Today's home movie stock vs yesteryear

[Osi Osgood]

This is for those who actually shoot home movies today as well as years ago. The film stock of today tends to be more fine grain so, in theory, it should be capable of a greater sharpness and detail, but I'd like to hear from the professionals in this regard. I do know that Kodachrome was certainly a lower grain film stock as the Ektachrome, as I shot both, and the Ektachrome was not only grainier, but the colors were not as accurate. What do you fine Cine folks think?

[Graham Sinden]

IMO the stocks today are not a patch on Kodachrome. No where near. However the 'New' Ektachrome 100D has been reported to be better than the older stock a few years previously that was discontinued, but I have yet to try the 'New' E100d but I don't believe it is on a level with Kodachrome.

The problem I have with E100d I have is that there is no detail in the shaded areas which makes it unsuitable for filming in sunny conditions with lots of shaded areas which just end up looking black. Far better to shoot in cloudy days where the light is more even.


Graham S

[Steve Klare]

I've shot several cartridges of 100D and I really like the look of it. The colors are a little more subdued than Kodachrome, but still what I would describe as pleasant and natural. The grain is very fine, much moreso than 64-T. I shot about 5 cartridges of that about 15 years ago and it was generally pretty good, but for example facial features of people easily became obscured by the grain as they became smaller on screen.

What I do miss was what shooting film was like 2010 and earlier when S8 camera film was cheap enough that shooting it didn't seem like such a luxury. With the pricing where it stands these days I don't shoot anywhere close to what I did back in even the late days of Kodachrome. For a while it was $13.35 a roll with Kodak processing. In real purchasing power compared to when I was a high school kid, that's almost cheap! It made it easier to shoot more film and take more risks with footage that might not work out.

-Still the same, I'm glad to be able to do it at all!

I think the most encouraging word is the loss of Kodachrome's archival qualities may not hurt as much as we fear. I started shooting a mix of Kodachrome and Ektachrome starting in the late 1970s and both stocks are holding up just fine.

[Matthieu van der Sluis]

Is this new film positive and usable for projection?

[Steve Klare]

Yes: 100D is reversal film for projection.

We also still have Tri-X reversal for black and white, although I liked Plus-X better back in the day.

[Osi Osgood]

What is the grain and sharpness to the black and white film? I may well be wrong, but it just seems to me that true black and white film stock seems to have a brilliant sharpness to it, where restored classics in color, just don't seem to have that same sharpness. Could that be because of the grain level to color compared to black and white?

[Steve Klare]

That's the thing: Tri-X is higher ASA than Plus-X was, but Plus-X had much finer grain. It and Kodachrome were a nice pair as complimentary B&W and color stocks.

Tri-X of course will be much friendlier to low light situations, but most of the time I'm shooting Super-8 the action is outdoors.

[Joerg Polzfusz]

Hi!

Which Kodachrome are you talking about? The daylight balanced K25 or the Tungsten balanced K40? The K25 had no visible grain at all and its colors looked very natural. The K40 had visible grain, suffered from the need for filtering (when used outdoors) and e.g. turned blue skies into turquoise ones.

The E100D has very natural colors, even though they are slightly less saturated than the K25‘s/K40‘s.
The E100D‘s grain is more visible than the K40‘s. But that’s „as expected“ as it’s 100ASA vs. 40ASA. (If Kodak ever produces an E50D or E40D, then it might have less grain than the K40.)

The main advantages of the E100D are that it can be processed everywhere (even at home) and that it’s still in production.
The main disadvantages of the E100D are that it’s „too light sensitive“ in many occasions and that it’s not suited for artificial light (unless you are willing to invest into new LEDs that produce „sunlight“).

[Steve Klare]

I'm thinking about the Tungsten balanced K40: the most recent one. I don't think I ever saw K25 available back then (1978+).

The only time I ever shoot 100D with tungsten lighting is titling, and an external filter fixes that nicely.

[Shane C. Collins]

I agree with Steve Klare the new Ektachrome is quite pleasant. The colors, grain, and sharpness are all good. Projected this stock looks really nice. I just shot a cart of 100D this past Sunday for my son's 3rd birthday. When I'm shooting the current Ektachrome I open the aperture by one full stop. I have found 100D really shines through at 64 ASA instead of 100 ASA. I'm convinced Kodak notched this film incorrectly, and as to why some have complained about underexposure. Steve I'm not sure if you have noticed this? I also use a X4 ND filter anytime I'm filming with this stock on a sunny day. I still use the 1 stop more exposure when the filter is in place. When the films come back from the lab they look perfect projected.

The Elmo Super 110 I use a lot with the new Ektachrome does not have a backlight function. I created an insert to use on the cartridge with epoxy ribbon. This new insert now pushes the 64 ASA pin inside the camera when the cartridge is inserted. This now effectively opens the auto exposure one stop. Anyways I'm pointing all this out for anyone looking to shoot this new stock. Give it more light and you will have some great looking films for projection. I also agree with Steve, shooting Super 8 today is a luxury, and I use it for special occasions. I'm probably shooting 5 or 6 carts a year on average. Just enough to have fun with, and preserve some of my family memories. The newer E6 processing is very stable. Films I shot 18 years ago still look like new. Steve I'm happy to hear your late 70's Ektachromes are still holding up. Were these E6 processing back then? I'm only asking because I recently read Ektachrome became more stable after E6 processing was developed.

Osi the latest Ektachrome is nothing like the Ektachrome from the past. The latest formula is leaps and bounds ahead of those old grainy stocks. Grain is barely visible when projected. In fact it's very pleasing, and just enough to make the scenes sharp on a nice sunny day. But as I mentioned above a ND filter is a must on bright sunny days. Lowering the f stops gives a sharper image on screen.

[Steve Klare]

Hi Shane,

Wikipedia says that E6 was phased in in 1976, which works out for me. I got my first camera in the summer of 1978, and actually didn't shoot any Ektachrome until maybe the following year. If you'd asked me what kind of processing I was using I would have said "Fotomat", because I could get there on my bike. (driver's license: September 19th, 1979, 2PM!)

I haven't thought about for a long time, but I believe my Minolta XL-401 exposes 100D at 64ASA, and yes, it does look good.

I believe my 100D lifetime total is seven or eight cartridges, including two up in Alaska last summer.

K-40 was cheap(er) when my son was a little kid: I shot some really great films back in those days.

[Brian Fretwell]

Yes E6 was a higher temperature development process that shortened the processing time a great deal. It needed new emulsions to take the increase in temperature.I believe there was in intermediate ME6 (Modified E4) that was used for a short time, I think for news film in a table top auto processor.

[Winbert Hutahaean]

Slightly off topic... with the current available stock do you think we will get good result if we shoot directly at a very big LCD screen (I think now there is one with 65 -90").

Will that screen gives roll horizontal lines as we got with tubes CRT screen?

[Dominique De Bast]

it’s not suited for artificial light (unless you are willing to invest into new LEDs that produce „sunlight“).

That's very interesting. Have you tried those sunlight LED's or have you seen a film shot with that lighting ?

[Joerg Polzfusz]

I know that Friedemann Wachsmuth tried this. But that was before the pandemic. And I haven’t seen him since (and hence also not his films).
I have never tried it myself as I have tons of 500W and 1kW halogen lamps and some Wratten 80A. And I am mainly filming outdoors anyway.