Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Late to the party, but Ektachrome is coming back!

  • Please log in to reply
117 replies to this topic

#51 highfnum

highfnum

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,264
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2006
  • Loc: NE USA

Posted 26 March 2018 - 12:25 AM

Just read that film is making a modest comeback

Or certainly at least some stability 



#52 Ian Robinson

Ian Robinson

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,698
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2009
  • Loc: 33S , 151E

Posted 26 March 2018 - 06:49 AM

Heck .... I really liked film astrophotograghy , I still have my old Minolta XD5 and my Lumicon hypering kit .... I guess if they bring back more emulsions in 35mm format I might track down a few small gas bottles and a gas mixing kit and make my own forning gas.



#53 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,824
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 26 March 2018 - 11:28 AM

Heck .... I really liked film astrophotograghy , I still have my old Minolta XD5 and my Lumicon hypering kit .... I guess if they bring back more emulsions in 35mm format I might track down a few small gas bottles and a gas mixing kit and make my own forning gas.

My understanding is that forming gas is an industry item (used in several industries, not just by us).  T-Max 100 might hyper well.  It is still available.  It doesn't respond to H-alpha, though.

Ektar print film (ISO 100) has good H-alpha response and might be worth trying.



#54 highfnum

highfnum

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,264
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2006
  • Loc: NE USA

Posted 26 March 2018 - 02:20 PM

Wiki has good statement on current state of film 

 

Under photographic film

 

Hey my old film astronomy books are not dead yet!


Edited by highfnum, 26 March 2018 - 02:22 PM.

  • Todd N likes this

#55 Alen K

Alen K

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,696
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2009

Posted 13 April 2018 - 09:29 AM

Hey my old film astronomy books are not dead yet!

Darn. I already got rid of my copies of Wide-Field Astrophotography by Robert Reeves and Astrophotography for the Amateur, 2nd Edition by Michael Covington (I had the first edition before that) because they were far too film-centric to do me much good anymore. Sorry, Michael.

 

But I have to be realistic. I walked away from film a long time ago and there's no compelling reason for me to go back. Besides which, I would need to get the light seals in my OM-1 or K-1000 or Nikon FG replaced if I wanted to use any of them again. 



#56 TxStars

TxStars

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,596
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Lost In Space

Posted 13 April 2018 - 04:02 PM

I just want to know when and where I can get it...



#57 SandyHouTex

SandyHouTex

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,869
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 20 May 2018 - 02:06 PM

Kodak is sure taking it’s time to start selling it.  Last update was in February.


Edited by SandyHouTex, 20 May 2018 - 02:07 PM.

  • Michael Covington likes this

#58 starcanoe

starcanoe

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,806
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2013
  • Loc: Gulf Coast, Panhandle of Florida

Posted 28 May 2018 - 03:05 PM

As an aside....I'm sure amateur holographers live in fear of large format fine grained film/plates going the way of the dodo bird. Digital may blow away film in many ways but given the way holograms work digital sensors will not replace holographic film. They certainly won't the way they currently work and they may not ever be made in such a way where they would work (and it might not even be possible in a practical sense to even do so.)


  • Michael Covington likes this

#59 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,824
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 28 May 2018 - 07:47 PM

As an aside....I'm sure amateur holographers live in fear of large format fine grained film/plates going the way of the dodo bird. Digital may blow away film in many ways but given the way holograms work digital sensors will not replace holographic film. They certainly won't the way they currently work and they may not ever be made in such a way where they would work (and it might not even be possible in a practical sense to even do so.)

And even if they do, holography is such a unique optical phenomenon that we want to be able to demonstrate it.

 

My understanding is that there are industrial uses for fine-grained plates (e.g., in the semiconductor and printing industries).  That is why I think black-and-white photography will not completely go away.  Things that are very chemically similar to it are still widely used.  Color photography, on the other hand...



#60 TxStars

TxStars

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,596
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Lost In Space

Posted 29 May 2018 - 09:50 PM

One big thing going for film is that using it does not require electric power.


Edited by TxStars, 29 May 2018 - 09:51 PM.


#61 Joe F Gafford

Joe F Gafford

    Aurora

  • ****-
  • Posts: 4,552
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2006
  • Loc: Denver, Colorado, US

Posted 30 May 2018 - 12:33 PM

One big thing going for film is that using it does not require electric power.

But the mount usually does, but not much. Some old camera bodies did need a battery to operate the shutter. Some complaints back then was the shutter closing due to low battery in the middle of a long exposure. My Mamiya RZ medium format camera did have a second cable release on the lenses as a mechanical override. That's why the Olympus OM-1 was popular with astrophotographers back then. That camera had a mechanical shutter. The coin battery in it was for the meter. 

 

Joe



#62 SandyHouTex

SandyHouTex

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,869
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 30 May 2018 - 03:36 PM

One big thing going for film is that using it does not require electric power.

And the MUCH higher resolution.  I read on Ken Rockwell's website, that to equal the resolution of film in a typical 35mm format, you would need a digital sensor of 141 megapixels.  The biggest right now is the Canon 5DSr at 50 megapixels.



#63 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,824
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 30 May 2018 - 07:10 PM

And the MUCH higher resolution.  I read on Ken Rockwell's website, that to equal the resolution of film in a typical 35mm format, you would need a digital sensor of 141 megapixels.  The biggest right now is the Canon 5DSr at 50 megapixels.

I have done my own tests and simply do not believe that.  My rule of thumb, from numerous tests, is that film has roughly the equivalent of 20-micron pixels.  That's 4 to 5 times less resolution than recent model DSLR sensors.

Certainly, a scanner with 9-micron pixels picks up even the finest detail in color slides (as verified by looking at the same slide through a microscope), with plenty of resolution to spare.  Yes, even Kodachrome.

Here is one of the experiments:

http://www.covington...ex.html#x150428

 

I challenge anyone else to do the experiment.  I think something threw off Ken Rockwell's results and left him with the wrong impression. 



#64 starcanoe

starcanoe

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,806
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2013
  • Loc: Gulf Coast, Panhandle of Florida

Posted 31 May 2018 - 07:52 AM

On thing about film and sensors and resolution...

 

Even given the rapid advances in sensors...it is going to be awhile before you have 8 by 10 inch ones.....

 

Yeah....you don't see many folks running around with 8 by 10 photographic plates these days....on the other hand....somebody with a modest budget way less than nasa can do that if they choose....8 by 10 sensors?....not so much....


  • Michael Covington likes this

#65 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,824
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 31 May 2018 - 08:15 AM

Yes.  A sheet of 8x10 film trumps any sensor, easily.  And it doesn't even require a super-high-quality lens.



#66 SandyHouTex

SandyHouTex

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,869
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 31 May 2018 - 01:23 PM

I have done my own tests and simply do not believe that.  My rule of thumb, from numerous tests, is that film has roughly the equivalent of 20-micron pixels.  That's 4 to 5 times less resolution than recent model DSLR sensors.

Certainly, a scanner with 9-micron pixels picks up even the finest detail in color slides (as verified by looking at the same slide through a microscope), with plenty of resolution to spare.  Yes, even Kodachrome.

Here is one of the experiments:

http://www.covington...ex.html#x150428

 

I challenge anyone else to do the experiment.  I think something threw off Ken Rockwell's results and left him with the wrong impression. 

It's not an opinion.  Here's how it's calculated from Ken's website:

 

https://kenrockwell....-resolution.htm

 

Go down to the heading "The Digital Resolution of Film".  He talks about the film resolution at 160 lines per millimeter where the MTF curve just about hits zero, and then takes into account the fact that each pixel is not really an RGB sensor like film.  Adding in the loss for deBayerization gets you to, for a 36mm digital camera, a 175 megapixel sensor to equal film.

 

Here's a real-world example that illustrates it even better:

 

https://kenrockwell....d200-vs-4x5.htm

 

Under the heading "COMPARISONS" and then "Image Quality"  He had filmed scanned at 2400 dpi, which is actually kind of low, and compared it to a Nikon 10 megapixel DX size camera image.  As you can see easily, the film wins.  Before you say, well it's only 10 megapixels, 13 years later, most of the high end digital cameras are at or near 20 megapixels, basically only double the resolution.

 

I stand by what he says.


Edited by SandyHouTex, 31 May 2018 - 02:08 PM.


#67 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,824
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 31 May 2018 - 07:06 PM

In the example pictures and scans, he is comparing an APS-C sensor to 4x5-inch film, not comparing a sensor to film the same size as the sensor.

Of course a piece of film beats a sensor if it has more than 30 times the surface area!

 

And I don't think his calculated "digital resolution of film" is correct.  As he acknowledges, film's MTF is nearly zero at the film's rated maximum resolution.  At normal contrast levels, the resolution of the finest-grained films is more like 60 lines per mm, if that much, and is different in the three colors.  Taking the Nyquist theorem literally, that's 1/120mm pixels, i.e., 8.3-micron pixels -- bigger than most digital cameras.  Even supposing the resolution of film were 160 lines/mm, that would be 1/320mm pixels, or about 3-micron pixels.

The bottom line is, if digital weren't sharper, people would be taking sharper pictures on film the same size as the sensor than on sensors.  They aren't.  It's very much the other way around nowadays.

In practice, on 35-mm film and on sensors of comparable size, resolution is normally limited by the lens.  Lens resolution higher than 60 lines/mm (at reasonable contrast levels, not just marginal MTF) is rare.



#68 SandyHouTex

SandyHouTex

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,869
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 01 June 2018 - 09:42 AM

In the example pictures and scans, he is comparing an APS-C sensor to 4x5-inch film, not comparing a sensor to film the same size as the sensor.

Of course a piece of film beats a sensor if it has more than 30 times the surface area!

 

And I don't think his calculated "digital resolution of film" is correct.  As he acknowledges, film's MTF is nearly zero at the film's rated maximum resolution.  At normal contrast levels, the resolution of the finest-grained films is more like 60 lines per mm, if that much, and is different in the three colors.  Taking the Nyquist theorem literally, that's 1/120mm pixels, i.e., 8.3-micron pixels -- bigger than most digital cameras.  Even supposing the resolution of film were 160 lines/mm, that would be 1/320mm pixels, or about 3-micron pixels.

The bottom line is, if digital weren't sharper, people would be taking sharper pictures on film the same size as the sensor than on sensors.  They aren't.  It's very much the other way around nowadays.

In practice, on 35-mm film and on sensors of comparable size, resolution is normally limited by the lens.  Lens resolution higher than 60 lines/mm (at reasonable contrast levels, not just marginal MTF) is rare.

He was comparing a small cropped part of the film to the digital sensor.  And film is film.  It’s reolution doesn’t vary by area.  It’s unfortunate that actual, unbiased, scientific calculations and real world results can’t convince you otherwise.

 

Now.  Has anyone heard when Ektachrome will actually be available from Kodak?



#69 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,824
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 01 June 2018 - 10:18 AM

He does not give the lens focal lengths.  We don't know whether he is comparing the same surface area of the sensor and of the film.  My impression was that the pictures had the same field of view with both cameras (hence different lens focal lengths and surface areas), but he is not clear on that.

Nobody else is getting results like that (if he was in fact using equal surface areas).  My own results are that digital sensors are sharper than film.



#70 TxStars

TxStars

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,596
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Lost In Space

Posted 01 June 2018 - 01:01 PM

I found that how well a frame of film is scanned makes a huge difference in how well it is reproduced on a monitor.

With my old medium resolution scanner (2400 dpi) slides did not show any where near the same detail they did as when projected.

But when I got my last scanner with an (actual 6400 dpi resolution) I saw a huge difference in the images.

Granted it is not the same difference as with the drum scans I have had done, but it is good for home use.



#71 Michael Covington

Michael Covington

    Author

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,824
  • Joined: 13 May 2014
  • Loc: Athens, Georgia, USA

Posted 01 June 2018 - 02:18 PM

What kind of 2400 dpi scanner were you using?  I found that flatbed scanners often have much less resolution than they claim to have.  My Nikon Coolscan III and IV, though, do justice to all the detail on the slide, as confirmed by viewing the slide through a microscope.



#72 TxStars

TxStars

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,596
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Lost In Space

Posted 01 June 2018 - 03:10 PM

It was an old Olympus ES-10 with the old "High speed" SCSI connection..  lol



#73 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,332
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007
  • Loc: Dark Skies, Maine

Posted 01 June 2018 - 06:34 PM

Because of its size, the ideal film to shoot is medium format.  It competes favorably with digital in resolution, but for astrophotography dwindling film stocks makes it a difficult choice.  Those of us that have frozen stocks of 120 film can keep on for awhile yet, despite the dearth of proper films for those in trying their hand at it.  I get lots of inquiries about shooting film and I warn them not to do it.  I tell them it is hard.  They insist.  I inquire as to their knowledge of astronomy, proper mount, experience in the darkroom, and most importantly, do they have really good dark skies.  It's not for the many, but digital is.  A camera and a tripod, or cheap tracker.  Off and running.  There is a reason we admire film astrophotographers of old.  They did the nearly impossible.  

 

I don't caught up in the pixel peeping comparisons, as the body and soul of film is either seen or not by the photographer.  This is a subjective choice.  I enjoy shooting 6x7 and 4x5 as this is a hobby, not a competition.  I like it.  You might as well insult a man that his wife is ugly.  She may be, but he doesn't see it.  

 

As for the original intention of this thread, Ektachrome 100.  We continue to wait.  Will it appear soon, or at all?  Vaporware?  It does not appear that it will be made in the same manner, so the jury is out as to its reciprocity characteristics.  It it is like the old E100, then we should all be disappointed.  It was not like E100S or E200.  Why wait, when Provia 100 F is available now.  Provia has excellent red response and reciprocity traits.  It requires a fast aperture as it cannot maintain like E200 for many tens of minutes.  I recommend shooting for twenty minutes at f/2.8 and push it one stop, under good dark skies of course.  

 

The new Ektachrome will not likely see 120 production, despite the hopeful.  I've got plenty of frozen E200 in 120. Despite its 2009 vintage, it still exposes well.  

 

With Acros now gone, Provia is probably short to live another year.  This would match the scaling back we have seen from Fuji.  Get some and freeze it or complain when its gone.


  • TxStars, Todd N and SandyHouTex like this

#74 SandyHouTex

SandyHouTex

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,869
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 02 June 2018 - 09:39 AM

Because of its size, the ideal film to shoot is medium format.  It competes favorably with digital in resolution, but for astrophotography dwindling film stocks makes it a difficult choice.  Those of us that have frozen stocks of 120 film can keep on for awhile yet, despite the dearth of proper films for those in trying their hand at it.  I get lots of inquiries about shooting film and I warn them not to do it.  I tell them it is hard.  They insist.  I inquire as to their knowledge of astronomy, proper mount, experience in the darkroom, and most importantly, do they have really good dark skies.  It's not for the many, but digital is.  A camera and a tripod, or cheap tracker.  Off and running.  There is a reason we admire film astrophotographers of old.  They did the nearly impossible.  

 

I don't caught up in the pixel peeping comparisons, as the body and soul of film is either seen or not by the photographer.  This is a subjective choice.  I enjoy shooting 6x7 and 4x5 as this is a hobby, not a competition.  I like it.  You might as well insult a man that his wife is ugly.  She may be, but he doesn't see it.  

 

As for the original intention of this thread, Ektachrome 100.  We continue to wait.  Will it appear soon, or at all?  Vaporware?  It does not appear that it will be made in the same manner, so the jury is out as to its reciprocity characteristics.  It it is like the old E100, then we should all be disappointed.  It was not like E100S or E200.  Why wait, when Provia 100 F is available now.  Provia has excellent red response and reciprocity traits.  It requires a fast aperture as it cannot maintain like E200 for many tens of minutes.  I recommend shooting for twenty minutes at f/2.8 and push it one stop, under good dark skies of course.  

 

The new Ektachrome will not likely see 120 production, despite the hopeful.  I've got plenty of frozen E200 in 120. Despite its 2009 vintage, it still exposes well.  

 

With Acros now gone, Provia is probably short to live another year.  This would match the scaling back we have seen from Fuji.  Get some and freeze it or complain when its gone.

That’s what I have done.  Fuji is making it now, so I’ve purchsed some Velvia and am happy using it.  I would like to get some of the new Ektachrome and compare them.  Maybe just for nostalgias sake.



#75 starcanoe

starcanoe

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,806
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2013
  • Loc: Gulf Coast, Panhandle of Florida

Posted 02 June 2018 - 11:57 AM

How do sensors compare in resolution to really slow films...particularly black and white stuff?




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics