Identifying Processed 35mm Negative from the Mid 1980's

[Jack Amadon]

In late 2017 I acquired what I believe to be the 35mm camera negative to the 1985 music video for David Bowie and Mick Jagger's Dancing in the Street. About a month ago, I performed a digital restoration of the negative, and documented the process here: https://youtu.be/i0CdkbIFz90

The one aspect, and it being somewhat central, that I never figured out is if this really is the OCN. Could it be an internegative, or a dupe of some kind? If I can figure out what emulsion I'm dealing with here, I can confirm once and for all what I have. I've been able to figure out it's not a CRI, and that the date codes on the neg to peg it to 84/85. Unfortunately it predates Keykode, so would some sleuth on these forum have some wisdom for what the stock is based off other edge markings? I've attached some photos of when I inspected the negative. Please note, the condition is how I received it in.

 

[John Salim]

I could be wrong, but I thought the original was shot on 16mm Agfa stock .... so maybe what you have there is a 35mm blow-up inter-neg ?
I know the 'video' was shown in UK cinemas ( 35mm of course )

John S 😉

[Jack Amadon]

5 hours ago, John Salim said:

I could be wrong, but I thought the original was shot on 16mm Agfa stock .... so maybe what you have there is a 35mm blow-up inter-neg ?
I know the 'video' was shown in UK cinemas ( 35mm of course )

John S 😉

I've talked with the former president of Music Motions, the producer of these theatrical music video releases, and he mentioned the only 16mm blow up they did was for Sade's Smooth Operator. There's this behind the scenes video of the shoot which shows 35mm cameras: https://youtu.be/4KIDQS82qWs Interestingly the workprint was printed on Agfa stock: https://youtu.be/zI57rok2WHw

Also apparently the terminology would be to call these "Music Zaps" as they aren't "video". That name never quite caught on!

 

[Frederick Knauf]

Jack,  as I retired from Kodak in June 2024, I do not get into this site as frequently, and finally have re-set my account.  

I can tell you that you have original camera negative stock here.  The film stocks appear to have been finished in both Rochester (first image with the "Eastman 12 dot/line/plus/double-dot upper/line") and Kodak Chalon France in all the other images.  The first film from Rochester would require move images of the entire edgeprint to understand the film stock used.  The stock from Kodak Chalon using the "Eastman ECX" is 5294 stock, which was Eastman Color Negative Film, EXR 400.  

If you require further explanation, please send me a message and I can send you my personal e-mail and we can take it from there. 

A great find you have there.

Fred

[Mark Dunn]

For me, the neg splice would be definitive. A dupe wouldn't have been cut.

[Mark Dunn]

Edit: OP mentions this in the video. I assume the bumpers were for one-roll grading?

Edited August 31, 2025 by Mark Dunn

[Frederick Knauf]

The stock from Kodak Chalon using the "Eastman ECX" is 5294 stock, which was Eastman Color Negative Film, EXR 400 and calling it an EXR are not correct. 

5294 was Eastman Color High Speed Color Negative, ECN 400T and its codex identifying number was ECX718 in the ordering catalog and Technical Information document.  Sorry for any confusion from my early morning response without digging into my notes.  5294 was released before the EXR family of improved latitude films (5245, 5248, 5293, 5295 and 5296).

[Jack Amadon]

Thanks for all the insights Frederick! I remember when I inspected the negative originally, I found some of the film was dated as an '84 production, whereas others were '85. Interesting that it's also from Chalon and Rochester. I suppose because the shoot was so spontaneous, they shot it with whatever was on hand. Still though, would it have been common to get Rochester film in England? My understanding is that Chalon provided Kodak film for most European productions.

400T also does seem to make sense as the grain is quite present, and it was a night shoot under artificial lighting. Amazing that you could identify it with the images I posted!

 

On 8/31/2025 at 10:56 AM, Mark Dunn said:

Edit: OP mentions this in the video. I assume the bumpers were for one-roll grading?

I've spoken with Gamma Ray Digital, and what I was told is that the bumpers were likely for a printing process where a computer would read notches in the side of the negative, and know where to put the cuts, dissolves, and frame holds without losing a generation. That would explain why the negative has no opticals present, but the finished zap uses quite a few.

[Mark Dunn]

15 hours ago, Jack Amadon said:

I've spoken with Gamma Ray Digital, and what I was told is that the bumpers were likely for a printing process where a computer would read notches in the side of the negative, and know where to put the cuts, dissolves, and frame holds without losing a generation. That would explain why the negative has no opticals present, but the finished zap uses quite a few.

That's kind of what I meant, but without the correct terms.

You could confirm that by checking for notches, but by 1985 they were probably doing that by frame count. The commands were on a punch tape.

I don't know about this but I presume that the extra frames were the length of the dissolve, so it was achieved by running the neg back in the printer.

As to opticals in the neg, I think this finished when A/B roll printing came along. Until the late 60s (I'm guessing the date) dissolves were made optically and cut back into the neg for printing. Yo can see the jump in quality in the films of the period- usually they didn't even disguise it by making the whole of both shots an optical- just cutting at each end of the dissolve. You don't see it in 70s films.

Edited September 2, 2025 by Mark Dunn