Orwo NC500 35mm test - by Mark Wiggins - YouTube clip

[Tyler Purcell]

8 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Now, Tyler, could you be a bit more positive towards efforts to make a new film stock?

It's a long story, I don't want to dwell on it right now. 

I did notice they have NC400 available for the first time in 16mm, so we will go shoot some of that and see how it goes. 

If they release the rumored NC200, we will shoot that. 

We aren't being paid to test prototype stock. 

8 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

There is a lot of financial risk involved for anyone doing this. Give this manufacturer a chance for heaven's sake and let them improve the stock and make adjustments to it. Okay, so you got poor results earlier on, with 16mm. Fair enough. We get that. But as Mark said, the stock is no doubt being improved. It's looking really, really promising so far, what I've seen on 35mm.

How do you know what Mark got was the same stock released to the public? 

8 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Just dwell on this thought: it's always difficult to make something that's good. It's very easy though to find fault, and to bring down. Don't always assume things are going to turn out 'like crap'. Because if that's what you always assume that's what you'll get. Give people (and new products) a chance.

I report the results. if you want sugar coating, don't ever look at me. I'll call manufacturers out for their shitty products and poor behavior related to products. Not saying either are the case here, but I spent the money to test the stocks and the results are very easy to see for all. 

I know OWRO is not happy with my tests. 

Edited April 29 by Tyler Purcell

[Mark Wiggins]

10 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

what you shot is not what the film looks like for anyone else on the planet. 

As I say, I saw the rushes of everything I shot straight from Cinelab London. Unless  lots of ORWO execs were hiding in the lab ready to pounce on the rushes the moment they came out the bath, standing over the guy doing the scanning, I don’t see how they could have doctored the rushes.

The tests I shot were being done for internal ORWO consumption and use. They wanted to evaluate certain characteristics of the stock that they had been working on. I assume the problems that you saw with the stock were being worked on which means the stock I tested and the stock you tested are not exactly the same.

i never thought any of the tests I shot would ever be made public. The fact that ORWO decided to publish a shot from my test says something I think.

 

Edited April 29 by Mark Wiggins

[Tyler Purcell]

25 minutes ago, Mark Wiggins said:

As I say, I saw the rushes of everything I shot straight from Cinelab London. Unless  lots of ORWO execs were hiding in the lab ready to pounce on the rushes the moment they came out the bath, standing over the guy doing the scanning, I don’t see how they could have doctored the rushes.

I was more referring to prototype stock, rather than simply the black suits doing something behind closed doors. 

Tho it does seem dubious that we received our stock around the same time you made your test film. 

25 minutes ago, Mark Wiggins said:

The tests I shot were being done for internal ORWO consumption and use. They wanted to evaluate certain characteristics of the stock that they had been working on. I assume the problems that you saw with the stock were being worked on which means the stock I tested and the stock you tested are not exactly the same.

i never thought any of the tests I shot would ever be made public. The fact that ORWO decided to publish a shot from my test says something I think.

Yes, I hope this is the case. 

[Mark Wiggins]

3 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

How do you know what Mark got was the same stock released to the public? 

Why would they do that? They’d be shooting themselves in the foot.

If you’re saying that the stock I tested is an improved later version of the stock that was initially released (and that you tested) then that is what I am saying.

If the stock I tested is a later, improved version of the stock you tested then it would suggest ORWO are moving in the right direction.

[Giray Izcan]

Mark, I really like the look of it but the cost of it is too high unfortunately.. I hope they can work out their pricing so that it isn't  double the price of V3. Otherwise, have been planning on using it for some projects.

Edited April 29 by Giray Izcan

[Mark Wiggins]

24 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

Mark, I really like the look of it but the cost of it is too high unfortunately..

Hopefully the price will come down if more people take it up.

[Giray Izcan]

Yea I hope so. They don't offer 1000ft rolls though it seems like. Do you know of they do? I mean I know you mentioned you didn't work for them but I'm only asking in case you know.

[Tyler Purcell]

13 hours ago, Mark Wiggins said:

Why would they do that? They’d be shooting themselves in the foot.

Why would they not cut the film properly? Why would the coating density fluctuate? Why would the perforation be bad? Why would the colors be inconsistent roll to roll. I don't know the motives, but I do know that desperate companies, do desperate things to stay afloat. I also know the results you got, don't match any of the results anyone else has gotten. So yes, I'm skeptical until the product is in my hand, being scanned on my scanner. 

Also, you'd think they'd make a HUGE announcement "our formula is fixed, come buy some" if they had made ANY emulsion changes, since everyone knows the current emulsion has major issues. 

[Mark Wiggins]

10 hours ago, Giray Izcan said:

They don't offer 1000ft rolls though

We were using 1000 ft rolls.

[Mark Wiggins]

7 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Why would they not cut the film properly? Why would the coating density fluctuate? Why would the perforation be bad? Why would the colors be inconsistent roll to roll. I don't know the motives, but I do know that desperate companies, do desperate things to stay afloat. I also know the results you got, don't match any of the results anyone else has gotten. So yes, I'm skeptical until the product is in my hand, being scanned on my scanner. 

Also, you'd think they'd make a HUGE announcement "our formula is fixed, come buy some" if they had made ANY emulsion changes, since everyone knows the current emulsion has major issues. 

The issues you raise are issues you had  with the stock that you tested.  My results were different.  That's all I can say.  I can tell you that one of the issues we were testing for was the perforation problem.

You don't seem to think that companies have the ability to learn, to see their mistakes and try to rectify them.  As I say, I don't think the stock I tested was exactly the same as the stock you tested.  I think they are learning from their mistakes and my tests were part of that learning process.  Perhaps there hasn't been a big annoucement because they don't want to jump the gun.  I don't know.  As I say, I was surprised that they made that clip public.

What I can tell you is that at the time I did my tests I was aware of the tests you had done (I think you put them on CML?  Not sure.  I did actively look to see if anyone else had done tests and, if they had, had a look at them; even tests done by stills photographers).  I had a look at them as part of my prep for doing the tests and so was looking out for things that you had flagged up.  So, thank you for doing your tests.

My tests do not mean that your tests were wrong; just that when I did my tests the stock had obviously had some work done.

I'm not trying to invalidate your tests. 

[Giray Izcan]

Mark, thank you very much. So your estimation is that this stock's color temperature is 4000 Kelvin?

[Mark Wiggins]

32 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

stock's color temperature is 4000 Kelvin?

I’d say it’s around that. It reminds me of when I shoot digital. Very often I set the colour balance to 4300K. I’d say don’t use an 85; colour correct in post.

 

[Giray Izcan]

Thank you.

[Samuel Preston]

On 4/29/2024 at 7:56 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

 

If they release the rumored NC200, we will shoot that. 

 

I hope they do, we are pushing them to. Its much better than the NC500/NC400 

[Uli Meyer]

On 4/29/2024 at 5:26 PM, Mark Wiggins said:

Hopefully the price will come down if more people take it up.

I would suggest the price has to come done first, otherwise more people won't take it up.

Edited May 1 by Uli Meyer

[Samuel Preston]

On 4/26/2024 at 10:16 AM, Gautam Valluri said:

Is the gate weave in these 35mm ORWO stock tests caused by ORWO's well-discussed perf pitch issues? I thought that was just in 16mm?

I really like the "personality" of the 35mm NC500, it might even be worth the cost increase vis-a-vis Kodak if they solve the perf-pitch issues and sort out delivery times of their film stock.

The perf troubles will likely not change as their machines are all from the previous companies, and unless a major investment happens they wont upgrade them. 

The delivery issues partly come from the fact that the films are produced in batches. Also the films are not distributed in any reasonable way, meaning we in Europe cant get UN54 right now (it would get shipped from the USA), and maybe you guys cant get nc500 in the states? 

[Giray Izcan]

3 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

I would suggest the price has to come done first, otherwise more people won't take it up.

Even if it was priced the same as V3, and that is still asking a lot.  It would guarantee more success if it was cheaper than Kodak for sales volume. They should aim at selling more film by pricing it lower than Kodak. Otherwise,  why would anyone want to pay the same money as V3, which is awesome and battle tested, let alone double the price of it. To put it in perspective, with these prices,  you could shoot on Kodak  65mm.

Edited May 1 by Giray Izcan

[Tyler Purcell]

9 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

I would suggest the price has to come done first, otherwise more people won't take it up.

Especially since Kodak has been blowing out non conforming (over 6 month old) sealed stock for half price. Where you'd never be able to get enough for a feature film, the vast majority of low budget shows can actually get 35mm for less than 16mm. Hopefully someday they'll have some 16mm for a similar deal, but generally we've found that they don't make enough. They keep 16mm production on a tight leash and only ramp up based on demand. Since the majority of major production is on 35mm, they can have a lot of left over stock. I'm very happy Kodak is selling the non conforming instead of melting it down for the silver like they have in the past. 

So yes,  it's clear that OWRO doesn't want to sell 35mm stock, which is why the price is crazy. I just got some NC400 16mm, which for the first time showed up on the site and the pricing was the same as Kodak. I only got some to test, but nobody else is going to risk buying the stock vs buying new from Kodak. 

[Tyler Purcell]

9 hours ago, Samuel Preston said:

The delivery issues partly come from the fact that the films are produced in batches. Also the films are not distributed in any reasonable way, meaning we in Europe cant get UN54 right now (it would get shipped from the USA), and maybe you guys cant get nc500 in the states? 

I just got some NC400 to test for an outrageously high price directly from OWRO and it's shipping from Black Hanger Studios in Hampshire UK.. The last batch I got to test which would have been last year, actually shipped from the US, but it was a 3 month delay from placing the order to shipping. Right now I ordered the NC400 on Monday and it shipped Tuesday. I would the UN54 stock would ship from the same place? 

[Tyler Purcell]

9 hours ago, Samuel Preston said:

I hope they do, we are pushing them to. Its much better than the NC500/NC400 

Good! I would take a 50 ISO stock that has a different (but acceptable) look to Kodak, as long as the stock was cut and perforated properly. We're about to test the NC400, which I've seen acceptable results for in the past. Hopefully later this year, they'll manufacture some NC200 in 16mm and we can wrap up our OWRO testing and final thoughts. It's been a journey thus far and I'm hoping they get their act together. 

[Mark Wiggins]

2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

would the UN54 stock would ship from the same place? 

They’ve got a lot of stock at Black Hanger. That’s where I shot the tests. I have to say UN54 was my favorite of the stocks I tested.

Edited May 1 by Mark Wiggins

[Gautam Valluri]

23 hours ago, Samuel Preston said:

The perf troubles will likely not change as their machines are all from the previous companies, and unless a major investment happens they wont upgrade them.

As I understand it, ORWO's perf-pitch problems arose from that fact that they pitched their camera negatives to "long-pitch" which is meant for print stock and 35mm still film?

I don't know how the perf-pitch machines work but I wonder if they can set it to "short-pitch" for stock meant for camera negatives, run those batches and then switch back to long-pitch for still camera/ print stock film?

[Mark Wiggins]

22 hours ago, Gautam Valluri said:

I don't know how the perf-pitch machines work but I wonder if they can set it to "short-pitch" for stock meant for camera negatives, run those batches and then switch back to long-pitch for still camera/ print stock film?

The perf issue was one that I was particularly asked to test for so I assume they are working on it.

[Tyler Purcell]

On 5/2/2024 at 1:20 AM, Gautam Valluri said:

As I understand it, ORWO's perf-pitch problems arose from that fact that they pitched their camera negatives to "long-pitch" which is meant for print stock and 35mm still film?

I don't know how the perf-pitch machines work but I wonder if they can set it to "short-pitch" for stock meant for camera negatives, run those batches and then switch back to long-pitch for still camera/ print stock film?

The perforations are all over the place. There is no consistency.