Jonathan Bowerbank Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 (edited) Hey everyone, I'm in pre-production for a feature length film where the producer has managed to get his hands on a lot of old Eastman 7255 reversal film stock. Has anyone ever shot on this before? I believe it was discontinued some, what, 20 years ago? I'll probably shoot it like any other reversal stock, but I was wondering if there were any characteristic of it that I should be wary of. I'll probably shoot a short test of it, and possibly get a snip test at the lab to find out what condition it's in. But I'd like to get as much feedback as possible. Thanks! Edited February 4, 2007 by Jonathan Bowerbank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted February 4, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted February 4, 2007 Try 37 years ago... From the Kodak chronology: 1958 KODAK EKTACHROME Commercial film, 7255. Tungsten, EI 25. Process ECO-1. Replaced 5268. Replaced by 7252 in 1970. Where are you going to find a lab that does an obsolete process (ECO-1)? Maybe this place: http://www.rockymountainfilm.com/ But it would cost you an arm and a leg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted February 4, 2007 Author Share Posted February 4, 2007 Where are you going to find a lab that does an obsolete process (ECO-1)? Maybe this place: http://www.rockymountainfilm.com/ But it would cost you an arm and a leg. That was another of one of my concerns. I've yet to find out how or why he bought this film stock. I wasn't involved in production at the time, so I'm still digging for that info. This is a "zero budget" project, so I doubt they'll want to pay so much for processing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted February 4, 2007 Author Share Posted February 4, 2007 I just sent them a very detailed email about how it would be cheaper to buy brand new Kodak or Fuji stock. The film and processing alone will be cheaper than processing the 7255 stock...I hope they go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk DeJonghe Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 I started my career in 1973. ECO 7252 was fairly new then, 7255 was obsolete. I started processing 7252 in about 1976. I was the last European lab to process ECO-3 when we stopped it in about 1990. Even then the film had to be fresh to give good results. With enough light it would give stunning results on telecine. It was very low speed tungsten, would need lots of light for anything larger than interior tabletop sets. The probabilty of 7255 still being fresh enough to give acceptable results is less than nihil even if you can manage to find ECO-1 processing at any price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Buick Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Hi, That film will look absolutely terrible, any film manufactured between 1958 and 1970 will be pretty stone age, if that's the look you want it could be easily emulated in Super 8. When was this batch actualy manufactured ? -Thanxiness. B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted February 4, 2007 Author Share Posted February 4, 2007 (edited) That film will look absolutely terrible, any film manufactured between 1958 and 1970 will be pretty stone age, if that's the look you want it could be easily emulated in Super 8. When was this batch actualy manufactured ? -Thanxiness. B) Yeah, I let them know that the chances of lifting or achieving any kind of image after processing was EXTREMELY slim and that it would most likely be a waste of time and money to even attempt. The director still wants the saturated look of Reversal, but I told him our best option would be to shoot negative and take care of color saturation during the timing process. He's never shot film before, so I'm basically the decision maker for what the best route will be. I'm not sure when the batch was manufactured...pre 1970 I'm guessing. It sounds like he just happened upon a stack of old Ektachrome at a family member's or something, and is wanting to roll it. I just really don't want to waste my time and his money though. Edited February 4, 2007 by Jonathan Bowerbank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted February 4, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted February 4, 2007 ECO wasn't particularly saturated anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Buick Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Hows about 8mm, that'll give him the saturated look he wants, E100D would be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Charles MacDonald Posted February 5, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted February 5, 2007 ECO wasn't particularly saturated anyway. I thought that was the very IDEA of ECO, a low contrast stock so that when you went though one or two generations to make a release print you would still have a useable image. I only read the books when I was a kid ... But somehow I recall somthing like -- Not sutable for projection under any circumstance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted February 5, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted February 5, 2007 Yes, ECO was a lower-contrast (and thus slightly pastel) reversal stock designed for being printed, although I doubt it was as low in contrast as color negative. A lot of ECO-shot projects have turned magenta over the years, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Venhaus Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) To give you some idea of what it looked like, most of "Woodstock", the concert film, was filmed on 7255 and blown up to 70mm. Edited February 5, 2007 by David A Venhaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Well I think it was designed primarily to print well on to Kodachrome 7387 which was pretty high in contrast. (Which it did). The original (at least 7252 - 7255 was before my time) was as David says, quite pastel; would look weird if you projected it. I've seen recent blowups - of ECO 7255 & 7252 to 35mm Vision stock via 5272 IN. They looked _really_ good, (although slightly grainier than I would have expected) but this was ECO shot in it's prime. -Sam Wells Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 To give you some idea of what it looked like, most of "Woodstock", the concert film, was filmed on 7255 and blown up to 70mm. Actually printed onto a Techniscope I/N. 'Equinox' which is now out on a Criterion DVD was 7255. There are two versions, the first 'Equinox' is transfered from a combinanation of a 16mm I/N and a 16mm composite print, neither was complete. The longer theatrical version was transfered from a 35mm I/N. While the 35mm I/N is sharper, the 16mm I/N-print combo has the better fleshtones and over all color. Also a bit contrastier, which gives it a nice snappiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Buick Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Hows about 8mm, that'll give him the saturated look he wants, E100D would be good. AHEM! <_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 AHEM! <_< Heard ya the first time, buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Buick Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Yes, but is it a credible post, I mean, are you going to use Super 8????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Venhaus Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 To give you some idea of what it looked like, most of "Woodstock", the concert film, was filmed on 7255 and blown up to 70mm. Actually printed onto a Techniscope I/N. According to an interview, on Kodak's website it was 16mm ->65mm i/n. - "A custom-built Technicolor lens would provide single-generation, liquid gate blowups, with opticals done simultaneously. The lens was simply aimed at various parts of the 65mm frame to produce the trademark multiple images now so familiar to anyone who has seen the film." http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newslett...woodstock.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 To give you some idea of what it looked like, most of "Woodstock", the concert film, was filmed on 7255 and blown up to 70mm.According to an interview, on Kodak's website it was 16mm ->65mm i/n. - "A custom-built Technicolor lens would provide single-generation, liquid gate blowups, with opticals done simultaneously. The lens was simply aimed at various parts of the 65mm frame to produce the trademark multiple images now so familiar to anyone who has seen the film." http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newslett...woodstock.shtml Someone's bullshitting the writer. That's a fantasy. If you can spare $25 get the American Cinematographer Woodstock issue 10-70. http://www.theasc.com/cgibin/store/acsstor...%20Issues;1970s The articles are contemporary to the film itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 I started my career in 1968 , at a small doco , medical ad ,film company and 7255 was the stock they usedd , it was never used for projection but printed onto either a Kodachrome print stock or some sort of shitty Ektachrome print stock ,then 7252 replaced it . I remember shooting a hip replacement operation , where i had to use so much light with awful reveral stock 25asa ,that the blood started steaming , yuk , they wernt the days . although i did learn how never to light anything in my life again like that . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted February 6, 2007 Author Share Posted February 6, 2007 Someone's bullshitting the writer. That's a fantasy. If you can spare $25 get the American Cinematographer Woodstock issue 10-70. http://www.theasc.com/cgibin/store/acsstor...%20Issues;1970s The articles are contemporary to the film itself. Interesting, I'll have to stop by my local library and have a look at that issue :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Buick Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 (edited) AAAAARGHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOULD 8 MILLIMETRE BE A VIABLE FORMAT FOR THIS FILM?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: I DEMAND AN ANSWER!!!!!!!!!! Edited February 6, 2007 by Matthew Buick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted February 7, 2007 Author Share Posted February 7, 2007 AAAAARGHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOULD 8 MILLIMETRE BE A VIABLE FORMAT FOR THIS FILM?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: I DEMAND AN ANSWER!!!!!!!!!! Matthew, stop being a child. We're shooting a feature, sync sound, 16mm...so NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Buick Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 OK. I just wanted an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Yeah, I let them know that the chances of lifting or achieving any kind of image after processing was EXTREMELY slim and that it would most likely be a waste of time and money to even attempt. The director still wants the saturated look of Reversal, but I told him our best option would be to shoot negative and take care of color saturation during the timing process. He's never shot film before, so I'm basically the decision maker for what the best route will be. I'm not sure when the batch was manufactured...pre 1970 I'm guessing. It sounds like he just happened upon a stack of old Ektachrome at a family member's or something, and is wanting to roll it. I just really don't want to waste my time and his money though. Maybe Kodak vision expression film stocks would be something like what you are looking for if you are going to shoot colour neg. If you are thinking about shooting colour reversal then you can still get ektachrome e100D, which is an E6 process. However it's still more expensive to have processed than reversal and obviously reversal is harder to shoot than neg. love Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now