Ektachrome is a super fine grain film. Cross processing will result in more grain but when processed in E6 Ektachrome is one of the finest grain films Kodak makes. Also I can’t stress enough that the Vision3 films have still being designed to be printed photochemically. With finder grain and higher dynamic range to aid both analog printing and scanning for digital finishing.
@@IFrAnIKOz they rated Ektachrome at 150ASA for Euphoria. I’m not sure if the ECN-2 cross process made it more sensitive or they simply just pushed it by half a stop
I guess cross processing ecn2 film in C-41 makes the film more sensitive since 500t without a remjet layer is usually sold as 800 iso of intended for c41 and 250d as 400 iso. Don’t know if that applies to reversal film as well.
@@IFrAnIKOz Cross processing changes the gamma not the sensitivity. C41 films aren’t pushed in ECN2. Them selling 500T as 800 is marketing BS. The film gets a bit more contrasty which means when shot at 800 ASA it’ll have comparable contrast to a 500 ASA exposure in ECN2. Completely over looking the facts that you: A, need more contrast in C41 films display prep scanning/printing than you do for ECN2. B, loose color saturation and get color shifts when shooting at 800 that’ll make your images duller and moodier than a normal ECN2 exposure. C, gives you even more grain, making it look even further removed from the awesomeness that is the ECN2 original. Even cross processed in ECN2 Ektachrome still isn’t a very high grain film.
@@VariTimo Interesting that the video would state ECN2 Ektachrome to be a higher grain film than Vision 3 stocks. I woud expect the grain to be almost on par with 50d. The half stop push wouldn't result in that much added grain.
Absolutely loved this. The photography of Marcell Rév in that second season of Euphoria is something that deeply touched me and has become a really big reference for me. This was a superb explanation, as usual, of how they did it. Thank you!!
It’s been said already, but Ektachrome does not have a lot of grain, it is very fine grain, that’s one of the benefits generally speaking of reversal film. The reason why it was grainy in Euphoria was because of the cross processing, turning the emulation into a negative. Nailed all the other aspects of the film stock though, it is very saturated and very blue, definitely matches the sadness of Euphoria.
So which has the least grain, colour positive or colour negative? I get different answers depending on who I ask. I also wanted to ask, are reversal film and positive film the same thing?
@@ArnoldTohtFan Color positive for sure has less grain, it’s very fine. There are some color positive and black and white film stocks that have very fine grain, like Kodak Ektar 100 for color and TMAX 100 and 400 for B&W. And yes, positive and reversal film is the same thing.
@@PurpleStormProductions Do you happen to know who manufactures the IMAX 70mm film stock? I've wondered about this for some time, but I've yet to find the answer. I assume it's either Fujifilm or Kodak. Out of the two, I've always preferred Fujifilm.
E100, and slide/reversal color reversal film in general, is extremely fine grain when processed in E6 chemistry, the high grain is a consequence of cross processing it as s negative.
When I was doing a lot of still photography back in the ‘80s, Ektachrome was my go to film, more so than Kodachrome. I also liked the results that I got from using Fujichrome, but Ektachrome was the all around winner.
6:45 e100 has a RMS value of 8, which is about as fine grained as film gets. Also, slide film has an inherent limitation when it comes to saturated colors, the colors can only be as saturated as the dyes are, so saturation is lost in the highlights and shadows. There is also a trade off between accuracy of saturated color and accuracy of neutral colors, e100 is tuned to render neutral colors more accurately.
Minha primeira vez revelando filme em 1991, foi um Ektachrome iso 100 e um Velvia da Fuji iso 50, foi uma experiência incrível fotos super nítidas de cores precisas!
The season 2 is an eye-candy for us film lovers. The first season has that sharp clinical look (a dead giveaway of digital cinematography) so this is a very welcome change!
Euphoria season 1 looked absolutely gorgeous, so did season 2 but the cross processing heavy grain was...well a bit to heavy for me. The large format lowlight on season 1 was amazing.
From a quick search and skimming several articles, the consensus seems to be digital is more eco-friendly, specifically because of the chemically post-processing required to develop film. However, if we disregard the post-processing and focus solely on the assembly of a camera and a sensor (digital or film) then digital is roughly 2x more harmful. So really the post-processing is what drags film down in that debate, otherwise it would be a clear winner
@@brennanmartignoni4192 not only the post processing but literally the film itself makes a lot of impact. As far as I know they are barely recycled after scanning and just become more plastic waste.
@@brennanmartignoni4192 The only two points that you are missing are: 1. sometimes people just go away with film as it looks after the scan while there's a lot more time of electrically powered color correction and grading with digital files. It's not always but it can happen. 2. People tend to plan way more and shoot a lot less hours of footage when working with film which means there's less electricity used when filming and the waste that comes from a production is reduced by the amount of hours that they don't do and that they would do with digital. Again, both of these points are clearly personal choices. For sure there are productions that are planned the same way if they are shot with digital or film, and also the same applies to the post production with the color grade. There's people like Tarantino that does a lot of work to get the teal and orange look on film. And there's the example of The Walking Dead show's first 10 seasons that were shot on film and to my eye look quite close to how the original negative would've looked scanned. So you can be environmental friendly with film and a waster of resources with digital (David Fincher and his hundreds of takes that take hard drive space and hours to run through them come to mind).
This was a really interesting video that showcases some unusual processing techniques! It's also a walk down memory lane as I ran an E-6 processor at a couple of photo labs and we would occasionally get a request for push, pull, or cross processing slide film from a few photographers. The chemistry was as unforgiving as the film
I shot miles of Ektachrome Super 8 back in the '80's. All the characteristics that I saw as limitations then are calling to me now. God bless digital transfers.
Aboslutely loved seeing all the information about the difference between these filmstocks, and how they work. PLEASE do more on other filmstocks PLeeeeeeeeeeeease
Amazing amount of info. Do you know what lights (and the aproximated amount of light) the crew used to expose ektachrome properly? Thanks for this cool video.
Have shot lots of Ektachrome in E-6 since its revival in 2018, but so far only for still photography and a bit of super 8. Although it is the most durable slide film out there, it obviously still suffers from pretty noticeable blown highlights, so yeah, not ideal for shooting in a shady area with a bright sunny day in the background.
Hopefully, like Euphoria, someone could initiate it through Kodak. Art and Art supplies should be available in all mediums, because learning is incomplete without the practical.
Highly unlikely that is ever going to happen. Kodak brought back Ektachrome partially because Fujifilm was still manufacturing E-6 chemicals, which made reviving a film stock way easier. With Kodachrome and K-14 process it's just a different story. Also environmental concerns is an issue as well.
Ektachrome has a very fine grain. It gives heavy grain when used in lowlight condition and pushed (originally it's 100ISO but you can shoot it at 200 or 400, the problem is that you will also have to develop it as 200 or 400, which will produce heavy grain)
What you describe in the video as 'dynamic range' is actually 'exposure latitude'. Dynamic range is more of a digital term, and usually it's not used for analog film. But if you were applying it to Ektachrome, its dynamic range would be nearly equal to color negative film. Dynamic range is simply the difference between the darkest and lightest parts of the image.
That's what I found out when shooting slide film. I was expecting no shadow nor highlight detail in some parts of the photographs. Those shadowy areas were not visible in the scans, but when I projected individual frames, I was able to see a lot more detail which led me to believe that the "narrowness" of slide film has nothing to do with the dynamic range. It's the latitude that's narrow. People really should stop worrying about dynamic range , which is basically a myth, and get to shooting!
@@denizzagra6423 So true, reversal films are all designed for projection or direct viewing. Only then is the full range of tonalities revealed. It's very difficult to print/duplicate them fully by any method. Color photographers used to go to great lengths (especially with dye transfer printing) to preserve that shadow detail without washing out the rest of the image. Digital manipulation can achieve some of that but it's always more work than dealing with a negative scan. In the motion picture realm Kodak did make a variety of b/w and color reversal print stocks with the right range of contrast but they were slowly pulled from the market starting in the 80s; the last one was available up until 2004
@@TucsonAnalogWorkshop And that becomes very clear when one looks at slides with a naked eye. The new Ektachrome is (personal opinion) by far the most versatile slide film. Provia and Velvia can lose highlight and shadow detail a lot quicker. I think this whole dynamic range debate (digital and film) is filled with so much nonsense and half truths that it doesn't make sense to dwell on it anymore. And to all the digital shooters out there: If you can't see with your bare eyes what's hiding under the shadows, don't expect your camera to see it either. If it's dark, your camera will render it dark.
As stated at 2:30, e100 uses a triacetate support, not estar. The same is true for all Kodak motion picture camera stock, and most still camera films as well. Estar support is still reserved mostly for large format sheet film and lab/process films, 2383 color print film and the like. In recent years a few photography negative films have been transitioned to estar, but as long as e100 is made as a motion picture product, in any format, it's very likely to remain on acetate.
This is interesting but so much is technically wrong. Ektachrome is much finer grain than vision. There is no f180 and it also has Ec has more than 4 stops of range.
"It's 2013, the digital camera has been introduced" - what about the Cinealta, with which Lucas shot Star Wars Episode 2? Unless you meant "HAD been introduced by 2013".
Wow, My biggest takeaway from the video was how I just now realized that the dynamic range has basically nothing to do with the analog look of film. It seems most people have been led to believe that the analog film look is achieved with higher dynamic range, not less, but from what I just learned, it is the complete opposite.
This is somewhat the case. People obsess over DR since it is directly tied to full well capacity and noise floor in digital. The difference between the to in stops is dynamic range. Film can pulled or pushed in development to achieve any DR requirement needed (within reason anything from 2-14 stops is possible). The main reason film looks the way it does is due to the s shaped curves film has.
@@westonharby165 Modern digital gives you the same 12-14 stops and film-like gamma profile. Even the lowly DVX100 had several - and adjustable - gamma profiles. Rolling shutter is the only giveaway of digital.
So, shooting Ektachrome is similar to shooting 8-bit video in terms of narrow dynamic range, using Cinema gamma for gentler highlights roll-off, in 4:4:4 for punchy well-delineated color, with a noisy low-sensitivity sensor?
Its not only about DR, its about color science, local contrast etc. They (digital and analog) represent visual information in different ways, so talking about bit depth is interesting, but not that precise. However, the film scanned digitally becomes digital regardless of its photochemical root, and you can compare its digital features such as bit depth as long as you remember its a digital representation of photochemical image. In addition, things like film scanner and its capability to convert analog to digital becomes relevant becouse scanning is just turning continuous medium into descrete mathematics' algorythms
Kodachrome.... The only film that actually made me feel like I was "back at the scene". Velvia was very nice but not as realistic as Kodachrome. I never was a fan of Ektachrome, I don't like the shadow detail. I still buy Ektachrome because I feel it's still better than anything else but I hope, one day, they'll re-issue Kodachrome (yes, I know I'm dreaming).
I love your channel, but please check the facts before releasing a clip. 1. Slide film has a smaller grain than negative film 2. The range of the slide is not 4 stops. 3. First digital film camera not 2013 4. Don't confuse dynamic range and photo latitude.
I bought 400 ft of 35mm E100D about 2 months after it went on sale to the public. Sold almost all of it, and still have a roll I need to shoot. And I made a bit of money, too.
Truth be told I would much preferred if Fuji brought back the _original_ Velvia. There was _nothing_ like it, not even remotely. Apparently the production was shut down because of some environmentally unfriendly ingredients (yes, I know Velvia is available today but it's a very different film now). As for Ektachrome: I was never a fan of it, preferred to use Kodachrome hands down. Now if Kodak brought _THAT_ back...
Using film just seems to add significantly more potential complications and ways to mess it up, not to mention being massively more expensive than digital, honestly I don't see the benefit when all the grain and oversaturation could be added or corrected in post.
it's a stylistic choice. so yea, they COULD just shoot digital, but the producer decided the film look (which can't be reproduced on digital very well and/ or easy) would suit his idea of the show better. things don't have to make sense in art. :)
1:52 significant amount of investment? They invented the product, they had everything, the tools, including chemistry, the know how, patents, and all ... what "significant amount of investment? common man The only reason film is expensive nowdays is because companies do not produce enough stock, especially in Europe. Companies capable of (but for "some" reason: not willing to) produce larger batches of 8/16mm: ORWO/Filmotec Kodak, Ferrania, Foma Prices kept uncontentiously high on purpose.
Recommend watching Smarter Every Day's series where he tours the Kodak factory and shows the process that actually goes into making film. It's a *lot* more involved than you might think. I previously assumed there was, like, a little machine that continually churned out Portra 400, one that did Portra 160, one that did Ektar, etc. In reality, it's effectively one enormous machine that takes up several buildings that they have to set up for each different film stock when they're making a run of it. So they can't just quickly produce larger batches of a film stock because producing more of one stock means either (a) cutting back on another film stock or (b) investing hundreds of millions of dollars on designing, building, staffing, and testing another facility for producing film, all without much of a hope of making back that investment since film (while having a bit of a renaissance these days) is still very much a niche product compared to what it used to be. Plus, there's an amazing amount of institutional knowledge that's required to do everything that probably doesn't properly get written down anywhere (or the place where it's written down gets lost), as happens in any organization. So it's not just looking up the binder that lists all of the chemicals that go into Ektar, it's also rediscovering things like "You have to mix these two chemicals in a slightly dryer environment than the others or it doesn't work. Tom always did that and he might've remembered that part but he never wrote it down and he retired back in 2014 after we stopped making Ektachrome the first time". And what if the big film production machine changed over the course of the five years that it was discontinued and they had to adjust the formula to account for those changes? Or if one or more of their suppliers straight-up stopped supplying one of the chemicals used for Ektachrome and they had to come up with an alternative and maybe adjust the whole process to account for that? It's not like Kodak is sitting around going "Nah, we're always teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, but we just straight up don't want to make more money". If it was as simple as dusting off a big button labeled "Produce Ektachrome and make a bunch more money", they would definitely hit that button.
@@allankcrain I partially agree. But when you are saying, that Kodak were not just sitting around thinking of how to do money, I don't think that is so... Look at the renaissance of vinyl for example: such a widespread fenomenon that is still somewhat a more affordable hobby. A series of bad decisions made by kodak, fuji etc. are the reason why the same did not happen with the analouge film industry.. and that is sad, to say the least.
It would be great if you could explain in a video intermediate stocks like the early 90's Kodak EXR 5244 and the current Kodak 2383-2393. I think it was and still is a great tool used by cinematographers to manipulate latitudes and reproduce color that is still poorly understood. Great video !
Just remember that Kodak used to manufacture chemicals themselves for other industries as well, so they did their own research and was not always depended on other suppliers, do not know if you are aware of it. I also noted that your pictures with the manufacturing process included "fixer" which is NOT part of the manufacturing process but the processing of film. Maybe you only used it for continuation of the "story" but it is misleading. Furthermore your referred to a "reversal developer" which is wrong terminology. Yes I know because I ran an E6 dip n dunk at a university photographic unit for a great deal of my life...
Fuji will happy to provide you film as much as you need and even throw a roll in free with . Ñow Kodak they will be happy to provide you with a zillion dollar contract and provide you with the film you think might make all the shots
What is this dynamic range nonsense? A term that is used in Audio reproduction is now being bastardised instead of using the established term Latitude? Everything is dumbed down today, you can’t say Visual Effects anymore, that’s been hi - jacked for an umbrella term describing CGI.
Don't put ads and sponsorship right in viewers face from the outset of the video, as your viewers will dislike you for it and will tend not to be your viewers for much longer. Respect your viewers and get straight into the content from the get go, the content that you promised in your title and the content they clicked on to see. Only ever include ads and sponsorship in the second half or last 3rd of your videos and earn the right to show them with exceptionally good content beforehand. This video got a thuumbs down from me and I asked UA-cam not to show this channel again, as anyone who stuffs this commercial desperation in the very beginning of their videos does not deserve success in my book, as viewer abuse is never a good thing, which is what it amounts to.
I don't know, when the colorist gets their hand on film nowadays they tend to ruin it when pushing all the colors. I always thought the diluted colors of most film was it's strength, otherwise you should just be shooting digital and avoid the hassle
Couldn’t these effects have been added in post or using some custom lut while shooting? Also how much impact does this have on a viewer, doesn’t it actually distract one from the story? When shooting on film for decades cinematographers tried to avoid these attributes of film now when they are intentionally brought back I wonder if it actually serves the narrative or is it just a gimmick.
i think both the director and cinematographer of the show previously mentioned you can't really recreate the look of film. sure, a lot of people wouldn't notice the difference, but many still would. the first season of euphoria used a lot of different types of lighting to make it feel almost surreal, whereas the film look of season 2 brought its own unique visual style. it's all very intentional and not meant to always look realistic, they try to make the show look like how teens nowadays view themselves. i've never really heard anyone say it looks distracting, which i guess has to do with the stories the show tells. this type of look definitely doesn't suit all types of films and shows though
No. There is a certain way light interacts with these chemicals on the stock, that is very very hard to duplicate on a digital captured image. You could probably get close, but it's not very easy and you would still miss the organic feel of an actual film stock. If you have a somewhat trained eye, you can clearly see the diffrence between a movie captured on real film and one, that pretends to be so. Many Movies are pretty great in resembling a certain look, but you still see the diffrence. One of my prime examples ist Ford v Ferrari, good looks and certainly close to real film, but not quite there!
In my experience, most creatives are first and foremost trying to satisfy their own sense of what communicates a feeling or story, not a viewer's, and often make choices with as much regard for their own enjoyment of the process as the final product. Working within constraints and limitations can be extremely creatively generative in a way that slapping a LUT on something will never be. This gets talked about in terms of practical effects vs. CGI pretty often but applies here too.
Ektachrome is a super fine grain film. Cross processing will result in more grain but when processed in E6 Ektachrome is one of the finest grain films Kodak makes. Also I can’t stress enough that the Vision3 films have still being designed to be printed photochemically. With finder grain and higher dynamic range to aid both analog printing and scanning for digital finishing.
I think for Euphoria the pushed it in development as 100 ISO would have been too slow. But yes E100 has finer grain than Vision 3 500t and 250d
@@IFrAnIKOz they rated Ektachrome at 150ASA for Euphoria. I’m not sure if the ECN-2 cross process made it more sensitive or they simply just pushed it by half a stop
I guess cross processing ecn2 film in C-41 makes the film more sensitive since 500t without a remjet layer is usually sold as 800 iso of intended for c41 and 250d as 400 iso. Don’t know if that applies to reversal film as well.
@@IFrAnIKOz Cross processing changes the gamma not the sensitivity. C41 films aren’t pushed in ECN2. Them selling 500T as 800 is marketing BS. The film gets a bit more contrasty which means when shot at 800 ASA it’ll have comparable contrast to a 500 ASA exposure in ECN2. Completely over looking the facts that you:
A, need more contrast in C41 films display prep scanning/printing than you do for ECN2.
B, loose color saturation and get color shifts when shooting at 800 that’ll make your images duller and moodier than a normal ECN2 exposure.
C, gives you even more grain, making it look even further removed from the awesomeness that is the ECN2 original.
Even cross processed in ECN2 Ektachrome still isn’t a very high grain film.
@@VariTimo Interesting that the video would state ECN2 Ektachrome to be a higher grain film than Vision 3 stocks. I woud expect the grain to be almost on par with 50d. The half stop push wouldn't result in that much added grain.
Absolutely loved this. The photography of Marcell Rév in that second season of Euphoria is something that deeply touched me and has become a really big reference for me. This was a superb explanation, as usual, of how they did it. Thank you!!
It’s been said already, but Ektachrome does not have a lot of grain, it is very fine grain, that’s one of the benefits generally speaking of reversal film. The reason why it was grainy in Euphoria was because of the cross processing, turning the emulation into a negative. Nailed all the other aspects of the film stock though, it is very saturated and very blue, definitely matches the sadness of Euphoria.
So which has the least grain, colour positive or colour negative? I get different answers depending on who I ask. I also wanted to ask, are reversal film and positive film the same thing?
@@ArnoldTohtFan Color positive for sure has less grain, it’s very fine. There are some color positive and black and white film stocks that have very fine grain, like Kodak Ektar 100 for color and TMAX 100 and 400 for B&W. And yes, positive and reversal film is the same thing.
@@PurpleStormProductions Do you happen to know who manufactures the IMAX 70mm film stock? I've wondered about this for some time, but I've yet to find the answer. I assume it's either Fujifilm or Kodak. Out of the two, I've always preferred Fujifilm.
E100, and slide/reversal color reversal film in general, is extremely fine grain when processed in E6 chemistry, the high grain is a consequence of cross processing it as s negative.
2 of the best 35mm slide films I ever used were Ilfochrome (which eventually phased out and Extachrome 200, beautiful results every time.
When I was doing a lot of still photography back in the ‘80s, Ektachrome was my go to film, more so than Kodachrome. I also liked the results that I got from using Fujichrome, but Ektachrome was the all around winner.
Fantastic video as always
I really appreciated visual style of Euphoria S02. Did not know what was responsible for it until now. Excellent choice in choosen examples!
6:45 e100 has a RMS value of 8, which is about as fine grained as film gets. Also, slide film has an inherent limitation when it comes to saturated colors, the colors can only be as saturated as the dyes are, so saturation is lost in the highlights and shadows. There is also a trade off between accuracy of saturated color and accuracy of neutral colors, e100 is tuned to render neutral colors more accurately.
@Phillip Banes If I wanted accurate colours and contrast, I'd look out the window
Minha primeira vez revelando filme em 1991, foi um Ektachrome iso 100 e um Velvia da Fuji iso 50, foi uma experiência incrível fotos super nítidas de cores precisas!
Film, seems butter and colors melted in our eyes.
Too helpful✌, I hope u will educate us as time grows.
Yup this really showed when i saw season 1 and season 2 technicals then i came to know they shot film
"The most legendary film stock" is...Kodachrome! (There's even a Pop song.;)
The season 2 is an eye-candy for us film lovers. The first season has that sharp clinical look (a dead giveaway of digital cinematography) so this is a very welcome change!
I actually prefer the look of the first season, especially the digital purple tint in many scenes combined with a film-like grading
Euphoria season 1 looked absolutely gorgeous, so did season 2 but the cross processing heavy grain was...well a bit to heavy for me. The large format lowlight on season 1 was amazing.
In the Film v Digital debate, I've never seen an outline based on environmental impact. Are vats of chemicals better or worse than tech manufacturing?
Very much interested in that as well
From a quick search and skimming several articles, the consensus seems to be digital is more eco-friendly, specifically because of the chemically post-processing required to develop film. However, if we disregard the post-processing and focus solely on the assembly of a camera and a sensor (digital or film) then digital is roughly 2x more harmful.
So really the post-processing is what drags film down in that debate, otherwise it would be a clear winner
@@brennanmartignoni4192 not only the post processing but literally the film itself makes a lot of impact. As far as I know they are barely recycled after scanning and just become more plastic waste.
@@brennanmartignoni4192 The only two points that you are missing are:
1. sometimes people just go away with film as it looks after the scan while there's a lot more time of electrically powered color correction and grading with digital files. It's not always but it can happen.
2. People tend to plan way more and shoot a lot less hours of footage when working with film which means there's less electricity used when filming and the waste that comes from a production is reduced by the amount of hours that they don't do and that they would do with digital.
Again, both of these points are clearly personal choices. For sure there are productions that are planned the same way if they are shot with digital or film, and also the same applies to the post production with the color grade. There's people like Tarantino that does a lot of work to get the teal and orange look on film. And there's the example of The Walking Dead show's first 10 seasons that were shot on film and to my eye look quite close to how the original negative would've looked scanned.
So you can be environmental friendly with film and a waster of resources with digital (David Fincher and his hundreds of takes that take hard drive space and hours to run through them come to mind).
@@Jorge_Ambruster you’re right - I hadn’t thought of that! Excellent points, thank you
This was a really interesting video that showcases some unusual processing techniques! It's also a walk down memory lane as I ran an E-6 processor at a couple of photo labs and we would occasionally get a request for push, pull, or cross processing slide film from a few photographers. The chemistry was as unforgiving as the film
What a great channel - thanks!
I shot miles of Ektachrome Super 8 back in the '80's. All the characteristics that I saw as limitations then are calling to me now. God bless digital transfers.
Aboslutely loved seeing all the information about the difference between these filmstocks, and how they work. PLEASE do more on other filmstocks PLeeeeeeeeeeeease
AGREE need more info about each film
I hope they make a medium format version at some point.
They already do, a five pack can be had for $70
No mention of KODACHROME. I have slides and moves from the 1950s which have not faded at all.
Amazing amount of info. Do you know what lights (and the aproximated amount of light) the crew used to expose ektachrome properly? Thanks for this cool video.
Have shot lots of Ektachrome in E-6 since its revival in 2018, but so far only for still photography and a bit of super 8. Although it is the most durable slide film out there, it obviously still suffers from pretty noticeable blown highlights, so yeah, not ideal for shooting in a shady area with a bright sunny day in the background.
We want kodachrome the most
Hopefully, like Euphoria, someone could initiate it through Kodak.
Art and Art supplies should be available in all mediums, because learning is incomplete without the practical.
Highly unlikely that is ever going to happen. Kodak brought back Ektachrome partially because Fujifilm was still manufacturing E-6 chemicals, which made reviving a film stock way easier. With Kodachrome and K-14 process it's just a different story. Also environmental concerns is an issue as well.
@@GlaciaDay i agree, still want it
@@JR_Taylor Everyone wants it! I have a few dozens of Kodachrome film frozen waiting for someone to bring back the K-14 process.
@@GlaciaDay me too
Can we have Kodachrome back please? No positive film compares with it.
hell yes Ektachrome!
What a great video. Thank you
Ektachrome has a very fine grain. It gives heavy grain when used in lowlight condition and pushed (originally it's 100ISO but you can shoot it at 200 or 400, the problem is that you will also have to develop it as 200 or 400, which will produce heavy grain)
It is crazy that Kodak Ektachrome went to the moon but could not survive the free market on earth. I'm glad it is back!
I like Provia more frankly, but Ektachrome can look amazing and it's great to have it in motion picture formats.
What you describe in the video as 'dynamic range' is actually 'exposure latitude'. Dynamic range is more of a digital term, and usually it's not used for analog film. But if you were applying it to Ektachrome, its dynamic range would be nearly equal to color negative film. Dynamic range is simply the difference between the darkest and lightest parts of the image.
That's what I found out when shooting slide film. I was expecting no shadow nor highlight detail in some parts of the photographs. Those shadowy areas were not visible in the scans, but when I projected individual frames, I was able to see a lot more detail which led me to believe that the "narrowness" of slide film has nothing to do with the dynamic range. It's the latitude that's narrow. People really should stop worrying about dynamic range , which is basically a myth, and get to shooting!
Em, film isn't analog of course.
@@denizzagra6423 So true, reversal films are all designed for projection or direct viewing. Only then is the full range of tonalities revealed. It's very difficult to print/duplicate them fully by any method. Color photographers used to go to great lengths (especially with dye transfer printing) to preserve that shadow detail without washing out the rest of the image. Digital manipulation can achieve some of that but it's always more work than dealing with a negative scan. In the motion picture realm Kodak did make a variety of b/w and color reversal print stocks with the right range of contrast but they were slowly pulled from the market starting in the 80s; the last one was available up until 2004
@@TucsonAnalogWorkshop And that becomes very clear when one looks at slides with a naked eye. The new Ektachrome is (personal opinion) by far the most versatile slide film. Provia and Velvia can lose highlight and shadow detail a lot quicker. I think this whole dynamic range debate (digital and film) is filled with so much nonsense and half truths that it doesn't make sense to dwell on it anymore. And to all the digital shooters out there: If you can't see with your bare eyes what's hiding under the shadows, don't expect your camera to see it either. If it's dark, your camera will render it dark.
What other resources/channel do you recommend for information on filming on film? Thanks! Always enjoy watching your channel.
2:40 e100 along with basically all other Kodak films are polyester "estar" or "estar clear"
As stated at 2:30, e100 uses a triacetate support, not estar. The same is true for all Kodak motion picture camera stock, and most still camera films as well. Estar support is still reserved mostly for large format sheet film and lab/process films, 2383 color print film and the like. In recent years a few photography negative films have been transitioned to estar, but as long as e100 is made as a motion picture product, in any format, it's very likely to remain on acetate.
Great video.
This is interesting but so much is technically wrong. Ektachrome is much finer grain than vision. There is no f180 and it also has Ec has more than 4 stops of range.
"It's 2013, the digital camera has been introduced" - what about the Cinealta, with which Lucas shot Star Wars Episode 2? Unless you meant "HAD been introduced by 2013".
Well, I mean, Red and Arri had things out in circulation by 2007 as well, so…
Wow, My biggest takeaway from the video was how I just now realized that the dynamic range has basically nothing to do with the analog look of film.
It seems most people have been led to believe that the analog film look is achieved with higher dynamic range, not less, but from what I just learned, it is the complete opposite.
This is somewhat the case. People obsess over DR since it is directly tied to full well capacity and noise floor in digital. The difference between the to in stops is dynamic range. Film can pulled or pushed in development to achieve any DR requirement needed (within reason anything from 2-14 stops is possible).
The main reason film looks the way it does is due to the s shaped curves film has.
@@westonharby165 Modern digital gives you the same 12-14 stops and film-like gamma profile. Even the lowly DVX100 had several - and adjustable - gamma profiles. Rolling shutter is the only giveaway of digital.
So, shooting Ektachrome is similar to shooting 8-bit video in terms of narrow dynamic range, using Cinema gamma for gentler highlights roll-off, in 4:4:4 for punchy well-delineated color, with a noisy low-sensitivity sensor?
Its not only about DR, its about color science, local contrast etc. They (digital and analog) represent visual information in different ways, so talking about bit depth is interesting, but not that precise. However, the film scanned digitally becomes digital regardless of its photochemical root, and you can compare its digital features such as bit depth as long as you remember its a digital representation of photochemical image. In addition, things like film scanner and its capability to convert analog to digital becomes relevant becouse scanning is just turning continuous medium into descrete mathematics' algorythms
I used Ektachrome in super film for years. great color.not as good as Kodachrome. but very useable.
Hey man, what happened to your video on the cinematography style of Robert Richardson? Did it get taken down?
i was the 1000th like🤝🏽
Kodachrome....
The only film that actually made me feel like I was "back at the scene". Velvia was very nice but not as realistic as Kodachrome. I never was a fan of Ektachrome, I don't like the shadow detail. I still buy Ektachrome because I feel it's still better than anything else but I hope, one day, they'll re-issue Kodachrome (yes, I know I'm dreaming).
I love your channel, but please check the facts before releasing a clip.
1. Slide film has a smaller grain than negative film
2. The range of the slide is not 4 stops.
3. First digital film camera not 2013
4. Don't confuse dynamic range and photo latitude.
I bought 400 ft of 35mm E100D about 2 months after it went on sale to the public. Sold almost all of it, and still have a roll I need to shoot. And I made a bit of money, too.
Truth be told I would much preferred if Fuji brought back the _original_ Velvia. There was _nothing_ like it, not even remotely. Apparently the production was shut down because of some environmentally unfriendly ingredients (yes, I know Velvia is available today but it's a very different film now). As for Ektachrome: I was never a fan of it, preferred to use Kodachrome hands down. Now if Kodak brought _THAT_ back...
Ektachrome is a very fine grained film. This video is misinforming people about the quality of the film and should be corrected.
Using film just seems to add significantly more potential complications and ways to mess it up, not to mention being massively more expensive than digital, honestly I don't see the benefit when all the grain and oversaturation could be added or corrected in post.
it's a stylistic choice. so yea, they COULD just shoot digital, but the producer decided the film look (which can't be reproduced on digital very well and/ or easy) would suit his idea of the show better. things don't have to make sense in art. :)
Ektachrome's been back since 2018, and their factory still can't produce enough film to go around today. Maybe they'll get it right one day.
What film is at 6:41 for vision 3?
The Ice Cream truck image is from Euphoria.
Suspiria (2018)
1:52 significant amount of investment? They invented the product, they had everything, the tools, including chemistry, the know how, patents, and all ... what "significant amount of investment? common man
The only reason film is expensive nowdays is because companies do not produce enough stock, especially in Europe.
Companies capable of (but for "some" reason: not willing to) produce larger batches of 8/16mm: ORWO/Filmotec Kodak, Ferrania, Foma
Prices kept uncontentiously high on purpose.
Recommend watching Smarter Every Day's series where he tours the Kodak factory and shows the process that actually goes into making film. It's a *lot* more involved than you might think. I previously assumed there was, like, a little machine that continually churned out Portra 400, one that did Portra 160, one that did Ektar, etc. In reality, it's effectively one enormous machine that takes up several buildings that they have to set up for each different film stock when they're making a run of it. So they can't just quickly produce larger batches of a film stock because producing more of one stock means either (a) cutting back on another film stock or (b) investing hundreds of millions of dollars on designing, building, staffing, and testing another facility for producing film, all without much of a hope of making back that investment since film (while having a bit of a renaissance these days) is still very much a niche product compared to what it used to be.
Plus, there's an amazing amount of institutional knowledge that's required to do everything that probably doesn't properly get written down anywhere (or the place where it's written down gets lost), as happens in any organization. So it's not just looking up the binder that lists all of the chemicals that go into Ektar, it's also rediscovering things like "You have to mix these two chemicals in a slightly dryer environment than the others or it doesn't work. Tom always did that and he might've remembered that part but he never wrote it down and he retired back in 2014 after we stopped making Ektachrome the first time". And what if the big film production machine changed over the course of the five years that it was discontinued and they had to adjust the formula to account for those changes? Or if one or more of their suppliers straight-up stopped supplying one of the chemicals used for Ektachrome and they had to come up with an alternative and maybe adjust the whole process to account for that?
It's not like Kodak is sitting around going "Nah, we're always teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, but we just straight up don't want to make more money". If it was as simple as dusting off a big button labeled "Produce Ektachrome and make a bunch more money", they would definitely hit that button.
@@allankcrain I partially agree. But when you are saying, that Kodak were not just sitting around thinking of how to do money, I don't think that is so...
Look at the renaissance of vinyl for example: such a widespread fenomenon that is still somewhat a more affordable hobby. A series of bad decisions made by kodak, fuji etc. are the reason why the same did not happen with the analouge film industry.. and that is sad, to say the least.
It would be great if you could explain in a video intermediate stocks like the early 90's Kodak EXR 5244 and the current Kodak 2383-2393. I think it was and still is a great tool used by cinematographers to manipulate latitudes and reproduce color that is still poorly understood. Great video !
Just remember that Kodak used to manufacture chemicals themselves for other industries as well, so they did their own research and was not always depended on other suppliers, do not know if you are aware of it. I also noted that your pictures with the manufacturing process included "fixer" which is NOT part of the manufacturing process but the processing of film. Maybe you only used it for continuation of the "story" but it is misleading. Furthermore your referred to a "reversal developer" which is wrong terminology. Yes I know because I ran an E6 dip n dunk at a university photographic unit for a great deal of my life...
Just go see fuji
Fuji will happy to provide you film as much as you need and even throw a roll in free with . Ñow Kodak they will be happy to provide you with a zillion dollar contract and provide you with the film you think might make all the shots
Kodak had the consumers covered always
It looks soft to me
What is this dynamic range nonsense? A term that is used in Audio reproduction is now being bastardised instead of using the established term Latitude? Everything is dumbed down today, you can’t say Visual Effects anymore, that’s been hi - jacked for an umbrella term describing CGI.
Criterion Channel > MUBI
Don't put ads and sponsorship right in viewers face from the outset of the video, as your viewers will dislike you for it and will tend not to be your viewers for much longer. Respect your viewers and get straight into the content from the get go, the content that you promised in your title and the content they clicked on to see. Only ever include ads and sponsorship in the second half or last 3rd of your videos and earn the right to show them with exceptionally good content beforehand. This video got a thuumbs down from me and I asked UA-cam not to show this channel again, as anyone who stuffs this commercial desperation in the very beginning of their videos does not deserve success in my book, as viewer abuse is never a good thing, which is what it amounts to.
I don't know, when the colorist gets their hand on film nowadays they tend to ruin it when pushing all the colors. I always thought the diluted colors of most film was it's strength, otherwise you should just be shooting digital and avoid the hassle
There is a lot more to film than color
Couldn’t these effects have been added in post or using some custom lut while shooting? Also how much impact does this have on a viewer, doesn’t it actually distract one from the story?
When shooting on film for decades cinematographers tried to avoid these attributes of film now when they are intentionally brought back I wonder if it actually serves the narrative or is it just a gimmick.
i think both the director and cinematographer of the show previously mentioned you can't really recreate the look of film. sure, a lot of people wouldn't notice the difference, but many still would.
the first season of euphoria used a lot of different types of lighting to make it feel almost surreal, whereas the film look of season 2 brought its own unique visual style. it's all very intentional and not meant to always look realistic, they try to make the show look like how teens nowadays view themselves. i've never really heard anyone say it looks distracting, which i guess has to do with the stories the show tells. this type of look definitely doesn't suit all types of films and shows though
No. There is a certain way light interacts with these chemicals on the stock, that is very very hard to duplicate on a digital captured image. You could probably get close, but it's not very easy and you would still miss the organic feel of an actual film stock. If you have a somewhat trained eye, you can clearly see the diffrence between a movie captured on real film and one, that pretends to be so. Many Movies are pretty great in resembling a certain look, but you still see the diffrence. One of my prime examples ist Ford v Ferrari, good looks and certainly close to real film, but not quite there!
@@adreus4759 Yeah, simply physics :)
In my experience, most creatives are first and foremost trying to satisfy their own sense of what communicates a feeling or story, not a viewer's, and often make choices with as much regard for their own enjoyment of the process as the final product. Working within constraints and limitations can be extremely creatively generative in a way that slapping a LUT on something will never be. This gets talked about in terms of practical effects vs. CGI pretty often but applies here too.
Not really. Not to mention that film stock reacts to light differently.