vision 200T vs Kodakhcrome 40

[barbapappa]

Hello!

Has anybody tried out the Kodak visin 200T filmstock? What's it like? How's the grain compared to kodakchrome 40?

[beng]

never shoot anything more than 100 ASA for super 8, you regret!

[barbapappa]

From what I've heard, colour negative filmstock has better grain then colour reversal. Is this wrong?

[jessh]

From what I've heard, colour negative filmstock has better grain then colour reversal. Is this wrong?

This is true, but that doesnt mean that a faster speed negative stock will be less grany than a slower speed reversal stock. Peronally I would love to find out how they do compare in terms of grain. I have heard people say that the 200T looks better for video transfer(which is what it is mainly good for at the moment) than K40, it was just opinion though. So, who wants to do some testing? I wish kodak would provide 50D as well as 200T, that would definatly beat K40, I know it is available as pro8mm, but it would be less expensive if kodak sold it.

~Jess

[MovieStuff]

From what I've heard, colour negative filmstock has better grain then colour reversal. Is this wrong?

Totally wrong. At the same ASA, reversal film will always have finer grain than negative. However, reversal film will always be more contrasty than negative. More to the point, there is zero comparison between the grain characteristics of the 50 ASA negative and Kodachrome 40 for several reasons. Even an ASA 50 Ektachrome would have finer grain than 50 ASA negative, simply due to the superior grain characteristics of reversal. But Kodachrome blows both Ektachrome and 50 negative away since Kodachrome is a dye transfer process, which makes it virtually grainless. By comparison, 50 negative is boulder city. It may have lower contrast compared to Kodachrome but contrast can be controlled through decent lighting. No trick in the world is going to rid your final image of unwanted grain. If tight grain is what you seek, I would stick with K40. All the negative footage I've seen so far in super 8 is just too, too grainy for my taste but that's just my opinion.

Put it another way: If you shoot K40 correctly and transfer to video correctly, no one will be able to tell if it is Super 8 reversal or a 16mm print that was transferred. If you shoot super 8 negative and transfer it to video, it will shout "Super 8" loud and clear simply due to the grain. At best, it might look like some sort of ASA 1000 16mm negative and leave your audience distracted, wondering all the while why you used such high speed and grainy film for all your shots, even daylight ones where light was plentiful!

Shoot a roll of K40 and a roll of 50 negative and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

Roger

[jessh]

Totally wrong. At the same ASA, reversal film will always have finer grain than negative.

to quote the filmmakers handbook, "Color negative films are significantly less grainy than comparable-speed color reversal films."(123) this statement is what I based mine on. doesnt mean you are wrong I just find that this book is usually right, this statement could be based on ektachrome and not kodachrome..... Most people who try negative stock do so to get the significantly higher speeds, have you compared 200T to ektachrome and kodachrome? Another reason that it may seem grainier most of the time is that people and super8 cameras tend to underexpose instead of overexpose when negative stock results in more graininess when you underexpose thatn overexpose (slightly overexposing results in the least grain).

it also says:
" Black-and-white reversal films often exhibit less grain than negative films, because the larger, more light-sensitive grains are exposed first and then washed away during the bleaching stage, leaving the finer grains behind."(123)

I dont really know either way but would really like to see a good comparison of K40, 200T and 50D

[MovieStuff]

Totally wrong. At the same ASA, reversal film will always have finer grain than negative.

to quote the filmmakers handbook, "Color negative films are significantly less grainy than comparable-speed color reversal films."(123) this statement is what I based mine on. doesnt mean you are wrong I just find that this book is usually right, this statement could be based on ektachrome and not kodachrome..... Most people who try negative stock do so to get the significantly higher speeds, have you compared 200T to ektachrome and kodachrome?

Hi, Jess!

Well, I can tell you that the book is 100% dead wrong. The whole reason that reversal exists is due to the superior grain structure it offers compared to negative film. When still photographers (which my wife and I are) need high resolution, the LAST thing they reach for is negative of any kind.

I mean, think about it: If negative offered finer grain AND lower contrast, there would be absolutely no need for any kind of reversal at all!

The simple fact is that you can't have it both ways if working in a small format. If you want fine grain, you have to shoot reversal. If you want low contrast, then you have to shoot negative. Believe me, negative works fine in 16mm but on Super 8 it looks like a swarm of gnats compared to reversal of the same asa. Again, simply shoot a roll of 50 ASA neg and some K40 or, for a quicker test, shoot a roll of 100 ASA slide film and a roll of 100 ASA print film (negative) in a still camera and you'll see just how off the mark the book really is. I am stunned that they put that in print, actually. It couldn't be more wrong. Weird. What year was that published? Does it say?

Roger

[jessh]

Again, simply shoot a roll of 50 ASA neg and some K40 or, for a quicker test, shoot a roll of 100 ASA slide film and a roll of 100 ASA print film (negative) in a still camera and you'll see just how off the mark the book really is. I am stunned that they put that in print, actually. It couldn't be more wrong. Weird. What year was that published? Does it say?

It was origionally published in 1984 and this is the revised edition that was published in 1999, This book is very widely known and used and has lots of very good and acurate information, I think this is the first error I have come across.

[S8 Booster]

From my own experience, Moviestuff is absolutely right. I did a sample scan of a S8 K40 frame and a identical area (4x5mm) of a 35mm 200 ASA still photo neg frame.

The scan resolution was 4800dpi/1200dpi scanner/original. For the K40 S8 frame the scanner were not able to resolve the grain but for the 200 ASA neg film the grain size and pixel size were about identical. Very visual and surprisingly grainy.

The 200 ASA neg film was Kodak Gold 200 (I belive that this film is not too different from the V200T in grain) shot on a Minolta Dynax 5000i at 1/60 shutter speed which is identical to the 170° shutter angle that is the reference shutter speed Kodak use as a reference for their motion film stock.

The neg was scanned as a positive (remaining negative to not let the scanner software make any decitions) and worked into positive in Photoshop by adjusting white and black balance to eliminate the orange mask and then inverted. The colours were great but the grain is very visual.

I tried to find the samples to post here but I could not find it right now. I will do later.

It seem very likely that the K40 will offer by far the lowest grain for S8 when properly exposed.

RGDS

[shootist]

If you shoot K40 correctly and transfer to video correctly, no one will be able to tell if it is Super 8 reversal or a 16mm print that was transferred.

If you're using K40 for eventual telecine it is important to keep your lighting ratio fairly flat (unless, of course, you're striving for a special effect). Telecines have trouble handling dense blacks and peak whites, and excessively contrasty transfers are a pain to rescue in post-production!

The one big advantage of shooting neg is that you have so much more control over the film at telecine stage (provided you're sitting at the elbow of the colourist during transfer!).

Other than that, I agree with MovieStuff - I'd choose Kodachrome over neg anytime.

BTW, does anyone know whether it's possible to "pre-flash" K40 to reduce its contrast?

[wahiba]

If I am not mistaken is the suggestion that Kodachrome is best shot on bright, cloudy day rather than a bright clear day to reduce the contrasty effect of a reversal film? Especially if the objective is a transference to an electronic media rather than direct projection.

If so this is great news as we tend to have more of the former here than the latter!

[MovieStuff]

If you shoot K40 correctly and transfer to video correctly, no one will be able to tell if it is Super 8 reversal or a 16mm print that was transferred.

If you're using K40 for eventual telecine it is important to keep your lighting ratio fairly flat (unless, of course, you're striving for a special effect). Telecines have trouble handling dense blacks and peak whites, and excessively contrasty transfers are a pain to rescue in post-production!

Well, as I mentioned above, lighting can be attenuated to reduce contrast in reversal but nothing can really be done about excessive grain. But the important thing to remember is that, at best, K40 will look like a 16mm print transferred to video rather than fine grain neg transferred to video. The reason is that reversal has projection density which negative does not. Reversal can still look really, really nice but it has a "look" that is different from neg. In short, if you shot 16mm, had a projection print pulled and transferred that to video, it would look much like super 8 Kodachrome due to the increase in contrast and snappy blacks. So, while you could make 16mm negative look like super 8 K40, you will never be able to make S8K40 look like 16mm negative.

BTW, does anyone know whether it's possible to "pre-flash" K40 to reduce its contrast?

In a fashion. I once built for a customer a mattebox that had a "roof" made of diffused plexiglass (perspex, I think you call it) and a beam splitter at a 45 degree angle facing up. The beam splitter would reflect the back lit image of the diffused plexiglass and mix it with the incoming image. This would lower the contrast quite a bit and made transfers to video look much better. By using nutruel density filters over the diffussed plexiglass, the amount of diffusion could be controlled. I originally made this for shooting Kodachrome slides but I am sure it would work for Super 8.

Roger[/quote]

[shootist]

I wrote

Telecines have trouble handling dense blacks and peak whites

What I meant to say was telecines have trouble in handling detail in dense blacks and peak whites.

In other words, try and light evenly, especially watching shadow areas. Pros sometimes use a Tiffen contrast control filter when confronted with a difficult lighting situation. They're expensive but can work wonders with a stock like K40.

Same advice applies to film intended for blow up to 16/35mm internegative.

[Yemi]

I've shot super8 200T and 50D color negative. I found that slightly overexposing the film gave me the best results. 50D rated at 25asa looks superb. The 200T is rated at 130asa w/ daylight filter but I rated it at 100asa to keep the grain tight. Kodachrome is very very fine grained but it lacks the exposure latitude needed in mixed light situations. 200T is way ahead of Ektachrome VNF!

Do remember that the telecine has a lot to do with the final image.

-----
Yemi

[Ludwig]

Hello.
There are a lot of things, that are not correct. If you use Kodachrome 40 , sharpness and grain are better than every
avaible color-negative. You can only get too much grain, if you
have a underexposed material and there are problems with
the gain and gamma of your scanner.
In every other way, color-negative has less grain as Ektachrome.
Use 7248 color-Negative and 7240 Ektachrome and you will see
the difference. You can also see the data sheets for the material.
If you use Black&white, Reversal material are better from grain
and sharpness as negative material. See the difference from
Plus - X negative or reversal. (Thats depends on the silver structure from development process).
There are only a lot of problems with older scanners and color-
negative, that color-negative looks grainy.
Kindly regards