VNF 7240 Given One More Year?!

[K Borowski]

I heard the other day that Kodak has relented and decided to continue the manufacture of the stock 7240 until the end of 2005 rather than the end of the current year? Is this rumor true? John? If I have another year to shoot VNF, I'll be very happy as I love the look of this stock and the vintage feel it gives to my footage.

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

[John Pytlak RIP]

I heard the other day that Kodak has relented and decided to continue the manufacture of the stock 7240 until the end of 2005 rather than the end of the current year?  Is this rumor true?  John?  If I have another year to shoot VNF, I'll be very happy as I love the look of this stock and the vintage feel it gives to my footage.

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's news to me! The last "official" word I've heard is this:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...PCN101404_Q.pdf

 

September 27, 2004

Dear Customer:

For a variety of reasons, Eastman Kodak Company will discontinue manufacturing all Eastman

Ektachrome Color Reversal Motion Picture Films (Process VNF) by year-end 2004.

VNF photoprocessing chemicals will continue to be available for your use until year-end 2005

and Finish?to-Order (FTO) beyond 2006 with lead times of several weeks. We suggest that

you continue to order these materials in the quantities normally used to process your film.

Excessive ordering or inventory building may cause you to exceed the expiration date

(shelf life is 2 years; cool dry) of your photoprocessing chemicals and therefore could

impact the quality of your images. We want to assure you that through this transition your

photoprocessing needs will be met.

Sincerely,

Jeffery E. Moore

Worldwide Product Manager

Black & White Film and Chemicals

Eastman Kodak Company

 

There may be some stocks of 7240 left in inventory, but AFAIK, no more is being manufactured. It would be too costly to reformulate the low sales volume VNF films to meet current environmental guidelines. Maybe you heard that the VNF processing chemicals will still be available through the end of 2005?

[GeorgeSelinsky]

It would be too costly to reformulate the low sales volume VNF films to meet current environmental guidelines.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I heard that Kodak has licensed VNF-1 emulsions to a Chinese film manufacturer who will be making and selling it at 1/4th the cost of the original Kodak stock, together with the Super 8 prestriped sound cartridges, 4X reversal, and Ektachrome Commercial...

 

Just kidding :P

 

- G.

Edited December 17, 2004 by GeorgeSelinsky

[John Pytlak RIP]

Good news is that Kodak is exploring the possibility of additional motion-picture films for the E-6 process, joining 7285:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...1.4.4.6.4&lc=en

 

No promises, but at least there is a possibility. Part of the issue is whether there are enough labs interested in gearing up for 16mm E-6 cine processes, since many E-6 machines for 35mm still film can't run long rolls, and putting an E-6 process into an old VNF machine is not always practical.

[Anthony Schilling]

Good news is that Kodak is exploring the possibility of additional motion-picture films for the E-6 process, joining 7285:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...1.4.4.6.4&lc=en

 

No promises, but at least there is a possibility.  Part of the issue is whether there are enough labs interested in gearing up for 16mm E-6 cine processes, since many E-6 machines for 35mm still film can't run long rolls, and putting an E-6 process into an old VNF machine is not always practical.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That would be a smart move. without reversals, the current cost of telecine is enough to discourage many curious would be newbies that will opt for video only because film is out of their reach.

[Diana Whatley]

John,

 

Thanks for the news...and possible good news to boot!

Here's hoping for the best in the new year....

 

Diana

 

Good news is that Kodak is exploring the possibility of additional motion-picture films for the E-6 process, joining 7285:

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[John Sprung]

That would be a smart move. without reversals, the current cost of telecine is enough to discourage many curious would be newbies that will opt for video only because film is out of their reach.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Telecine from negative is possible. We do it all the time. The price is exactly the same as telecine from positive. Or are you thinking of projecting the camera original?

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Anthony Schilling]

Telecine from negative is possible.  We do it all the time.  The price is exactly the same as telecine from positive.  Or are you thinking of projecting the camera original? 

-- J.S.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Many beginning film makers start off projecting, as well as many like me who enjoy projecting reguardless of experience. For telecine, I realize it cost the same to transfer a reversal or a negetive.. however, DIY telecine with the Work Printer and other various home methods are really blooming right now. Reversals provide great results on home telecine. It is also very possible as i have transferred Negetives myself with OK results.. but it takes alot of practice with color correction in NLE, and is a whole different game when compared to reversal home transfer. for now I send my Negs out for transfer, pay the rate.. but am able to get very acceptable results transferring the reversals myself.

Edited January 5, 2005 by Skratch

[GeorgeSelinsky]

One of the cool things about reversal is that you can take any cheap old tabletop 16mm projector, project your footage in all its glory on a nice big screen (without paying for film dailies), and simultaneously videotape it.

 

Then you can take your flickery homemade transfer, digitize it, do an edit of it, then go back on a moviescope rewind thingie and c-splice the original reversal film to your delight using the edit as a rough guide. If you have sync audio it will be a bit shifty (unless the projector speed is dead on 24fps) but you can play with the magstock here and there if necessary.

 

Then you can project your spliced film on a screen using an interlock system. There will be some visibility of the splices but it will look and work better than tape splices (which projectors absolutely LOVE to eat). The film also won't suffer from the traditional reversal-edited-on-steenbeck scratches and handling marks.

 

Something like that is cool to do for a short student film, when all you care about is throwing it on the screen at the school's interlock projector facility. You can also do a pretty decent video transfer off of it (and if you want to go crazy, you can probably airbrush out the c-splices on your home computer).

 

You can't really do this with negative film, unless you want white specs of dust all over the place!

 

- G.

Edited January 5, 2005 by GeorgeSelinsky

[Anthony Schilling]

Here's a Work Printer frame of K-40. there is no flicker in WP transfers.

 

 

Now transferring Negs via the same method can be kept fairly clean.. if you keep your unit clean and get the films prepped, but like I said above, inverting and color correcting require some practice. with reversal, I currently have the ability to transfer, edit, and perform tight sound sync in my apartment.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Transferring negative via something like the workprinter should work fine, theoretically. There are several issues that have to be taken into account. First that dust is more visible with negative film, showing up white versus black (unless you have a very white background). Second, there needs to be a filter put behind the light source (or before the lens) in order to compensate for the orange mask. Third, since this filter will eat light, a slightly higher light output may be desireable. Fourth, there will be additional digital processing necessary to raise the gamma a bit and also to invert the chroma and luminance signal. This will require recompression which will somewhat lower the image quality (although if you intend to do any image processing you will have to recompress anyway).

 

Just some thoughts. Is that workprinter avail for 16mm yet?

 

- G.

Edited January 5, 2005 by GeorgeSelinsky

[GeorgeSelinsky]

do an edit of it, then go back on a moviescope rewind thingie and c-splice the original reversal film to your delight using the edit as a rough guide. If you have sync audio it will be a bit shifty (unless the projector speed is dead on 24fps) but you can play with the magstock here and there if necessary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Forgot to mention one step, once you "conform" your reversal to the video edit, that is when you do another "off the wall" transfer of the cut reversal to video. Then you take that video, see how the sound lines up, and transfer the sound to mag (with separate tracks for dialog and m&e). Then you line the film up either on a sync block or a steenbeck and check the sound, adjusting the mag track when necessary. It's work but certainly doable for a short film, and faster and better than the steenbeck method.

 

I just took a look back at a short I did using a similar method. I shot it on 16mm Ektachrome 400 (mostly daylight). I did it without computers, using VHS and analog open reel recorders for editing which of course was NOT interlocked to anything, it was fly by sync (which meant every time I'd mess up the audio I'd have to rewind the video and sound reels to the beginning and try to align it to a one second long beep and visual punch - argh!). It doesn't look like 35mm and my cinematography at the time leaved much to be desired, but it looks better and more "film like" than DV, that's for sure.

 

- G.

Edited January 5, 2005 by GeorgeSelinsky

[Anthony Schilling]

http://www.moviestuff.tv/16mm_telecine.html

 

I'd get one of these 16mm WP's eventually too IF the future of reversal becomes more stable.

 

When running negetives through the WP, It is best to white balance on the orange mask of a blank piece of film before capture.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

When running negetives through the WP, It is best to white balance on the orange mask of a blank piece of film before capture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think that the WB circuitry might introduce some noise potentially if having to make such a radical shift in color. I have never experimented, however.

 

The one time I saw a frame of color negative transferred on a WP it didn't look very good. There must be a way to get good results. Clive Tobin just put out a telecine machine for Super 8, but he doesn't recommend it for negative film for some reason.

 

Returning to the subject of reversal, I'm curious if anyone ever tried to rig an interlock system by using a projector in concert with a sync block (where you run the picture and mag through the sync block and wind up the mag manually on a rewind)? I read about this system on the web before. It certainly looks like a doable cheap way of getting interlock (without having to have a rangertone), but the sound probably sucks I figure.

 

- G.

Edited January 5, 2005 by GeorgeSelinsky

[GeorgeSelinsky]

This is off the rec.arts.movies.tech FAQ on improvising interlock:

 

This type of system can be improvised, using an ordinary projector, by

mounting a `sync block' after the second projector sprocket, and by

mounting a magnetic head on the sync block. The picture film is then

loaded into the projector, and passed through the sync block, and the

magnetic film is on reels, mounted on manual rewinds, and passed

through the sync block. Since the film and magnetic film are both in

the same sync block, they are guaranteed to stay in sync throughout

the reel. Of course, the projectionist must crank the takeup rewind

throughout the show, in order to take up the magnetic stock.

[K Borowski]

George, I am actually planning on using nearly a very similar method to the one that you describe: making a wild transfer with a camcorder from a projector screen and then editing before making my final edit (with good old analog splicing) and getting a pro telecine done. I think it's a true shame that Kodak hasn't been able to come up with an adequate replacement. 7285 comes out to be more expensive than just shooting negative and printing I believe, so I don't know why anyone would do it other than for "artistic reasons" eliminating the whole low-budget aspect of reversal. There are some great stocks out there in E6 too that Kodak seems to stubborn to consider introducing in MP. They seem fixated on their "E" series of films, which are substantially more expensive and color-saturated than VNF-1 or even the standard issue of E6. I believe there's even a low-con E-6 still out there that has a very similar look to the VNFs, but I haven't heard anything about adapting it. Oh well, I have a decent ammount left to shoot. I'll enjoy cheap reversal while it lasts.

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

[GeorgeSelinsky]

7285 comes out to be more expensive than just shooting negative and printing I believe, so I don't know why anyone would do it other than for "artistic reasons" eliminating the whole low-budget aspect of reversal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is indeed very unfortunate. Nowadays we're seeing that alternate routes that used to cost less (reversal 16mm, Super 8 vs. 16mm) offer no savings or cost even MORE than the standard methods.

 

- G.

[K Borowski]

I would agree with you George, S8 comes out to be nearly as expensive as 16mm, unless you stick to K40. Even then, they charge a lot more for S8 at every lab I know of than they do for 16mm. It's ridiculous how much they charge in some cases. However, there are ways of getting good rates on 8mm film. In order to get good prices, I shoot DR8 on 100 foot spools and just say it's 16mm. No problems, no ridiculous prices. The same would probably apply for DS8, although the difference in size of sprocket holes might cause some problems depending on the equipment the lab is using. Even still, they'd probably give you 16mm rates. Of course, I don't even bother using S8 negative, because I'd need to get the same pricey telecines that pros use instead of the much cheaper telecines available to reversal shooters. Then again, maybe FUJI will step up and offer some of their reversals in 16mm B)

 

Regards.

~Karl