I am very sorry for my very late reply, but I have struggled with a severe illness for a very long time.
Published in 1972, almost 40 years ago, even before E6 (and C-41, if I rember right) were introduced.
Well, as I have mentioned above, the main interest of our detailed test programme are the films which are currently on the market.
The 'Panther' film line of Kodak at that time was weak compared to Fuji films and was not accepted by the market. Fuji became market leader in slide films.
Even in the last 8 years there has been significant progress in Fuji slide films. Astia 100F, Sensia 100 (III), Velvia 100F, Velvia 100 and as the latest, only 4 years back Provia 400X. All were significantly improved compared to the former versions.
Provia 400X for example has fineness of grain and resolution on a level comparable to some ISO 100 films. E100VS / Elitechrome ExtraColor 100 deliver only a bit better detail, the difference is there but not big (the last Agfa RSX 100 was even worse than 400X). Color rendition of 400X is excellent and on the same level as ISO 100 films.
If you compare Provia 400X to the last Ektachrome 400X, well this difference is really huge. No chance at all for the Ektachrome 400X.
Kodak reached Fuji's level again in 2003 at least with their new Ektachrome E100G, E100GX and Elitechrome 100. Excellent films with comparable performance to Fuji's 100 ISO films.
Resolution and sharpness of both slide films are much superior to Ektar 100:
Resolution with object contrast of 1:4:
E100G and Elitechrome 100: 120 - 135 Lp/mm
Ektar 100: 90 - 105 Lp/mm
Grain is a little bit finer with the Ektachromes (if you are interested I can send you some test shots, originals).
Kodak introduced Ektar 100 first only as 35mm film, and in its amateur line. And said it is optmised for scanning. It was adressed for a certain market segment.
I talked at Photokina 2008, when Ektar 100 was introduced, to the Kodak people and they told me that. Also they said there will be no Ektar 100 120 or sheet film (well, they later changed their mind).
And that is indeed what they really did: A film optimised for the most widespread amateur scanners with max. resolution of 4000 ppi.
Most of these scanners get real 3600 ppi (Nikon Coolscan 5000 e.g.), that is about 70 Lp/mm resolution.
Kodak sacrificed a bit resolution (Gold 100 has indeed about 15% higher resolution, but significantly coarser grain compared to Ektar) to get finer grain, because with these 4000 ppi scanners grain is the most visible problem (often enhanced by scanner noise).
Ektar 100 is a product specifically designed for this certain market segment, and it fits very well in this application.
But from a technological point of view and the test results, E100G, Elitechrome 100 and all ISO 100 Fuji slide films deliver better detail rendition. Visible directly on the film (see my postings above) and with drum scanners.
And when you compare a projected slide to a Ektar print of the same size.
Sorry to hear about your illness. I hope that you are back up to par.
Try here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...4024/e4024.pdf page 6
and here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...4046/e4046.pdf page 5
You see the response of the Ektachrome falling off at 20 c/mm falling below 100 whereas the Ektar remains at about 100 at this same point. The projected red response at 100 c/mm is not very good.
I again stress that contrast can confound measurements.
And that is one result of our work in testing films, sensors and lenses for more than 20 years now:
The technical data published by the manufacturers is of limited informative value for real life photography, because the laboratory test methods have some significant differences compared to normal shooting conditions photographers use in their normal daily photography.
That is why we use test methods which are closely related to normal photography: Normal cameras and lenses, tripods and lower object contrast (1:4; not 1:1000).
We've found that this is not an Kodak related issue, but true for all manufacturers. Sometimes the data from the data sheets leads to too high expectations (we've experienced this especially with some Agfa films in the past), but sometimes the official data is even a bit too conservative (example: some Fuji CN films).
So from this experience (we probably have the biggest private test archiv worldwide with over 5000 test results) our recommendation is:
Test your films by shooting it under the conditions they are used by the photographer.
That is one reason why we measure the object contrast of the test subject by two different methods before a test is started.
And we always say at which object contrast our tests were done.
Sharpness and resolution are dependant on object contrast. Lot's of people don't consider this.
Do it to lower contrast. I used to do it for direct printing to Cibachrome. If I used uncoated lenses, results were even better. The slides looked like something for the bin, but printed on Ciba perfectly.
Time was cut in first developer only, the rest of the 6 or 8 steps remained the same.