommendation. Who ever heard of an emulsion designed for one specific exposure time? The idea is absurd. In reality, there will be no difference in the quality of the exposure between 1/1000 s and 1/40 s (assuming correct, equivalent EV in both cases, of course). The only even remotely related real issue is that of reciprocity failure with long exposures, but that is clearly not an issue in cine shooting.

 

[AutumnJazz]

Terry, or you could use 48f/s and just use faster projectors. I heard somewhere that humans can't tell the difference over 30f/s, though. Heh.

 

[TerryM]

There is NO such recommendation. Who ever heard of an emulsion designed for one specific exposure time? The idea is absurd. In reality, there will be no difference in the quality of the exposure between 1/1000 s and 1/40 s (assuming correct, equivalent EV in both cases, of course). ...

The ISO Speed of the Film dictates exposure requirements. Here is Kodak's K40 Information Sheet which you can accept or reject as you wish.
http://www.geocities.com/filmanddigitalinfo/cinematography/Kodachrome_40-tech7268.shtml.htm

 

[accozzaglia]

Uhm, how about the two of you call it a day and shoot this on a camera capable of 21fps? Once upon a time, I seem to remember this thread wasn't a one-upmanship over which fps is "better". Just go out and shoot already.

Further, keep in mind that Kodak's recommendations are part of their CYA language. In this case, in the event anyone tries to film at a slower fps, their results might disappoint and, at least in the older consumer-oriented days, triggered a needless number of naïve complaints. I'm sure a similar case could be made for those shooting faster than 24fps. So to play it conservatively, 18 falls right in between choppy viewing and a need for brighter light sources.

Keep it mind that Kodak also label their Ektachrome 320T with a notice to handle in absolute darkness (like EIR or HIE infrared varieties), but one can load this in subdued light even when Kodak don't endorse it.

 

[Matt5791]

The ISO Speed of the Film dictates exposure requirements. Here is Kodak's K40 Information Sheet which you can accept or reject as you wish.
http://www.geocities.com/filmanddigitalinfo/cinematography/Kodachrome_40-tech7268.shtml.htm

ISO speed does dictate exposure requirements, but this can be with any combination of shutter speed / aperture, as long as it is the same EV. ie - as long as the film is receiving the correct amount of light!

Kodak don't recommend any particular fps speed or any shutter speed in any of their documentation. They are merely using a particular fps/shutter speed as an example of a typically used speed.

Film requires a particluar amount of light, and K40 is no exception. It doesn't matter whether you have a long shutter and smaller aperture or a shorter shutter and wider aperture - the amount of light hitting the film is the same.

As Fredrik said - who ever heard of a film where you have to use a specific shutter speed to expose correctly??!!

 

[AgX]

accozzaglia,

please keep in mind that this is an international forum and foreign members will have to look up abbreviations which are not photography related.

 

[kraker]

accozzaglia,

please keep in mind that this is an international forum and foreign members will have to look up abbreviations which are not photography related.

Indeed. And even when looking up CYA, I don't know which of the possible definitions you were referring to... Not that it really matters, though...

 

[Chazzy]

Indeed. And even when looking up CYA, I don't know which of the possible definitions you were referring to... Not that it really matters, though...

I believe that in this case CYA meant "cover your ass," meaning a disclaimer intended to protect a person (or in this case company) from liability. I agree about acronyms, abbreviations and slang—I often have difficulty with them as a native English speaker, so I can only imagine how difficult they must be for those who are not.