Saul Rodgar Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 (edited) A guy wants me to shoot his 16mm short project on 2253 400D reversal film (there is someone selling a big batch on ebay), which is discontinued as a stock. Additionally, it is VNF process, which is also discontinued. Spectra and Yale both would process it E6, which I hear is finicky at best. I strongly suggested this guy to use fresh stock, but he will hear nothing of it. :angry: But it is his money ultimately. He will act in an upcoming short of mine, so that is why I am doing this for him, in case you are wondering. So my question to anyone out there, how would you shoot old reversal film, thinking that E6 may or may not influence the results? I hear from Spectra's lab techs E6 processing sometimes overexposes the image and sometimes times it green on this particular stock. We shot some tests, which are being processed by Spectra, so I don't know yet what it looks like. Edited July 31, 2008 by Saul Rodgar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 A guy wants me to shoot his 16mm short project on 2253 400D reversal film (there is someone selling a big batch on ebay), which is discontinued as a stock. Additionally, it is VNF process, which is also discontinued. Spectra and Yale both would process it E6, which I hear is finicky at best. I strongly suggested this guy to use fresh stock, but he will hear nothing of it. :angry: But it is his money ultimately. He will act in an upcoming short of mine, so that is why I am doing this for him, in case you are wondering. So my question to anyone out there, how would you shoot old reversal film, thinking that E6 may or may not influence the results? I hear from Spectra's lab techs E6 processing sometimes overexposes the image and sometimes times it green on this particular stock. We shot some tests, which are being processed by Spectra, so I don't know yet what it looks like. That's not a VNF number. There were four stocks: '239: 160D, '240: 125T, '250: 400T, and '251 400D. The number you give looks like an estar based 35mm stock, probably designed for high-speed missile test or spaceship photography. The only film I know of of this type that they made was 2239, for space-shuttle photography. Officially, VNF in E6 will give you bad results. Unofficially, the only difference is the time and temperature of the second developer (the color developer) need to be modified. Hope this helps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Rodgar Posted August 1, 2008 Author Share Posted August 1, 2008 (edited) That's not a VNF number. There were four stocks: '239: 160D, '240: 125T, '250: 400T, and '251 400D. The number you give looks like an estar based 35mm stock, probably designed for high-speed missile test or spaceship photography. The only film I know of of this type that they made was 2239, for space-shuttle photography. Officially, VNF in E6 will give you bad results. Unofficially, the only difference is the time and temperature of the second developer (the color developer) need to be modified. Hope this helps? The label reads VNF1 or RVNP processing on it. It is Estar based. And it is 2R 16mm. Edited August 1, 2008 by Saul Rodgar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Rodgar Posted August 1, 2008 Author Share Posted August 1, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Yeah Saul that looks like 5251 or 7251. Not sure why they changed the end designation. Figure at most 1/2 stop latitudeeither way. Favor under- as opposed to overexposure like 1/3 stop underexposure for more saturated colots. Aren't there *any* labs that still process straightb VNF-1?Must be at least one still out there. . . ~KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Auner aac Posted August 1, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted August 1, 2008 VNF = Video News Film. RVNP = Reversal Video News Positive? Cheers, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Rodgar Posted August 1, 2008 Author Share Posted August 1, 2008 Yeah Saul that looks like 5251 or 7251. Not sure why they changed the end designation. Figure at most 1/2 stop latitudeeither way. Favor under- as opposed to overexposure like 1/3 stop underexposure for more saturated colots. Aren't there *any* labs that still process straightb VNF-1?Must be at least one still out there. . . ~KB Thanks Karl. I could only find one lab in the US processing this film. And it was a whooping $90 bucks per 100' load! I was anticipating the 1/2 stop latitude and underexposure parts. But the problem is I don't know what sort of conditions this old film was stored in to compensate for, AND add to this the E6 compensation, (which way, how much?). Too many variables. AARGH! Unless I can do some serious testing, I am just going to tell this guy to get fresh new stock or find himself a new cameraman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Auner aac Posted August 1, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted August 1, 2008 Too many variables. AARGH! Unless I can do some serious testing, I am just going to tell this guy to get fresh new stock or find himself a new cameraman. Hi Saul, do your tests and get a release signed by him that you won't take any responsibility for the results and have fun with the strange stock! :D Cheers, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Rodgar Posted August 1, 2008 Author Share Posted August 1, 2008 Hi Saul, do your tests and get a release signed by him that you won't take any responsibility for the results and have fun with the strange stock! :D Cheers, Dave Dave: That is what I am thinking. However, wouldn't it be smarter on his part to get stock that is guaranteed to give us good results, since we would be going to the trouble of making the film in the first place? I, like most of us here, like to make sure that what I am filming is actually going to turn out OK. Otherwise it could just be time I could spend doing something else more rewarding. I guess I am just uptight like that! :P Like they say, being cheap can be expensive! :lol: (He can get the stock for cheap on Evil Bay) So at this point I either embrace the chaos or walk away. Hmm . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Auner aac Posted August 1, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted August 1, 2008 Dave: That is what I am thinking. However, wouldn't it be smarter on his part to get stock that is guaranteed to give us good results, since we would be going to the trouble of making the film in the first place? I, like most of us here, like to make sure that what I am filming is actually going to turn out OK. Otherwise it could just be time I could spend doing something else more rewarding. I guess I am just uptight like that! :P I can really relate to that, I'd do the same. Anbd he should get good stock in the first place if he wants to get nice results. I'd never risk my film to run into problems like this unless intentional! OTH if you never try shooting with flaky stuff you might miss out some experience or at least the fun to be able to say "been there done that". But if your time is at a premium here, I'd agree with your earlier conclusion: either he buys good stuff or you walk. Cheers, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Rodgar Posted August 1, 2008 Author Share Posted August 1, 2008 OTH if you never try shooting with flaky stuff you might miss out some experience or at least the fun to be able to say "been there done that". But if your time is at a premium here, I'd agree with your earlier conclusion: either he buys good stuff or you walk. Cheers, Dave Dave:Karl seems to believe this particular stock is similar to 7251, which I have shot. If so, then I have "been there, done that". Didn't like it much, low contrast, milky blacks, too much grain. I hear you though. Sometimes it is fun to just shoot some strange film stock and see what happens. But we are talking a full on 10 minute short here, with plenty of scenes, set ups, dialog, you name it. I am not comfortable approaching a longer piece with old, weird film no one can seem process for a reasonable amount. Maybe I am really too uptight and take myself too seriously. ;) Thanks for the feedback! S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Auner aac Posted August 1, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted August 1, 2008 I hear you though. Sometimes it is fun to just shoot some strange film stock and see what happens. But we are talking a full on 10 minute short here, with plenty of scenes, set ups, dialog, you name it. I am not comfortable approaching a longer piece with old, weird film no one can seem process for a reasonable amount. Maybe I am really too uptight and take myself too seriously. ;) Yeah, that's why I was actually given you two directions of advice. I guess, I'd pass on that one myself if I was in your place. But I know the feeling of taking your work too seriously all too well! Cheers, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Rakoczy Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 $90 per 100ft to process???? Can't he get a 'normal' quality Stock for the price of the savings???? 400ft of Neg is usually around $60 to process... he will be paying $90 x 4 or $360 per 400ft... That is two 400ft Rolls or 'Quality' Brand New Stock! He had better be a better actor than producer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Rodgar Posted August 1, 2008 Author Share Posted August 1, 2008 $90 per 100ft to process???? Can't he get a 'normal' quality Stock for the price of the savings???? 400ft of Neg is usually around $60 to process... he will be paying $90 x 4 or $360 per 400ft... That is two 400ft Rolls or 'Quality' Brand New Stock! He had better be a better actor than producer! Amen to that. That is what I have been tellig him all along, to no avail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I thought all Kodak 16mm film prefix started with a 7 ? never heard of a camera stock with a 2 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Rodgar Posted August 1, 2008 Author Share Posted August 1, 2008 I thought all Kodak 16mm film prefix started with a 7 ? never heard of a camera stock with a 2 ? Maybe Karl is right and this stock was developed for spaceship and high speed rocket filming and the 2 prefix means "TOP SECRET, for NASA use only." :P That would explain why not too many people have heard of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Rakoczy Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Amen to that. That is what I have been tellig him all along, to no avail. Saul, if he can't reason that out.. run away.. he is obviously unbalanced and the project is doomed!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Rodgar Posted August 1, 2008 Author Share Posted August 1, 2008 Saul, if he can't reason that out.. run away.. he is obviously unbalanced and the project is doomed!!!!!! Got it! Thanks for the feedback, David. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 No, the reason why it is a 2 is because it is on Estar base. He'll pay you if his film jams and fu**s up your camera, right? It *should* still be 2251, or 2250 (I always mix the D and T 400 stocks up!), so the -3 at the end bothers me a lot more than the two at the beginning. I miss John Pytlak at times like this. He would have been able to answer this question in a second. Sorry I've let you down John. . . Yeah, but back on topic, it's I think 2 instead of 7 for 16mm Estar and 3 instead of 5 for 35mm Estar IIRC. Feel free to chime in if I am off the mark here, but pretty sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Rakoczy Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 (edited) He'll pay you if his film jams and fu**s up your camera, right? Right on Karl, I saw that too but forgot to mention it. NOONE wants that stuff running through their Camera! Not mine! No. No. Edited August 1, 2008 by David Rakoczy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Rodgar Posted August 1, 2008 Author Share Posted August 1, 2008 (edited) He'll pay you if his film jams and fu**s up your camera, right? Right on Karl, I saw that too but forgot to mention it. NOONE wants that stuff running through their Camera! Not mine! No. No. Karl or David: I know ESTAR based films are used in extreme cold weather filming for its high strength and ability to fight cold-induced contraction and brittleness, unlike acetate-based film. But why would this damage a camera? I used Estar based film in still photography 10 years ago, and never had a problem. Thanks! Edited August 1, 2008 by Saul Rodgar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olivier Vanaschen Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 (edited) Hello everybody, not exactly the same stock but we've shot Kodak 7250 16mm 2R, reversal VNF 400T for the intro/outro sequence of a project a while ago. For a rather extreme look (retro vibe), we decided to expose at 200 and PULL 1 during dev. Film was cross-processed, dev as negative. A lot of yellow was removed during the telecine. Camera used was a Krasnogorsk K3, stock zoom. Here's the link: Zinneke Parade 2006 (only the intro/outro is 16mm, the rest is HDV) Those old VNF stocks are very interesting, very sad they don't produce it anymore especially the older low-con reversal stocks. Olivier Edited August 1, 2008 by Olivier Vanaschen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Rodgar Posted August 1, 2008 Author Share Posted August 1, 2008 (edited) So doing some research it turns out that Estar is Kodak' patent name for polyester. I remember talking to an old projectionist who told me the polyester based prints could mess up projectors, as it was so strong it would damage the projector before it would break. No good. Edited August 1, 2008 by Saul Rodgar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Rakoczy Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 So doing some research it turns out that Estar is Kodak' patent name for polyester. I remember talking to an old projectionist who told me the polyester based prints could mess up projectors, as it was so strong it would damage the projector before it would break. No good. It eats Cameras!!!! :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted August 4, 2008 Share Posted August 4, 2008 Right on Karl, I saw that too but forgot to mention it. NOONE wants that stuff running through their Camera! Not mine! No. No. Karl or David: I know ESTAR based films are used in extreme cold weather filming for its high strength and ability to fight cold-induced contraction and brittleness, unlike acetate-based film. But why would this damage a camera? I used Estar based film in still photography 10 years ago, and never had a problem. Thanks! Hey Saul, were you shooting Estar films in your still camera at 24 fps? I'm putting it in a rather indirect manner, but that should answer your question. BTW, I shoot Estar 70mm in still photography applications myself. It's 1000x better than acetate, more dimensionally stable, a thinner base, more consistent, just that it's just TOO strong for motion picture camera stock. 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