Hey, John Pytlak

Paul Bruening · December 8, 2005

Hey John,

Is there a handy way to convert Kodak's tech data into something like ASA numbers? For example, what is the approximate ASA value of 2393 print film? Also, why is print stock so much less expensive than camera stock?

Thanks in advance,

Paul

John Pytlak RIP · December 8, 2005

Hey John,

Is there a handy way to convert Kodak's tech data into something like ASA numbers? For example, what is the approximate ASA value of 2393 print film? Also, why is print stock so much less expensive than camera stock?

Thanks in advance,

Paul

You can try to compare the sensitometric curves published by Kodak in the technical data for each film. But color print film and intermediate are designed for printing from originals that have orange colored masking, on printers that use tungsten lamps operated much below rated voltage to extend life, so they are balanced for a very orange light source, and would require lots of orange-colored filtration as a starting point.

Color print film is a much simpler film structure and technology than color negative film, and has less silver in it.

Laurent Andrieux · December 8, 2005

Hi John,

Also, they have a very higher gamma, don't they ?

Do you think it could be sort of interesting to pass some print stock in a camera, if I find the proper filtering ? I don't mean to use it as a "normal" stock, I mean for an effect.

Some people have used sound film for some effects in black and white, so why not ?

I think the perf dimensions and pitch are a bit different from the camera neg ? Do you think that really is a problem with nowadays cameras ?

Leo Anthony Vale · December 8, 2005

Hi John,

Also, they have a very higher gamma, don't they ?

Do you think it could be sort of interesting to pass some print stock in a camera, if I find the proper filtering ? I don't mean to use it as a "normal" stock, I mean for an effect.

Some people have used sound film for some effects in black and white, so why not ?

I think the perf dimensions and pitch are a bit different from the camera neg ? Do you think that really is a problem with nowadays cameras ?

The late lamented 7361 B/W reversal print film was a great camera film. Use it with an uncoated lens and get something that looks like snapshots from the 30s. Quite sharp and amazing latitude for reversal.

5360 autopositive is still around and gives interesting results.

Estar base version has BH-1866 perfs.

---LV

Paul Bruening · December 8, 2005

How do I interpret these graphs? They are for Vision 200T and 2393 print stock:

John Pytlak RIP · December 9, 2005

How do I interpret these graphs? They are for Vision 200T and 2393 print stock:

The Kodak website has a good tutorial on interpreting sensitometric data (graphs you showed):

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/structure.shtml

And all the other data Kodak publishes for motion picture films:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/exposure.shtml

Yes, color print film is MUCH higher in contrast than color negative film.

A starting point for exposure might be with TWO Wratten 85 filters, and an Exposure Index of about 5 or less.

(Expect very harsh and contrasty color).

Kodak VISION Color Intermediate Film has a contrast of about 1.0, almost twice that of a camera negative. Again, very slow, and balanced for an orange light source.

Most cameras take "short pitch" film. 35mm camera films are usually BH-1866. Print film KS-1870 perfs are "long pitch" and the perf height is 0.078 inches vs. 0.073 inches, so it will not be properly registered using a BH registration pin camera.

Paul Bruening · December 9, 2005

Thanks, John.

Kitao Sakurai · December 9, 2005

Leo,

"The late lamented 7361 B/W reversal print film was a great camera film. Use it with an uncoated lens and get something that looks like snapshots from the 30s. Quite sharp and amazing latitude for reversal.

5360 autopositive is still around and gives interesting results.

Estar base version has BH-1866 perfs."

Could you expand upon on this a little more? I'd be very interested in trying to shoot on a bw print stock like this. Would the current version of 61 be 02? Do you think this would compare? If so, as a starting point for testing, what were you rating the 61 at?

And what results have you achieved with the autopositive film?

best,

kitao

Clive Tobin · December 10, 2005

Would the current version of 61 be 02?

Well it might be except that 7361 is just totally GONE with no replacement available. Seems to me the 7360 and 5360 are discontinued now also. Hard to keep up with all the products that Kodak is discontinuing and the Kodak News PDFs are slow to download.

I used to shoot 7361 also when I could get free short ends. The 7360 is very slow, maybe ASA 0.5 or some such. It used to squeak terribly going through the camera, perhaps because it is too smooth and not lubricated. Both films by the way are bright red in color which makes unfamiliar users do a double take. Especially the 7360 rawstock which looks like a transparent red filter that couldn't form an image.