Premium Member Charles MacDonald Posted August 5, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted August 5, 2008 read the label on the can. It is a poltester base film with "Long" perfs for high speed cameras. Not quite "secret stuff. They was the standrd for Car crash tests of years, the loss of that market to digital was probaly the last straw for VNF. I am not sure of the nummbers but they may have had to "rweek" the emusion to make it work on the polyester film. thus making a new number, the 2 indicates polyester. I don't know if exclusive film is still running a VNF line. They might be a good source to get the processing done. http://www.exclusivefilm.net/ I am sure thay can give you some hints in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominic Case Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 But why would this damage a camera? I used Estar based film in still photography 10 years ago, and never had a problem. If acetate film jams in a camera, it breaks. If polyester film jams in a camera, it doesn't break. Something else has to give, so, depending on how strong the motor is, either it burns out, or shafts get bent, or cogs strip out. Motion picture cameras are at risk because they are running continuously. In a STILL camera, nothing happens - you simply get jammed film. BTW on an earlier point - RVNP = Rapid Video News Process or possibly Rapid Video News & Print. It's a variant of the VNF-1 process that provides faster turnaround - from the days when news really was shot on film, and every minute counted in getting news stories to air. The print part of the acronym is for the lower contrast reversal stocks like 7399 (I think) that were used to make a direct print from a reversal original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Rodgar Posted August 6, 2008 Author Share Posted August 6, 2008 If acetate film jams in a camera, it breaks. If polyester film jams in a camera, it doesn't break. Something else has to give, so, depending on how strong the motor is, either it burns out, or shafts get bent, or cogs strip out. Motion picture cameras are at risk because they are running continuously. In a STILL camera, nothing happens - you simply get jammed film. BTW on an earlier point - RVNP = Rapid Video News Process or possibly Rapid Video News & Print. It's a variant of the VNF-1 process that provides faster turnaround - from the days when news really was shot on film, and every minute counted in getting news stories to air. The print part of the acronym is for the lower contrast reversal stocks like 7399 (I think) that were used to make a direct print from a reversal original. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Carlile Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 (edited) Up until last month, Kodak was still stocking this stuff: http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:fybUe...;cd=1&gl=us It's suddenly disappeared-- not surprising considering that they announced they were stopping manufacture of it four years ago-- I suspect it's being dumped on the market right now, bought out and remaindered after a warehouse cleaning in Rochester or Colorado. What this stuff was, was high speed surveillance film-- but it's 3000 long pitch-- which means it will most definitely not run smoothly in a regular short pitch camera. Fuji Single-8 is polyester, so the problem isn't so much it regularly jamming, but the bad pitch-- which can cause a jam, sooner rather than later. I wouldn't use it. But it is on sale all over the place so I can see the temptation. But mediocre 16 reversal, when neg is so cheap? I mean film costs will only be about $250 more at worst doing it the right way.... Edited August 10, 2008 by Jim Carlile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Carlile Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 p.s. In case anyone's interested, here's the kind of thing it was used for: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=198569 These aren't regular cameras, they don't work the same way, often they don't have conventional film gates and as such they used long 3000 lab pitch (same thing) for precision. 2253 is (was) a standard scientific lab film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Rodgar Posted August 11, 2008 Author Share Posted August 11, 2008 Thanks for your post, Jim! It looks like I have convinced the person I would be shooting this for to give up on it. Will see. I always use negative myself, but you know how some people are . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richardson Leao Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 i am using sound film in my kinor (that also uses polyester as base) and if it jam, the camera simply stop. Like it does with acetate. I think that was a safety trick olexandr included in the mod he made to me. Anyway, what is the iso of this film? I have processed news film in e6 iso 100 and it was ok. iso 400 was poop. The other option would be cross process, then, any lab could do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Richardson, I gotta pull out some of my techie info to answer your question, but some adjustment in the time temperature or concentration of standard E6 developer would work. Other than that, the two are basically the same. I'll post a more detailed answer tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Ratner Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 Can I ask a novice, stupid question in two words? 125 feet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 Can I ask a novice, stupid question in two words? 125 feet? I don't get the question or the context. *What's* 'the question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Ratner Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 I told you it was a stupid novice question: I thought the standard length like this was always 100' and had never heard of 125'. You've failed to grasp the depths of my non-knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 I told you it was a stupid novice question: I thought the standard length like this was always 100' and had never heard of 125'. You've failed to grasp the depths of my non-knowledge. I figured it was something along those lines after I saw you were from Florida. I would've groaned if it was someone who wanted to know what a foot was (friggin' metric system ;-) ). . . I looked through the thread though, and I think the only mention made to 125 was as a film speed. Where you would run into approximately 125-foot lengths of film would be as short ends from 200- or 400-foot film loads that were then repackaged and sold to someone else, like a low-budget filmmaker, at a discount price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Ratner Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 (edited) That's the thing--look at the photos of the package. It says 125', and 38.1 meters. Edited August 23, 2008 by Ira Ratner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 That's the thing--look at the photos of the package. It says 125', and 38.1 meters. So, what's the point? It's probably an unusual length for a specific high-speed camera. Still films for long roll cameras were almost always 100-foot-lengths, but every once in a while they'd sell 200-footers. Anything up to 5 mi. length is technically doable. IDK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Ratner Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 Would that length still fit on a standard 100' spool? Since I'm 100' spool limited, I was curious about the size of the spool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk DeJonghe Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 125' will fit on a standard 100ft spool because the estar stock is thinner than triacetate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Rakoczy Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 I figured it was something along those lines after I saw you were from Florida - Karl Karl, There are a LOT of Hollywood transplants here in Florida as well as a lot of great Native Florida Cinematographers who do beautiful work... there (may) very well be a lot more knowledgeable Cinematographers here than in... say your neck of the woods... 'Cleveland, Ohio' for example. I would not count Ira as a 'typical' Florida DP... B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted August 24, 2008 Share Posted August 24, 2008 125' will fit on a standard 100ft spool because the estar stock is thinner than triacetate. That could be it too Dirk, although IIRC, keeping in mind I am feeling this in the dark, some of the Estar products offered by Kodak are actually *thicker* than comparable acetate-coated stock. Of course, I have never really paid much heed to thickness. I remember John Pytlak was saying that a lot of the thin-base stocks were only made special-order, and that camera stock would have to be roughly the same (I think it was only a 1/1000" difference or maybe 2/1000") before you'd have to readjust the distance of the pressure plate to the lens for optimal sharpness. I do have some old aerial film, I think on 5/1000" estar base, that fits *150* feet on a, I think, standard 100-foot reel, 35mm though. So, without a formula for determining how many feet of 7/1000" will fit on a reel designed for 100' of 8/1000" film, IDK if that's the reason why or not. Isn't it actually 110' or so on a reel to allow for some threading leader? If so, then an extra 15' of film that's 1/1000" thinner sounds about right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richardson Leao Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Would that length still fit on a standard 100' spool? Since I'm 100' spool limited, I was curious about the size of the spool. the 125 ft length is because the polyester base is thinner than the acetate, so you can pack more film in a 100ft spool. And Karl, thanks for the info and i understand that the process is the same, the problem with high-speed old films is that they fog more than low iso films. I had once 2 packs of orwo expired in 1982, apparently stored at the same conditions, one 400 and the other 100, the 400 was terrible while the 100 was almost like new. Best, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 What this stuff was, was high speed surveillance film-- but it's 3000 long pitch-- which means it will most definitely not run smoothly in a regular short pitch camera. But Kodachrome was .300 pitch, which is projection pitch. So will Bolexes and Filmos not run smoothly with "regular short pitch" stock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominic Case Posted August 26, 2008 Share Posted August 26, 2008 If it's a polyester base, it is marginally thinner - so you 'll get more film in the same diameter roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Charles MacDonald Posted September 10, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted September 10, 2008 So, what's the point? It's probably an unusual length for a specific high-speed camera. 125 foot is a standard lenth for "Estar" film. the film is thiner and so 125 ft is the amount that fits on a 100ft spool. In my younger days I did microfilming and we had Kodak Imagecapture film which I think came 200 ft on a 100Ft spool. (and you could not break that with your fingers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Friedemann Wachsmuth Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 I just made some good progress with modifying E6 to give better results when processing VNF films: http://www.filmkorn.org/e6-fuer-ektachrome-vnf-filme-optimieren/Let me know if you need an english translation. Bottom line: Add 3.5ml Benzyl Alcohol per Liter of working solution to the Color Developer. Stirr 10 minutes very well to dissolve this oily additive. You get way better Dmax and more saturated colors! 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