HVX200 & Kodachrome

H

HutchB

New member
Hey there... looking for some advice... is there a combination of filters and/or camera settings to replicate the look of kodachrome film? I'd rather not wait and attempt it 100% in post. I'd like to achieve some of the look within the raw footage and only have to tweak the colors in post.

The setup would be an HVX to P2 with prime 35mm Nikon and Zeiss lenses. All outdoor photography, daylight, summer.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!

-Hutch
 
Kodachrome is a Reversal film, not a negative. therefore, it creates its own positive print that can be projected without doing an Interpositive print of a negative stock. For this reason, it was widely used during the height of super8, and for the "upper-class" folks who could afford to shoot 16mm those days. I am speaking, of course, of the consumer-grade shooters doing home movies to which the reversal stocks were marketed to, not the professional filmmaking community, and certianly it was a last effort for kodak to hang on to the remaining film ENG crews that were out there, and had not switched to this new, crazy, film-killer technology known as NTSC video. So to understand the "look" of Kodachrome, is to first understand why it was made, and how. The inherent properties of the halides that coat the cellulose on a reversal stock react quite differently to negatives. They are, on average, 75-125% more reactive to the photons that strike them, and do not like it when they get sunburned. on the other hand, colors, paticularly green and red, are very reactive to the halides and often "bloom" into adjecent halides. some people try to control this, while others simply embrace it. Also, shooting the actual Reversal film allow you to do a photochemical process called a "cross-process" as well as a "silver retention" pass. this gives the film an entirely new look (lock stock, etc..)that could also be what you are referencing when talking about the "look" of kodachrome.

To summarize:
1-reversal stocks have much less latitude, especially in the highlights...leading to
2-more contrast
3-sensitivity to primary colors increased
4-grain structure increased (more apparent)
5-not properly corrected with 80a or 85b filters, additional color correction needed.
6-reversal stocks targeted to home users and non-professionals, therefore "overstyling" can become apparent and contrite

for your particular situation

1-daylight, outside, summer.....you are shooting in the EXACT enviroment that Kodak wanted the Reversal stocks shot in.....backyard bbq's, picnics, etc.

2-Video is already limited in latitude, much like reversal stocks, they blow out the highlights fast and do not see well in the dark areas.

3-There's enough in-camera tweaking on the HVX to get close to the desired look, but a quick +sat and +con filter, or post color correction, will help.

4-Since the stocks were super8mm and 16mm, increased depth of field would emulate the true look more than a 35mm adapter (reversal stocks were RAREly made in 35mm) i suggest you shoot without the adapter, personally.
 
Last edited:
If you have The HVX Book, there's a scene file on there calld RVRSAL which might get you close to what you're looking for.
 
I'd recommend shooting a test and trying to match the results on a monitor. It might take some time, but it'd be worth it. In school, I rarely shot on negative, I loved reversal for quite a few reasons, the cost, the product, and editing on the flatbed with a guillotine slicer just felt more authentic than a DV transfer to a NLE suite... anyways, I am rambling, point being, see if you can get an SRII, a K3, or a Bolex, or something for the day, pick up some stock and shoot some tests, and run the HVX with Barry's setting next to it, side by side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top