JUST RECEIVED MY SCANNED FILMS FROM ANDREAS

[DIEFTHINTIS]

Hello
I just received some old films, and some more recent (mostly test shots with new cameras and time lapse) that I had sent to Andreas for transfer. I have to admit that the quality is much better than I expected. Actually, the picture looks sharper than the projected (with my Bauer 600 projector) steady, without any breathing problems, with accurate colors and exposure. To be honest I was afraid how the grain (of Kodachrome) would look in my TV screen, but it looks nice. I am looking forward to send for transfer the Ectachrome and Vision 500 films. Excellent job Andreas!

Michael
Athens

PS. I have the feeling that the current Kodachrome has cooler and not as much saturated colors, as some old Kodachrome I had shot as a kid during the period '75 to '80. Those old films have a... Velvia look, but with less contrast. Am I wrong?

[unxetas]

I think that may be just film's old age syndrome

Even when kept in the fridge, film does go through some transformations, and from what I've heard it makes it a bit reddish.. I dunno, it might be what you're experiencing!

I a week or so I should get a roll back from switzerland that was dated 1982.. I shot it last week though. I have no ideia how it will come out hehe.. I guess that's part of the fun..

[cineandy]

Michael, I agree with you, k40 is more blueish, i have some 1985
k40, shot with the same camera (814XLS) the colours back then are better than todays colours, also the frameline lacks any of todays jitter, maybe because it was k40 sound film? thru a pinch roller?. I have alway found standard 8 to give a much clearer picture with better colours than super 8. Probably because k25 daylight stock is a far better product than k40 tungsten film. I recently purchased a double super 8 bolex, only because k25 stocks are still available in this format. The sharpness and colour of super 8 k25 are superb. What ashame kodak opted for tungsten based films for the super 8 cartridge format.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Old film certainly can turn reddish, or blueish. All kinds of strange thing seems to happend. Sometimes the picture looses sharpness and everything seems to "glow".

I would transfer the films you care about to DVD discs of high quality (not the cheapest discs you can find) but then again I´m in for digital film most people on this site probably dont like digitalized film because it is not "real" or something like that. I don´t have any artistic opinions, I just transfer films.

[DIEFTHINTIS]

It is not a matter of color degrading, because there is no red, green, or blue hue in the image. The colors are just richer and more vibrant in the old film (shot AND processed back then - I am not talking about using dated film). It seems to me - but maybe I am wrong -that the Kodachrome of that period (was it Kodachrome II?) gave more saturated colors
Michael

[MovieStuff]

KII often looked flatter but I have come to the realization that it was just more limited in the tonal range. In other words, instead of seeing the various nuances of color in a persons face, KII often just rendered it a single "flesh" color over all. Kind of like early colorized films. Because of this, I have found KII easier to transfer than modern Kodachrome, which ends up looking more contrasty. I'll grant you that this all seems counter-intuitive but this is just my stab at why KII often seems lower in contrast in the midtones, even though the blacks often do seem very dark, compared to modern Kodachrome.

Anyway, as far as telecine of Kodachrome, the big problem is that Kodachrome was NEVER meant to be duplicated. Kodak designed it as a projection only stock. The fact that magazines like National Geographic used Kodachrome for their pages has more to do with the archival qualities that National Geographic desired than ease of reproduction. Indeed, any printer will tell you that Kodachrome was a bitch to deal with and often required contrast masking just to get a decent printing plate. When transferring Kodachrome to video, there is almost always a blue/magenta cross-over on the color that is not visible when seen projected but becomes heightend when seen on video. Decent color correction tools can subdue this "bluish" look but it is often very hard to get rid of completely without affecting the whites. Poor processing from cheap labs during the 70s often added to this problem.

Roger

[mattias]

I'll grant you that this all seems counter-intuitive

not at all. the density range and the contrast of a stock are different things (one is the steepness of the transfer curve and one is the amplitude). i'm really amazed that some people can think that's counter-intuitive, enough to get into "fights" over the issue over and over again on this board in the past even. :-)

/matt