Processing Problem? HELP

Matt Wells · December 20, 2004

Damaged_Neg.sized.jpg

The above is a super8 frame of 7217 vision2 200T negative.

Had a call from my Telecine guy yesterday

"The 16mm you gave me [the 7212 100T] that looks great, but the Super8 - there seems to be a serious problem - blue marks for pretty much the duration of the 400ft."

I go down and we examined the footage - Basically there are all these blue marks, a wide one continiously weaves in and out every other second (about) on the right, and the second are continious blue "scratches" that are on the left half of the frame.

In examining the negative with a magnifing glass the marks can be seen clearly too.

The camera was my recently overhauled (by Bjorn Andersson in Sweden) 4008ZM which has previously performed fine with K40 as well as Vision negative.

All of this 400ft is either Vision2 200T or V2 500T, all processed and prepped for telecine at the same time by Andec in Berlin.

Have a look at the frame I have posted. The blue mark on the right is the one that weaves around on and off the frame, and on the left are some more continious lines, again blue.

I would be most grateful for some input. My personal feeling is that this is a processing problem. When I look at the negative the marks look "liquid"

The whole situation is made worse because the footage is of a friends wedding I had agreed to film - and other than the marks I am really pleased with the results, especially some stuff in very low light with the 500.

Cheers,

Matt

John Pytlak RIP · December 20, 2004

From their appearance, I suspect pressure marks, or possibly static. In a tungsten balance film, the larger silver halide grains used for the blue record are more sensitive to the raw stock being kinked or pressured, which can cause the grain to develop (form yellow dye, which will print/transfer as blue). The unprocessed film may have been kinked or abraded in the camera gate, or perhaps during transport through equipment. I suggest running some film through your camera and carefully examining whether it is producing scratches or abrasions on the emulsion side of the film.

A "liquid" during processing (e.g., poor squeegees) is possible, but not as likely an explanation.

Matt Wells · December 20, 2004

Thanks for that John, I hoped you were around with some ideas.

I will examine the camera, although these marks are present for the entire 400ft, and not with a previous batch of negative shot a couple of months earlier.

Many thanks,

Matt

Dominic Case · December 20, 2004

I agree with John, these look like pressure fogging marks.

Can you examine your negative very carefully: is there any change in the pattern near camera stops? (Maybe not exactly at the stop, could be a few frames off). If so it would definitely point to a camera problem, maybe in the lace-up. (Though if all your rolls are affected the same way, that seems unlikely.)

If the marks are continuous all through without any change, it doesn't clear the camera, but does tend to make you question the processing. Once again, it's possible that these marks could have come from a faulty lace-up on the processing machine before the developer bath.

Can you measure the exact frequency of the weave in and out that you mention? is it consistent throughout all rolls or does it get faster or slower? What is it in terms of film length?

Matt Wells · December 21, 2004

I agree with John, these look like pressure fogging marks.

Can you examine your negative very carefully: is there any change in the pattern near camera stops? (Maybe not exactly at the stop, could be a few frames off). If so it would definitely point to a camera problem, maybe in the lace-up. (Though if all your rolls are affected the same way, that seems unlikely.)

If the marks are continuous all through without any change, it doesn't clear the camera, but does tend to make you question the processing. Once again, it's possible that these marks could have come from a faulty lace-up on the processing machine before the developer bath.

Can you measure the exact frequency of the weave in and out that you mention? is it consistent throughout all rolls or does it get faster or slower? What is it in terms of film length?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many thanks for that Dominic, very helpful.

The wide mark on the right is constant throughout the 400ft = 8 rolls of Super8 of course. It does not alter near camera stops.

Also, having examined the negative with a magnifing glass, the mark weaves on and off the frame area appearing on the frame area for about 10 frames and then off for 10 frames - with the same frequency throughout the footage.

The marks on the right are pretty much present all the time, but with varying degree of intensity. They appear as just vertical "scratches" without any weave.

Does anyone know if there is any way of removing the marks? Probably quite a job I know :(

Cheers,

Matt

Edited December 21, 2004 by Matt Wells

Phil Rhodes · December 21, 2004

Hi,

How repeatable are they? I presume that the diffuse speckling inside the pattern is different every frame. A very tricky removal job - difficult for a still, exceedingly difficult for motion imaging. About the best you could probably do is just to crop them out, notwithstanding that you're then enlarging your already-tiny super8 frame even more. Plus you may or may not have noticed but there's three other blue streaks down the left hand side as well. I fear the footage may be a write-off unless you can sell it as some kind of cute effect. I presume you were shooting the super8 against the 16 for effect anyway.

Phil

Edited December 21, 2004 by Phil Rhodes

Matt Wells · December 21, 2004

Hi,

How repeatable are they? I presume that the diffuse speckling inside the pattern is different every frame. A very tricky removal job - difficult for a still, exceedingly difficult for motion imaging. About the best you could probably do is just to crop them out, notwithstanding that you're then enlarging your already-tiny super8 frame even more. Plus you may or may not have noticed but there's three other blue streaks down the left hand side as well. I fear the footage may be a write-off unless you can sell it as some kind of cute effect. I presume you were shooting the super8 against the 16 for effect anyway.

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats right - the 8 was for an alternative look and is to cut with the 16 and some DV.

However the Lab have now apologised and confirmed to me that they had a problem with their machine for a couple of days around the time when this was processed.

Looks like it's going to have to look like an "effect"

I knew I shouldn't have agreed to shoot at a wedding.

Matt

Matt Wells · December 21, 2004

For a bit more detail:

A reel before developer has partially blocked and
causes pressure exposure (blue strikes on the film).

It was only to seen in Video, not clearly on the negatives. So we dont know, how many films are with that problems.

is an excerpt from an e-mail from the Lab.

Matt

Dominic Case · December 21, 2004

Thats right - the 8 was for an alternative look and is to cut with the 16 and some DV.

Well you've got your alternative look all right:-(

The good news is that you have covered yourself so that the 16mm & DV footage is (presumably) OK.

Don't know how you are going to finish the production, but I don't think there is anything practical you can do to remove the marks. As Phil says, it would be difficult on a still frame, impossible on moving footage.

Best bet would be to crop the fluttering marks on the right side, and live with the steady (and therefore less distracting) rub marks on the left.

I presume the lab will not charge you for the faulty processing, and they should replace your stock as well. At least they've " 'fessed up." Alternatively, they could try charging you for the "alternative look" they've created for you.