Old film stocks

[Eugene Lehnert]

When I see old movies like "Casablanca" or "The Third Man" I wonder why these films look so different. What is it? Was it the lack of latitude compared to films of today? Was it their ability to resolve the image? Newer films shot today just feel different. For instance the film "Good Night and Good Luck," it looks great but it feels like it was made yesterday and not 50-60 years ago. Is it that different technologies used back then just had a different feel? Or is also a combination of stocks and lenses?

[Ry Kawanaka]

When I see old movies like "Casablanca" or "The Third Man" I wonder why these films look so different. What is it? Was it the lack of latitude compared to films of today? Was it their ability to resolve the image? Newer films shot today just feel different. For instance the film "Good Night and Good Luck," it looks great but it feels like it was made yesterday and not 50-60 years ago. Is it that different technologies used back then just had a different feel? Or is also a combination of stocks and lenses?

 

Those films must have been stored for decades before they were put into VHS or DVD. I heard film's life expectancy is about 50 years. So the age may have affected on the looks of those films, I think. I'm sure there are big differences in technologies such as film stocks and lenses as well.

[Ignacio Aguilar]

Don't forget either that the lighting tastes have changed a lot since the 40's and 50's and the front, hard light style is not the rule nowadays. "Good Night and Good Luck" wasn't shot using black and white Double-X (Kodak 5222) because it's grainer and slower than 5218 (color, 500 ASA), and they wanted to use a soft overhead lighting and zoom lenses, which is a completely different approach to black and white.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

When I see old movies like "Casablanca" or "The Third Man" I wonder why these films look so different. What is it? Was it the lack of latitude compared to films of today? Was it their ability to resolve the image? Newer films shot today just feel different. For instance the film "Good Night and Good Luck," it looks great but it feels like it was made yesterday and not 50-60 years ago. Is it that different technologies used back then just had a different feel? Or is also a combination of stocks and lenses?

 

---On one hand film stocks had a higher silver content back then.

At about the same time nitrate base was replaced by acetate base, manufactures cut back the amount of silver used.

 

If you were to compare a modern B/W print with a nitrate print with a new print, the new one would look a bit anemic.

However you are seeing these old films on new print stock.

 

The lighting style was different and the lenses were less contrasty than today's lenses.

 

ALSO, this is probably one of the biggest reasons, we're usually viewing prints made from dupes of dupes.

 

---LV

[John Pytlak RIP]

I also think the old B&W films had poorer halation protection, so lighter parts of the scenes had a "glow" and softening of the image, due to some halation.

[Dominic Case]

Stocks have changed because they could.

 

But I think the main difference is the lighting style. DoPs who only ever had black and white to light developed a whole set of skills to separate foreground from background often with much more elaborate lighting, to prevent one grey just disappearing into another. Smoke, backlighting, shadows, shallow depth of field, all contribute to a more contrived feel - especially in something like The Third Man.

 

Now that most work is in colour we have different values, usually going for a more naturalistic look. Even if the DoP has the full range of skills and experience to light or b/w, budgets, set-up times, sets etc simply don't cater for it in the same way. With notable exceptions, cinema seems to be more dialogue driven today than 50 years ago, when it was much more strongly a visual medium.

[Charles MacDonald]

---On one hand film stocks had a higher silver content back then.

.......the new one would look a bit anemic.

However you are seeing these old films on new print stock.

 

ALSO, this is probably one of the biggest reasons, we're usually viewing prints made from dupes of dupes.

 

I wonder if there is that much of a dupe of dupe effect, you are probaly at least one extra generation down when a safety master has been made of a Nitrate original. In many cases the only way we see many of these movies is on TV, where they lose more of the image that has been lost by making a backup.

 

Older film DID have more silver, and you can see that today by just comparing the results from FOMA r-100 which is an oldstyle reversal film, and say Plus x which is a more modern design. The plus-x would win in the grain departmnet but lit just right the foma can look a little "Richer"

 

The older films were alos not always as "pancormatic" as todays films. Again, If you try the EFKE KB-100 Still film (very old style made in Serbia) with a camparable modern film like Still Plux-x 5063 you can see the difference.

 

 

I would not be surprised if the lens had some filters on it on those sets. A green filter does make a noticable differnce in skin tones, although no one ever thinks to use one. (try it - you may like it)

 

From my own playing with old 16mm Cameras and lenses, the pre-war lenses are much more suceptable to flare. I was shocked at how a little bit of sidelight wiped out the image when using my Wollensak Cine-Velostigmat before I found a Talyor taylor hobson lens for my filmo.. I am sure that the DP's in those days had to take extra precautions to get the best out of them.

[Sam Wells]

Older film DID have more silver, and you can see that today by just comparing the results from FOMA r-100 which is an oldstyle reversal film, and say Plus x which is a more modern design. The plus-x would win in the grain departmnet but lit just right the foma can look a little "Richer"

 

The question is of course what is the difference when you print them.

 

I've gotten a very classical look with B&W Kodak reversal - especially when printed on the late (and loss lamented by me 7361).

 

I also got it with Plus-X neg printing on Agfa 561 - wonderful midtones (at te expense of some deep D-max; what I never got a chance to do was see how far we could overdevelop the 561).

 

I do think the combination (as suggested by John Pytlak) of halation, and lighting approaches, lenses, is a factor here.

 

At the same time, this covers a wide territory: what do we mean by classical anyway ? I think you might find as much or more of a difference between a Sternberg / Lee Garmes Deitrich film and say "Force Of Evil" than between "Force Of Evil" and "Raging Bull."

 

Watched the Criterion DVD of Antonioni "L'eclisse"this week -- kind of halfway between 'classic' B&W and something more 'modern' B&W.

 

Very important as noted not to confuse bad dupes, 16mm reduction prints, TV transmissions of B&W films as the intended 'look' ....

 

-Sam

 

 

 

 

Was it the lack of latitude compared to films of today?

 

There's nothing 'wrong' with the latitude of B&W negative today or yesterday !

 

I suggest in fact that working *within* that range -- i.e. knowing what to do about it -- is in fact what gives the classic B&W look as much as anything else.

 

It might even be true there's mre of a difference with how WE see now vs then than how the film stock sees...

 

-Sam

[Sam Wells]

Was it the lack of latitude compared to films of today?

 

There's nothing 'wrong' with the latitude of B&W negative today or yesterday !

 

I suggest in fact that working *within* that range -- i.e. knowing what to do about it -- is in fact what gives the classic B&W look as much as anything else.

 

It might even be true there's mre of a difference with how WE see now vs then than how the film stock sees...

 

-Sam

[Eugene Lehnert]

You see a film like "Starsky and Hutch" and it is obviously shot to replicate the look of something shot in the 70s like the show, and it kind of does look that way. But the image is so sharp and the latitude seems so great that it does feel more modern. I just have this strange interest to try and create a film and really make it look like it was shot at a specific time period. I associate the way a film looks to the era it was made in. So say a film like "Cinderella Man," that takes place in the 30s and 40s I would like to make it look like films that were made in the 30s and 40s. So I was wondering what really gives the look of a film it's characteristics. I guess there are a lot of factors such as lighting and style but I was wondering if there are just certain characteristics of a film stock that are just hard to duplicate. Do stocks have subtle differences in them like people have different personalities? Or is that we have all this new equipment that can create stellar imagery these days and when given the option to do a DI people choose to use the newer, better equipment than dumbing your image down using old technology? Such as the "Aviator" where an older two color film process is being replicated but with the sharpness and clarity of today's film lenses and stocks therefore creating an entirely new hybrid "feel."

 

Film seems to be all about the subtle nuances in the image. I read American Cinematographer and when I read cinematographers talking about what they did on their films it almost all sounds the same after a while but the films can end up "feeling" completely different. I guess that is where experience comes into play huh?

[David Mullen ASC]

Trouble is that you have no idea how these 30's & 40's films looked at the time they were released -- most people either see old prints (which may or may not be in good condition), or new prints from various masters (sometimes the original negative but often not), or worst of all, on DVD where the electronic transfer and display give you a completely different feeling than what someone saw seventy years ago.

 

So some people's perceptions that these old movies were soft & grainy, for example, can be inaccurate, especially with some b&w films.

 

And, yes, modern color negative has more latitude, but to some degree, old movies can seem to have more contrast than they originally did because of duping over the years to multiple generations.

 

As far as color photography goes, the main problem is that there was no color negative process until the late 1940's (Agfa in Germany and then Eastmancolor), so you're mainly talking about recreating the look of something that would have been shot in 3-strip Technicolor and printed using the dye transfer process, both obsolete processes that did not use any color dye coupler technology.

 

So all you can really do is go for whatever feeling you want to give that simulates the look of an old movie AS YOU PERCEIVE IT.

 

Technically, yes, things like uncoated lenses, for example, definitely had an affect on images, silver content in the film stocks, processing techniques, types of filters, etc. not to mention all the stylistic and procedural issues that affect the look.

 

Personally, one trick would be to use a really slow-speed color film, whether modern 50D stock, or Kodachrome 40T, because it would help force you into an older lighting style, assuming you have access to sets and big lights. And Kodachrome IS an older technology so it would instantly add a retro look.

Edited December 8, 2005 by David Mullen

[Sam Wells]

I've seen a few or more vintage prints from the early 50's & earlier including nitrates of "The Big Sleep" and Dreyer's "Day Of Wrath" as well as less known earlier stuff. They looked quite nice !

 

FWIW a lab guy I know who has worked with a lot of vintage & archival material told me he felt Estar based B&W prints had a quality closer to nitrate than acetate.

 

-Sam

[K Borowski]

Trouble is that you have no idea how these 30's & 40's films looked at the time they were released -- most people either see old prints (which may or may not be in good condition), or new prints from various masters (sometimes the original negative but often not), or worst of all, on DVD where the electronic transfer and display give you a completely different feeling than what someone saw seventy years ago.

 

So some people's perceptions that these old movies were soft & grainy, for example, can be inaccurate, especially with some b&w films.

 

And, yes, modern color negative has more latitude, but to some degree, old movies can seem to have more contrast than they originally did because of duping over the years to multiple generations.

 

As far as color photography goes, the main problem is that there was no color negative process until the late 1940's (Agfa in Germany and then Eastmancolor), so you're mainly talking about recreating the look of something that would have been shot in 3-strip Technicolor and printed using the dye transfer process, both obsolete processes that did not use any color dye coupler technology.

 

So all you can really do is go for whatever feeling you want to give that simulates the look of an old movie AS YOU PERCEIVE IT.

 

Technically, yes, things like uncoated lenses, for example, definitely had an affect on images, silver content in the film stocks, processing techniques, types of filters, etc. not to mention all the stylistic and procedural issues that affect the look.

 

Personally, one trick would be to use a really slow-speed color film, whether modern 50D stock, or Kodachrome 40T, because it would help force you into an older lighting style, assuming you have access to sets and big lights. And Kodachrome IS an older technology so it would instantly add a retro look.

 

Even if, hypothetically, an old nitrate print were somehow to be kept in mint condition for seven decades, the projector technology and even the old carbon arc lamps have been replaced with different shutter mechanisms, and lamp types. However, I would argue that there is a definite "look" that can be replicated with enough thought and effort. I feel that artistic license as to how something feels are often totally different than the product that they are trying to replicate. A real technicolor print, either two or three color, looks totally different from the look found in the Aviator, for instance. With B&W films from the '40s, I think that the look is primarily from the film noir style of lighting (esp. in Casablanca) and halation. That soft look could be achieved for real with treatment of B&W neg to remove the antihalo, which would be difficult but certainly doable, or diffusion, either with filters or with smoke perhaps. Other than film base and addition of anti-halo backing, I feel it is remarkable how similar the B&W movie stocks of today are in comparison to those of yesteryear. Perhaps this is due to how the B&W filmmaking market has basically become petrified for only the most artsy films or student films where people are after that classic look. In contrast, due to the prevalence of B&W newsprint and other influences, B&W stocks in still photography continued to be improved upon, most noticeably with the introduction of T-grain in 1986. However, Kodak still makes Plus-X and Tri-X, with few changes to the emulsion characteristics for decades. Also, there are companies in Europe that make very "old-fashioned" film emulsions that are completely unchanged from vintage film emulsion. Even technicolor could theoretically be made today with special stock pretreatment to add backing absorbant colors and if you could find a working technicolor camera that hadn't been dismantled. You couldn't make a technicolor print of course, but by scanning or special printing, you could certainly pull something off that would be almost identical to the original, in feel and in actual appearance if one were to compare the two side-by-side. Color neg would be very difficult to replicate exactly with changes in the film processing chemistry in the '70s and the addition of T-grain in the '80s, but I'm sure one could still do it with films shot outside of their curves with a few ND filters slapped on to make high-speed stock slower.

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

 

 

I've seen a few or more vintage prints from the early 50's & earlier including nitrates of "The Big Sleep" and Dreyer's "Day Of Wrath" as well as less known earlier stuff. They looked quite nice !

 

FWIW a lab guy I know who has worked with a lot of vintage & archival material told me he felt Estar based B&W prints had a quality closer to nitrate than acetate.

 

-Sam

 

I am not sure as to the thickness of nitrate film, but I know that acetate is much thicker than estar, and estar is the most durable material, so durable as to the detriment of projectors actually. I was working in the projection room at the college film society, and someone carelessly forgot to secure the takeup reel on the first reel of the movie Mr. and Mrs. Smith. the film unravelled onto the floor as much as it could before jamming inside of the projector, something referred to as a "brain-wrap". THe projector lost sound first, then made a horrendous shrieking sound, followed by laughter from the audience. The projector lamp melted a hole in the shutter, and the damned estar was so strong that it HADN'T BROKEN. THe gears broke instead, putting the projector out of commission for weaks. Estar won't break. It just STREEEEETCHES, which is why it still isn't used in camera negative stock. A $750K Panavision wouldn't be as cheap to repair had a similar thing happened inside of it. Anyway, nitrate film crumbles in the event of a film jam, and is highly flammable. Acetate breaks instead and decomposes into acetic acid over time, which is why film has to be stored in cold-storage vaults. I would think, because of its characteristics, that nitrate would be the thickest film base of the bunch. Someone said that the closest you could get to the look of nitrate would be shooting Kodachrome film and developing it as a B&W neg.

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

[John Pytlak RIP]

Estar won't break. It just STREEEEETCHES, which is why it still isn't used in camera negative stock. A $750K Panavision wouldn't be as cheap to repair had a similar thing happened inside of it.

 

Polyester film base (Kodak ESTAR base) is very strong and durable. But it HAS been used very successfully for camera films. Many high speed cameras are designed for polyester film. And many of the IMAX movies filmed on the Space Shuttle and International Space Station were shot on 65mm Kodak films on ESTAR base. So with proper design, ESTAR base film can be used in motion picture cameras.

 

Using polyester camera films would have the advantage of archival stability --- unlike triacetate film base, there is almost no shrinkage with age, and polyester film is not subject to "vinegar syndrome" caused by poor storage conditions.

[K Borowski]

Polyester film base (Kodak ESTAR base) is very strong and durable. But it HAS been used very successfully for camera films. Many high speed cameras are designed for polyester film. And many of the IMAX movies filmed on the Space Shuttle and International Space Station were shot on 65mm Kodak films on ESTAR base. So with proper design, ESTAR base film can be used in motion picture cameras.

 

Using polyester camera films would have the advantage of archival stability --- unlike triacetate film base, there is almost no shrinkage with age, and polyester film is not subject to "vinegar syndrome" caused by poor storage conditions.

 

John, I am curious: how exactly did they deal with the problem of Estar' gear-damaging potential? Was this 2-mil. thickness film, which is what I believe the thickness is for prints, or is it of a greater thickness? I knew that Estar was used in still films used in space, such as for Apollo 11, or on the shuttle. That doesn't seem nearly as problematic as trying to use the stuff in a cine camera though. as you wouldn't need a rotating shutter capable of rapidly exposing film in a still camera. The appeal of being able to fit more film in a given area and reducing dimensional distortion due to processing or age has always been greatly appealing to me. I consider these to be the biggest limitations of film, which could be alleviated were Kodak to replace acetate with estar.

 

Regards,

~Karl Borowski

[Sam Wells]

Even if, hypothetically, an old nitrate print were somehow to be kept in mint condition for seven decades, the projector technology and even the old carbon arc lamps have been replaced with different shutter mechanisms, and lamp types. However, I would argue that there is a definite "look" that can be replicated with enough thought and effort. I feel that artistic license as to how something feels are often totally different than the product that they are trying to replicate. A real technicolor print, either two or three color, looks totally different from the look found in the Aviator, for instance. With B&W films from the '40s, I think that the look is primarily from the film noir style of lighting (esp. in Casablanca) and halation. That soft look could be achieved for real with treatment of B&W neg to remove the antihalo, which would be difficult but certainly doable, or diffusion, either with filters or with smoke perhaps. Other than film base and addition of anti-halo backing, I feel it is remarkable how similar the B&W movie stocks of today are in comparison to those of yesteryear. Perhaps this is due to how the B&W filmmaking market has basically become petrified for only the most artsy films or student films where people are after that classic look. In contrast, due to the prevalence of B&W newsprint and other influences, B&W stocks in still photography continued to be improved upon, most noticeably with the introduction of T-grain in 1986. However, Kodak still makes Plus-X and Tri-X, with few changes to the emulsion characteristics for decades. Also, there are companies in Europe that make very "old-fashioned" film emulsions that are completely unchanged from vintage film emulsion. Even technicolor could theoretically be made today with special stock pretreatment to add backing absorbant colors and if you could find a working technicolor camera that hadn't been dismantled. You couldn't make a technicolor print of course, but by scanning or special printing, you could certainly pull something off that would be almost identical to the original, in feel and in actual appearance if one were to compare the two side-by-side. Color neg would be very difficult to replicate exactly with changes in the film processing chemistry in the '70s and the addition of T-grain in the '80s, but I'm sure one could still do it with films shot outside of their curves with a few ND filters slapped on to make high-speed stock slower.

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

I am not sure as to the thickness of nitrate film, but I know that acetate is much thicker than estar, and estar is the most durable material, so durable as to the detriment of projectors actually. I was working in the projection room at the college film society, and someone carelessly forgot to secure the takeup reel on the first reel of the movie Mr. and Mrs. Smith. the film unravelled onto the floor as much as it could before jamming inside of the projector, something referred to as a "brain-wrap". THe projector lost sound first, then made a horrendous shrieking sound, followed by laughter from the audience. The projector lamp melted a hole in the shutter, and the damned estar was so strong that it HADN'T BROKEN. THe gears broke instead, putting the projector out of commission for weaks. Estar won't break. It just STREEEEETCHES, which is why it still isn't used in camera negative stock. A $750K Panavision wouldn't be as cheap to repair had a similar thing happened inside of it. Anyway, nitrate film crumbles in the event of a film jam, and is highly flammable. Acetate breaks instead and decomposes into acetic acid over time, which is why film has to be stored in cold-storage vaults. I would think, because of its characteristics, that nitrate would be the thickest film base of the bunch. Someone said that the closest you could get to the look of nitrate would be shooting Kodachrome film and developing it as a B&W neg.

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

 

Well Estar is the norm for prints now, better or worse.

 

I agree carbon arc looks nicer than Xenon but I have enough causes, bring back the carbons can't be one of them B) <-- note welding goggles.

 

BTW Beauviala designed the A-minima to work with polyester stock as well as triacetate, not that there is any you could use..

 

-Sam

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I've gotten a very classical look with B&W Kodak reversal - especially when printed on the late (and loss lamented by me 7361).

 

---Shooting with 7361 in the camera with uncoated lenses in the camera would give even more of a classic look, more like silents than talkies.

Or at least an early newsreel look. EI 16. Pale skies and dark skins. The pale faces in silent movies were do to white make up.

 

---LV

[Leo Anthony Vale]

With B&W films from the '40s, I think that the look is primarily from the film noir style of lighting (esp. in Casablanca) and halation. That soft look could be achieved for real with treatment of B&W neg to remove the antihalo, which would be difficult but certainly doable, or diffusion, either with filters or with smoke perhaps.

 

---The REM jet backing on color films is on the base side, so it can be scrubbed off. The anti-halation layer in B/W is below the emulsion and also in dyes in the emulsion, so it's not removable.

 

I think smoke for diffusion is a relatively modern technique. Using uncoated Tessar-type lenses will give the proper look, rather than a modern extra contrasty lens with diffusion.

 

I've cranked through millions of feet of Fox Movietone original negs, dupes, fine grains and prints. In addition, I've also went through a number of original nitrate negs of Universal features, evaluating and repairing them.

 

Some very low key scenes, particularly on the Universals, were filmed with lenses that produced negative images that resembled pencil sketches. I don't know of a modern lens that does that.

 

A thousand foot reel of nitrate negative is the same size as a thousand foot reel of acetate, but one can feel that the nitrate is heavier. The nitrate base might be denser than than the acetate, but there is, more importantly, a higher silver content in the nitrate's emusion.

This contributes to the older look. I think, particularly, in three-strip Techniclor. Even 1950 Eastman color has a richer look than current stocks.

I suspect that the 'old fashioned' Euro stocks have less silver than they did in the 40s.

 

 

 

********************************************************************************

********

Other than film base and addition of anti-halo backing, I feel it is remarkable how similar the B&W movie stocks of today are in comparison to those of yesteryear. Perhaps this is due to how the B&W filmmaking market has basically become petrified for only the most artsy films or student films where people are after that classic look. In contrast, due to the prevalence of B&W newsprint and other influences, B&W stocks in still photography continued to be improved upon, most noticeably with the introduction of T-grain in 1986. However, Kodak still makes Plus-X and Tri-X, with few changes to the emulsion characteristics for decades. Also, there are companies in Europe that make very "old-fashioned" film emulsions that are completely unchanged from vintage film emulsion.

 

 

Even technicolor could theoretically be made today with special stock pretreatment to add backing absorbant colors and if you could find a working technicolor camera that hadn't been dismantled.

 

---The Y and C records of Three-strip were bi-pack. While the C and M records were basically Plus-X, the Y negative was an orthochromatic stock with a red filter layer on top of the base.

Putting a blue filter layer on the base would prevent red light from reaching the C negative.

So recreating three-strip means coming up with a completely new filmstock.

 

********************************************************************************

*********

You couldn't make a technicolor print of course, but by scanning or special printing, you could certainly pull something off that would be almost identical to the original, in feel and in actual appearance if one were to compare the two side-by-side.

 

---How would you add the silver key image. Admittedly that was discarded in the late 40s.

But one of it's functions was to add sharpness to a soft dye image.

 

********************************************************************************

*********

Color neg would be very difficult to replicate exactly with changes in the film processing chemistry in the '70s and the addition of T-grain in the '80s, but I'm sure one could still do it with films shot outside of their curves with a few ND filters slapped on to make high-speed stock slower.

 

---A big reason that estar base isn't used as a standard camera stock is that it can't be cement spliced.

Estar heat splices are very visible.

 

---LV

[Charles MacDonald]

John, I am curious: how exactly did they deal with the problem of Estar' gear-damaging potential? Was this 2-mil. thickness film, which is what I believe the thickness is for prints, or is it of a greater thickness? I knew that Estar was used in still films used in space, such as for Apollo 11, or on the shuttle. I consider these to be the biggest limitations of film, which could be alleviated were Kodak to replace acetate with estar.

 

 

I think you just accept that you have to avoid jams..

 

Background: I used to do Microfilming, we would use Recordak Imagecapture AHU microfilm on a 2.5 MIL ESTAR base, so we got 215 Feet on a "100 ft Spool". (used to go through 4 rolls a shift) Microfilm normaly does not have perfs. So I think that the 2.5 base is fairly standard.

 

I also got some rather out of date Ektacrome VNF 2239 film form a surplus dealer for some of my home movies. That was also on a fairly thin base. I do have trouble showing the film on my Victor Projector becasue the Gate will not hold the thin film steady, I have more repairs to do on that machine so I will tweek the gate a bit to resolve that, so that I can deal with ESTAR prints.

 

The 2239 was surplus from some place that was using High-speed cameras for crash testing I am told. The crash test cameras shoot at 200-400 Frames a second, and so NEED the ESTAR base, acetate would snap when they started up.

 

 

I would immagine if ESTAR were to become popular as a Camera Negative, the designers of Cameras would add "shear Pins" to the mechanism, so that the pin would break before the film damaged the machine.

 

The bigest problem with the ESTAR base is that It cannot be Cement spliced, so is typicaly tape spliced. For editing you would have to use an Ultrasonic splicer. which melts the film slightly. Also it builds up static MUCH faster so I suspect you would have to clean the negs on every pass though the printer.

[Sam Wells]

I suspect JPB's thought was the Estar based stock would be scanned or telecined, and not spliced.

 

(or you cut for optical printing / blowup with handles - you'd do this anyway if zero cutting, altho zero cutting is kind of dated)

 

-Sam

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I suspect JPB's thought was the Estar based stock would be scanned or telecined, and not spliced.

 

(or you cut for optical printing / blowup with handles - you'd do this anyway if zero cutting, altho zero cutting is kind of dated)

 

-Sam

 

---Contact printing an answer print and a small number of release prints from a conformed 35mm or 16mm OCN, whether A-roll only or A&B rolls, is still the norm and less expensive than optical printing.

 

---LV

[Sam Wells]

The A-minima is a Super 16 camera.

 

So unless you were using it to shoot straight 16 (which you can do of course, but off-center)

you'd be doing optical printing, scanning, or conventional telecine.

 

-Sam

[Leo Anthony Vale]

The A-minima is a Super 16 camera.

 

So unless you were using it to shoot straight 16 (which you can do of course, but off-center)

you'd be doing optical printing, scanning, or conventional telecine.

 

-Sam

 

Agfa-Gaevert discontinued manufacturing motion picture camera stocks because they switched to estar base for all of their photo films. The only motion picture stocks they now manufacture are print stocks and sound track negative. No more Agfacolor.

 

One needs to make an answer print from the original neg before making a blowup I/P.

S16 and S35 A/Ps don't need to have a track.

But they will still be printed by standard contact.

 

---LV

[John Pytlak RIP]

Most of the polyester (ESTAR) base films for motion picture use base that is 0.0047 inches (120 micrometers) thick, although thinner base has sometimes been used for "Special Order" products.

 

Kodak has proprietary award-winning antistatic technology for many of its ESTAR-base products, including Kodak VISION Color Print film, Kodak VISION Color Intermediate film and sound negative film:

 

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/lo....php?t2694.html

 

http://www.filmimaging.com/2004/02_feb/news/kodak0218.htm

[K Borowski]

Most of the polyester (ESTAR) base films for motion picture use base that is 0.0047 inches (120 micrometers) thick, although thinner base has sometimes been used for "Special Order" products.

 

Kodak has proprietary award-winning antistatic technology for many of its ESTAR-base products, including Kodak VISION Color Print film, Kodak VISION Color Intermediate film and sound negative film:

 

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/lo....php?t2694.html

 

http://www.filmimaging.com/2004/02_feb/news/kodak0218.htm

 

How does 4.7 mils thickness compare with the thickness of your average Vision2 Neg film? I know that it has to be thicker than 2 mil film, because I've seen 35mm Aero film of that thickness and it is verrrrrrry thin, but I have never actually measured films thicknesses.

 

Regards.

~Karl