500T exposed as 50D (oops)

[Erdwolf_TVL]

A mistake I am unlikely to make again... only looking at the first two digits of a package before loading it.

 

Fortunately, I'm still learning, so this could be considered "school fees"

 

Question, though. Should I even bother having this processed?

 

Perhaps underprocess this (pull-processing, right?)

 

The colour balance I could correct digitally in telecine, but this won't do me and awful lot of good if the film is completely black...

[David Mullen ASC]

That's about 3 1/3 stops overexposed, which is not great but may be recoverable. I'd pull-process by one stop and then color-correct the rest of the way down. Who knows, you may like the results...

 

Of course, this also means that you shot without the 85B filter, so you'll have to correct for that as well.

[Erdwolf_TVL]

If this works out I'll be very impressed...

 

Thanks for the feedback!

[Dan Goulder]

A mistake I am unlikely to make again... only looking at the first two digits of a package before loading it.

Learning what different unexposed emulsions look like is your last line of defense, especially if you ever use recans. The emulsions of daylight film, especially 50D, look distinctly different from tungsten emulsions, such as 500T. It will help to snip off a short section of different stocks that you use, just to keep as a reference.

[Erdwolf_TVL]

Learning what different unexposed emulsions look like is your last line of defense, especially if you ever use recans. The emulsions of daylight film, especially 50D, look distinctly different from tungsten emulsions, such as 500T. It will help to snip off a short section of different stocks that you use, just to keep as a reference.

 

I never thought of this... Thanks!

[Mark Dunn]

Don't forget to keep the snippets in the dark.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

A good DP friend of mine encountered exactly the same thing - the 500T and the 50D have almost the same color on the tape that seals the cans (and often go on the mag), so it's easy to make a mistake like the clapper/loader did on this occasion. He said it'd be unrecoverable in telecine and I said it wouldn't. I was right. However, that doesn't mean it necessarily is usable - it's probably quite grainy in the highlights. Film has tremendous latitude.

[K Borowski]

Agreed, I'd pull one stop. I did something similar a while back, I overexposed 3 stops because of a silly goof with the light meter. Your problem with pulling more than one stop is that film can get streaky if the developing time is too short. I forget how long ECN-2 is in the developer bath, but rule of thumb is not to go much below 4 minutes in developer. To give you a similar analogy in still photography, I processed a roll of C-41 from one of those disposable cameras. Friggin' Kodak puts 800 speed film in a camera designed for underewater, eseentailly daylight, use, which boggles my mind. These negatives were THICK, probably at least three stops overexposed, but other than REALLY long printing times and some crunchy highlights, they were quite printable. In a telecine, this density would probably cause some problems, but nothing too tremendous. Now, IIRC, 500T is only a 320 film in daylight,, so you are, in effect, only 2 2/3 stops overexposed. Because of all the overexposure, you have "burned in" enough detail in the C, Y , and M layers that you don't have to worry about the color shift too much, becuase there is going to be more than enough detail in each layer. So with a 1 stop pull, you're left with 1 2/3 stops over. That is quite useable. I regularly overexpose film a full stop. You may not even want to get the pull. Perhaps do a clip test to determine?

 

Regards,

 

~Karl Borowski

[John Pytlak RIP]

The suggestions to pull process by 1 stop is a good one, and should help keep the densities within a reasonable range for printing or transfer. Since the processing machine is usually run faster to "pull" a process, pulling more than a stop may result in tail end solution and wash times that are too short.

 

Even with the overexposure and incorrect filtration, you will likely get a usable image, perhaps with a bit of highlight compression. The very dense negative may give a bit more noise in some telecines.

 

The Kodak VISION2 Color Negative films have remarkable exposure latitude, especially for overexposure. B)

 

As mentioned by others, the color of the raw stock emulsion varies with film type, due mostly to different levels of absorber dye. Although the color of the emulsion can be a guide, it is NOT a sure way to positively identify a particular film type. And as mentioned, raw stock exposed to light will eventually darken and change color, so don't use old snippets.

[Sam Wells]

Now, IIRC, 500T is only a 320 film in daylight,,

 

It's a effective 320 speed film in daylight IF you use an 85 filter which he didn't have on.

 

-Sam

[K Borowski]

It's a effective 320 speed film in daylight IF you use an 85 filter which he didn't have on.

 

-Sam

 

Sorry, you're right Sam. There is going to be a slight speed loss due to the color mismatch ( maybe a third of a stop or less) because the tungsten balanced stocks are more sensitive to red and less to blue than their daylight balanced counterparts. I was thinking of B&W for a moment there. Daylight balanced B&W is supposed to be exposed a fraction of a stop more in tungsten light (without a filter) than in daylight, so likewise the same would hold true for color.

 

Regards,

 

~Karl Borowski

[David Mullen ASC]

Sorry, you're right Sam. There is going to be a slight speed loss due to the color mismatch ( maybe a third of a stop or less) because the tungsten balanced stocks are more sensitive to red and less to blue than their daylight balanced counterparts.

 

Actually that's backwards -- because tungsten light has an excess of red and a deficiency of blue, the blue layer has to be MORE sensitive to light to compensate, hence why it's grainier than in daylight-balanced stocks. So one of the effects of shooting tungsten-balanced stock in daylight without the 85B filter is that the blue layer is going to get overexposed more than the red layer.

[recans]

"...the 500T and the 50D have almost the same color on the tape that seals the cans..."

Anyone remember when ALL the Kodak stocks had the same color yellow tape?

[K Borowski]

"...the 500T and the 50D have almost the same color on the tape that seals the cans..."

Anyone remember when ALL the Kodak stocks had the same color yellow tape?

 

Anyone remember when there was only one color negative stock?

[David Mullen ASC]

I wish Kodak would avoid numbers that when handwritten, look like another stock's numbers. Back in the days of EXR 100T 5248 and EXR 500T 5298, I got a mag from the loader that was labelled sloppily "5248" but color-taped for high-speed 5298. I asked the loader which was it and he couldn't remember.

 

Over the years, the problem has occurred with 5247 and 5297, 5248 and 5298, 5274 and 5279...

 

So learn to write your 4's and 9's clearly!

 

I also did a film where the flashbacks were Kodak 5277 but the modern scenes were on Fuji 500T 8572 (plus two other Fuji stocks). I always referred to the Kodak as "77" and the Fuji as "500T" to the camera assistants, but one day I asked for "77" and they loaded 8572 because the assistant thought I was asking for "72" -- even though I never asked for that film by that number. Luckily it just meant that the 500T stock was exposed at 250 ASA, which is what I was planning on exposing the '77 at for that scene. But it did cause a shift in look for that particular flashback.

 

It's also a little tricky if you shoot a movie on both Fuji 250T and 250D stocks because it's hard to hear the difference between "T" and "D", so I try and call out the stock numbers in that case, and I double-check to make sure the right mag is on the camera.

[John Holland]

Anyone remember when there was only one color negative stock?

Yes i am afraid i can ,very old, 5254 was only Kodak colour neg ,when i started . john holland.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Yes i am afraid i can ,very old, 5254 was only Kodak colour neg ,when i started . john holland.

 

Yes, 5254 was the stock of choice when I started working for Kodak on June 8, 1970. I can remember all the R&D activity that led to 5247 and the ECN-2 process a few years later.

[Stephen Williams]

Yes, 5254 was the stock of choice when I started working for Kodak on June 8, 1970. I can remember all the R&D activity that led to 5247 and the ECN-2 process a few years later.

 

John,

 

I think 5247 was the only Kodak Colour negative when I started in the late 1970's. When did Fuji & Agfa start making motion picture film?

 

Stephen

[John Pytlak RIP]

John,

 

I think 5247 was the only Kodak Colour negative when I started in the late 1970's. When did Fuji & Agfa start making motion picture film?

 

Stephen

 

Here is a link to a timeline of motion-picture films offered by the major film manufacturers:

 

http://www.cinetech.com/html/stocktimeline.html

 

Kodak first supplied film for Edison and Dickson's motion picture experiments in 1891:

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/corp/histor...ml?pq-path=2699

 

Here is the chronology of Kodak motion-picture films:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...=0.1.6.26&lc=en

[David Mullen ASC]

I know (or believe) that Sovcolor and Fujicolor, etc. derived their early formulation from seized Agfacolor technology after WW2. I'm surprised that the timeline doesn't mention a color negative Fuji MP stock until the late 1960's.

 

Just from reading "American Cinematographer", some (very few) TV shows in the 1970's used Fuji color negative for cost reasons. There was some complaints about manufacturing consistency in terms of perfing / slitting, etc. Fred Koenekamp tested Fuji for "Islands in the Stream" (1977) and liked the softer quality it had, but studio concerns made him opt for Kodak with more diffusion.

 

So the first significant use of Fuji that I read about was for the period scenes in "Somewhere in Time" (1980), shot by Isadore Mankofsky. But before that, I know that "Farewell My Lovely" (1975) was shot on Fuji by John Alonzo.

 

Then Fuji come out with the first faster (than 5247) color negative stock, a 250T stock, in 1980 and there was a big jump in the number of productions shooting Fuji -- films like "Sharkey's Machine", "Das Boot", "Star Trek II", "Room with a View", "Legend", etc. Kodak followed up with their 250T stock, called 5293 (not to be confused with EXR 200T), about a year and a half later.

[John Holland]

Yes, 5254 was the stock of choice when I started working for Kodak on June 8, 1970. I can remember all the R&D activity that led to 5247 and the ECN-2 process a few years later.

Yes and there was a load of problems with 5247 and ECN 2 , the process was pretty awful , think we called it a red /green flash over , red skin tones , green shadows . I did some tests with David Watkin ,prior to the shooting of Robin and Marion, he wasnt a happy bunny , think that is main reason for shooting so many of his pictures on Agfa XT . Geoff. Unsworth ,felt the same but stuck with Kodak. 5254 was a beautiful stock and the slower ECN 1 process . john holland.

[David Mullen ASC]

I read a quote by Unsworth where he said he preferred 5247 because its sharpness worked better with his filtration... I think it was in the article on "Bridge Too Far."

[John Holland]

I read a quote by Unsworth where he said he preferred 5247 because its sharpness worked better with his filtration... I think it was in the article on "Bridge Too Far."

I think the test we did , was end 1975 , Kodak kept working on the stock and and developing probs. and did get it right eventually , so by 1977 , think thats about year " A Bridge to Far " was made it was a lot better. That film is one of my all time favorite photographed movies , very bold i think to use that amount of fog filters on a war film . I must get my set of Harrison and Harrison double fogs from the loft and see how they look now. john holland .

[David Mullen ASC]

There was a formulation change from the original 1974 version of 5247 (and the original ECN-2 process) that created the Series 600 version of 5247 that came out by August 1976. This is the version that allowed Kodak to finally obsolete 5254 permanently.

 

It was a confusing time; I guess the change to 5247 meant a change at the labs (to switch from ECN-1?) and Hollywood cinematographers were so resistent that Kodak kept 5254 going until the end of 1976; however, in Europe, they had already gotten the labs to switch over to ECN-2 and 5247.

 

So there seems to be a period of two years where most European films were shooting the original 5247 while in Hollywood they were still using 5254. I remember on the AC article for "The Deep", shot in 1976, that U.K. cinematographer Chris Challis was surprised when the U.S. producers asked him if he wanted to shoot 5254 or 5247 -- he said that in the U.K., 5254 wasn't even an option anymore by that point. He shot some tests and I believe he decided to shoot the sunny exteriors on 5254 (which handled the harsh light better) and the underwater stuff on 5247.

 

And of course, there were the articles on how "Close Encounters" shot the 65mm material on 5254 but the 35mm anamorphic material on the new Series 600 5247.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I know (or believe) that Sovcolor and Fujicolor, etc. derived their early formulation from seized Agfacolor technology after WW2. I'm surprised that the timeline doesn't mention a color negative Fuji MP stock until the late 1960's.

 

Just from reading "American Cinematographer", some (very few) TV shows in the 1970's used Fuji color negative for cost reasons. There was some complaints about manufacturing consistency in terms of perfing / slitting, etc. Fred Koenekamp tested Fuji for "Islands in the Stream" (1977) and liked the softer quality it had, but studio concerns made him opt for Kodak with more diffusion.

 

So the first significant use of Fuji that I read about was for the period scenes in "Somewhere in Time" (1980), shot by Isadore Mankofsky. But before that, I know that "Farewell My Lovely" (1975) was shot on Fuji by John Alonzo.

 

Then Fuji come out with the first faster (than 5247) color negative stock, a 250T stock, in 1980 and there was a big jump in the number of productions shooting Fuji -- films like "Sharkey's Machine", "Das Boot", "Star Trek II", "Room with a View", "Legend", etc. Kodak followed up with their 250T stock, called 5293 (not to be confused with EXR 200T), about a year and a half later.

 

---Here's a Fuji site that gives 1950 for the first Fuji mp stock, a reversal and 1955 for their first negative/positve stocks:

 

http://www.motion.fuji.co.uk/misc/history.html

 

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/MPHomePage.jsp

 

On the USA site hit chronology.

 

Fuji didn't start exporting MP negative to the US until they switched to the ECN process. Prior to that some NYC labs were using Fuji positve as a cheaper alternative to Eastman prints.

 

In the late 70s they also introduced a 400D C-41 still negative and a 400T ME-4 16mm reversal. I don't remember if there was a comprable E-4 or E-6 slide film.

All of which Kodak didn't offer. I assumed that was their strategy for cracking the american market.

 

---LV