Old film stocks

Sam Wells · December 14, 2005

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

Well that's a point. Although I know a lab that has actually skipped the S16 AP stage and blown up clip to clip in a few cases. (They might not say that in public !)

In any case you *could* zero cut.

I suppose though, JPB WAS really thinking telecine and scanning.

-Sam

John Pytlak RIP · December 14, 2005

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

I believe that most of the triacetate camera films are about 0.0052 inches (133 micrometers). The goal is to match the "stiffness" of the film as it is tranported through cameras, processing machines, and printers. Polyester, being a stiffer material, can be made thinner, so it matches the stiffness of the film strip similar to triacetate film.

Leo Anthony Vale · December 14, 2005

Well that's a point. Although I know a lab that has actually skipped the S16 AP stage and blown up clip to clip in a few cases. (They might not say that in public !)

---& how much more did the lab charge for that?

In any case you *could* zero cut.

I suppose though, JPB WAS really thinking telecine and scanning.

-Sam

---Optical printing is more expensive than continuous contact. It's slower than contact. More lab time, more lab charge.

An optically printed A/P will cost almost as much as the blow up I/P.

An ultrasonic splicer won't give clean frameline splices for checker-board A&B rolls.

& zero cutting won't give clean frame lines.

---LV

John Pytlak RIP · December 14, 2005

---Optical printing is more expensive than continuous contact. It's slower than contact. More lab time, more lab charge.

An optically printed A/P will cost almost as much as the blow up I/P.

An ultrasonic splicer won't give clean frameline splices for checker-board A&B rolls.

& zero cutting won't give clean frame lines.

---LV

Some labs have ultrasonic splicers that are used for splicing polyester duplicate negatives and sound negatives. The overlap for the weld can sometimes be quite narrow, such that the splice doesn't show, at least for 35mm. Splice dimensions are specified by SMPTE Recommended Practices RP111 and RP149.

Sam Wells · December 14, 2005

An ultrasonic splicer won't give clean frameline splices for checker-board A&B rolls.
& zero cutting won't give clean frame lines.

---LV

We were talking about an S16 check print.

I've done zero cutting of 16mm BTW, the frame *lines* are fine, its that ~ 1/3 frame dissolve that's the problem on a contact print.

Anyway, don't shoot me I'm the messanger. All I said was Beauviala designed the A-minima so it could take Estar based film stock. I'm not affiliated with Aaton and I'm not forcing anybody to do anything they don't want to do :D

-Sam

Leo Anthony Vale · December 14, 2005

Some labs have ultrasonic splicers that are used for splicing polyester duplicate negatives and sound negatives. The overlap for the weld can sometimes be quite narrow, such that the splice doesn't show, at least for 35mm. Splice dimensions are specified by SMPTE Recommended Practices RP111 and RP149.

---The way an ultrasonic splicer scrambles the emulsion, makes for a very visible splice.

When I used to splice track negatives, I would use a bloop punch on the splice.

An occasional visible splice in a print is acceptable. But splicing estar anamorphic original negative?

For 16mm checker-board splicing, the scrambled emulsion in black leader negates the idea of invisible A&B roll splicing.

Admittedly I did enjoy watching and listening the little spinning wheel come out to scramble and weld the film.

---LV

dd3stp233 · January 14, 2006

There are some good points to shoot polyestar base film. I got some Ilford black and white 16mm film on polyestar base called - P3. It was never commercially available. I could fit 200ft on a standard 100ft daylight spool. After shooting about 6,000 feet of it, I blew a gear in a K3. The gear was made of nylon or something so it wasn't a metal gear. I think if it was made of metal I wouldn't have had a problem. I just put a replacement gear in. The camera actually ran better (smoother and no jams,ever) with polyestar film then running acetate film. Archival stability (est. 10,000 years in sub-zero storage) and resistence to scratching and breakage. I do have some nitrate film too that I've been shooting with. It does have a distinct look to the negatives. Actually quite rich and contrasty but good shadow detail. (nitrate film can last past a 1000 years if stored properly) Also makes a good subsitute for fireworks, if you lite a roll on fire.

Leo Anthony Vale · January 14, 2006

I do have some nitrate film too that I've been shooting with. It does have a distinct look to the negatives. Actually quite rich and contrasty but good shadow detail. (nitrate film can last past a 1000 years if stored properly) Also makes a good subsitute for fireworks, if you lite a roll on fire.

Nitrate is basically gun cotton.

How shrunken is your nitrate? Which brand?

I've found that DuPont has the least shrinkage, Agfa/Ansco the most.

Since DuPont started out manufacturing explosives, figures that they'd have the best base.

Pre 50s film had more silver hence the better shadow detail.

---LV

John Pytlak RIP · January 14, 2006

I do have some nitrate film too that I've been shooting with. It does have a distinct look to the negatives. Actually quite rich and contrasty but good shadow detail. (nitrate film can last past a 1000 years if stored properly) Also makes a good subsitute for fireworks, if you lite a roll on fire.

Kodak stopped making any film on nitrate base in the early 1950's, so any raw stock would be well over 50 years old. Unless it was frozen, I doubt it would produce "rich and contrasty" images. What emulsion type was it? I hope you told the lab it was nitrate, as they would be taking a great risk processing it without knowing it's properties. :unsure:

Charles MacDonald · January 15, 2006

I got some Ilford black and white 16mm film on polyestar base called - P3. It was never commercially available. I could fit 200ft on a standard 100ft daylight spool. After shooting about 6,000 feet of it, I blew a gear in a K3.

....

I do have some nitrate film too that I've been shooting with. It does have a distinct look to the negatives. Actually quite rich and contrasty but good shadow detail. (nitrate film can last past a 1000 years if stored properly) Also makes a good subsitute for fireworks, if you lite a roll on fire.

I am wondering also where you would have obtained Nitrate stock. Particularly if you are using a K-3 Camera? The story goes that 16mm Came about in part because George Eastman declaired that he would not sleep well if he let "ordinary' folks use Nitrate, so he made his "home format" slightly wider than half the space between 35mm perforations so that it would not be ecconomical to re-slit 35mm stock.

As John said, Nitrate has not been made for eons, at least in North America. It was seldom made in 16mm outside North America.

Are you perhaps using some "old Fashoned" european/Asian film, that has a simalar emuslion to what was used in the Nitrate era? are you making your own?

dd3stp233 · January 15, 2006

The nitrate film I have is 35mm Kodak Nitrate Motion Picture Film Plus-X. The date code on the edge of the developed film indicates it was made in 1946. I shot a couple hundred feet in my Eyemo camera (probably safest since there are no electronics in the camera) The film is not shrunk or warped at all. I don't think it was cold stored either but the film still works and looks good. I do the processing myself with some compensation for some base fog, such as shooting at a lower Asa. Not actually sure because I have not been able to find the original technical info for this film what the Asa it was supposed to be. I attached an image scanned from a nitrate neg. to show how it looks.

Charles MacDonald · January 15, 2006

The nitrate film I have is 35mm Kodak Nitrate Motion Picture Film Plus-X. The date code on the edge of the developed film indicates it was made in 1946.
...

I attached an image scanned from a nitrate neg. to show how it looks.

60 years old.... about ten times the lifespan that most folks I know would expect!

Thnak you, a very interesting image, have you contacted the book of world records folks, I think you have the oldest useable film title sewn up.

John Pytlak RIP · January 16, 2006

The nitrate film I have is 35mm Kodak Nitrate Motion Picture Film Plus-X. The date code on the edge of the developed film indicates it was made in 1946. I shot a couple hundred feet in my Eyemo camera (probably safest since there are no electronics in the camera) The film is not shrunk or warped at all. I don't think it was cold stored either but the film still works and looks good. I do the processing myself with some compensation for some base fog, such as shooting at a lower Asa. Not actually sure because I have not been able to find the original technical info for this film what the Asa it was supposed to be. I attached an image scanned from a nitrate neg. to show how it looks.

EASTMAN Plus-X Film (nitrate base) was film code 1231, and was manufactured from 1937-1949. I suspect that film been stored in refrigerated conditions for at least part of its long life.

Filip Plesha · January 16, 2006

Wasn't it a box of Plus-x that that guy was holding in "Gentlemen prefer blondes"?

It was magical to see a little box of BW film in technicolor

Erik Turestedt · January 25, 2006

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?

If you compare color stocks from 70's with todays, I would guess that the newer stocks are made for grading. Therefore the saturation and contrast shall be as neutral as possible, giving you more control over the image.

If there was a new 70's look stock in production, I would get it at once.