Testing ORWO NP55 in 35mm

[Christian Flemm]

Dears,

I'm currently testing a batch of ORWO NP55 motion picture film in still rolls in an attempt to determine how best to expose and develop this long-expired film stock. Ultimately the film will be shot as motion picture.

When loading, I noticed the film's acetate base is so thin that the highlights of my friend's ceiling lamp were well-visible through the stock. Any ideas as to why this is the case? I've never held an acetate-based film which felt so thin, similar to polyester.

On another note, any old timers or ORWO historians know whether the NP55 emulsion is related at all to the modern UN54 emulsion? I am curious to try NP55 as reversal.

Best,

Christian

[Robert Houllahan]

How old is it?

I used some Kodak Plus-X 16mm negative in 2019 that had expired in 1962 and it came out great, shot in full daylight and I rated it as 20iso.

[Christian Flemm]

On 2/26/2024 at 6:22 AM, Robert Houllahan said:

How old is it?

I used some Kodak Plus-X 16mm negative in 2019 that had expired in 1962 and it came out great, shot in full daylight and I rated it as 20iso.

Howdy Rob,

I’ve also only ever had good luck with old Plus-X. I hand-processed a roll of Plus-X in Super 8 for a friend not so long ago; the cartridge expired sometime mid-70s but came out good as new.

It’s not clear how old the ORWO stock is. Still I’d guess it’s no older than 1980. The native ASA of the stock is 80, so we have bulk rolled a six still canisters and are testing 80, 64 and 50, as well as those same speeds with +1 push.

For anyone following this thread, ORWO told us that NP55 is not at all related to UN54.

Best,

C

[Robert Houllahan]

19 hours ago, Christian Flemm said:

Howdy Rob,

I’ve also only ever had good luck with old Plus-X. I hand-processed a roll of Plus-X in Super 8 for a friend not so long ago; the cartridge expired sometime mid-70s but came out good as new.

It’s not clear how old the ORWO stock is. Still I’d guess it’s no older than 1980. The native ASA of the stock is 80, so we have bulk rolled a six still canisters and are testing 80, 64 and 50, as well as those same speeds with +1 push.

For anyone following this thread, ORWO told us that NP55 is not at all related to UN54.

Best,

C

Maybe not related but still there are only a few ways to make B&W film stock so definitely cousins.

I would rate it at 20iso and not shoot in low light.

[Christian Flemm]

6 hours ago, Robert Houllahan said:

Maybe not related but still there are only a few ways to make B&W film stock so definitely cousins.

I would rate it at 20iso and not shoot in low light.

Hi Rob,

Thanks for the recommendation. To be clear, the only reason I was curious as to the stock's lineage was to determine in advance how suitable it would be for reversal processing. The base being as clear as it is is a positive sign, but as I mentioned above, the acetate base is also incredibly thin, similar to polyester-based stocks. Any thoughts on this?

Best,

C

 

[Robert Houllahan]

3 hours ago, Christian Flemm said:

Hi Rob,

Thanks for the recommendation. To be clear, the only reason I was curious as to the stock's lineage was to determine in advance how suitable it would be for reversal processing. The base being as clear as it is is a positive sign, but as I mentioned above, the acetate base is also incredibly thin, similar to polyester-based stocks. Any thoughts on this?

Best,

C

 

Any B&W stock can potentially be developed as Reversal but you would have to hand tank it and that will be allot of work, I do not know of any B&W reversal processing labs (Like us at Cinelab) who have a 35mm capable processor setup for doing reversal. This is simply because Tri-X Fomapan etc. are only really available as 8mm or 16mm.

As for the thin acetate base I am not sure what to say about that it should not be that much of a problem in a still camera but might be an issue in a motion picture camera especially a pin registered one like an Arricam or Panaflex. I would think an Arri 2C or Camflex or similar camera without pin reg it would transport fine.

Edited February 28 by Robert Houllahan

[Christian Flemm]

Hi Rob,

Processing as reversal either industrially or by hand won't be an issue here in Berlin 🙂. However it is/was my understanding that B&W films with strong anti-halation layers, or B&W films that do not have a clear base, reverse quite poorly. Given that I won't be scanning the material, but developing it for immediate projection, I'm trying to determine whether I can use this material to create a strong projection positive.

As for shooting, I'd be running it through my Arri 2B. I was more curious as to whether you / anyone on here found it strange that the base is so thin. Though I'm not as well-traveled with ORWO material, I've never handled acetate material this thin.

Thanks again for your input.

C

[Robert Houllahan]

6 hours ago, Christian Flemm said:

Hi Rob,

Processing as reversal either industrially or by hand won't be an issue here in Berlin 🙂. However it is/was my understanding that B&W films with strong anti-halation layers, or B&W films that do not have a clear base, reverse quite poorly. Given that I won't be scanning the material, but developing it for immediate projection, I'm trying to determine whether I can use this material to create a strong projection positive.

As for shooting, I'd be running it through my Arri 2B. I was more curious as to whether you / anyone on here found it strange that the base is so thin. Though I'm not as well-traveled with ORWO material, I've never handled acetate material this thin.

Thanks again for your input.

C

You would have to do some experiments r.e. running this as a positive, the Kodak manual for Reversal has a light for re-exposure between the clearing bath and second developer so that would be ideal to run as reversal with full re-exposure. I think that would overcome any base issues for reversal development.

 

As for the very thin acetate I am not sure exactly why it is that way. I think the issue will be running it with camera stability and keeping it jam free. We ran a notorious 35mm feature in 2017 which was hundreds of thousands of feet of 5222 and the camera department / DP wanted to shoot 3-perf Arrcam cameras but ended up shooting 4-perf just because it was allot more steady and compatible with the Arricam pin-registerd movement.

I would think an Arri 2C would not have issues with the thin acetate base.