Bryce Lansing Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 I know that motion picture film is coated with remjet to prevent static electricity, what would happen if you ran three feet of still photo film through a camera? Would it cause any damage? I'm looking into getting a IIC with some standard primes, and when I do, I'm going to want to test for scratches, and to see the sharpness of the lens. I'm wondering if I can just load a magazine with a roll of Ilford B&W still film, run it through, process it myself for free, and look at the negs. Would that cause any problems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted March 26, 2010 Premium Member Share Posted March 26, 2010 I don't think it's be much use to run that little film through the camera, once you load it up and everything... you'll need about 3 feet just for that. In fact, when you buy 400' of film, you normally get about 410 ft with the 10 extra being for loading etc. I'd say just buy a 100' load of it and send it to a professional lab.. else how will you know you didn't scratch it processing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tim Carroll Posted March 26, 2010 Premium Member Share Posted March 26, 2010 I agree with Adrian as far as the scratch test goes. You really can't do that with still camera film as there are too many ways to scratch the film just setting up the test. That being said, I've tested Arriflex IIC's with different lenses on a number of occasions using the old AgfaPan APX100 still camera B&W film. Unfortunately it's not made anymore. The perfs on that film were a bit different from standard still camera film perfs, and maybe because it was made in Germany, it worked in the IIC. I know others have tried using Kodak and Ilford films with the IIC and they've jammed up the camera. Best, -Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Simon Wyss Posted April 4, 2010 Premium Member Share Posted April 4, 2010 One The film is not coated with remjet but with a backing layer that becomes removed in a processor by underwater remjets. I may appear pedantic. Two Still photography stock perforated BH is not made. Exception to the rule: Gigabitfilm 40 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominic Case Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 Simon says: The film is not coated with remjet but with a backing layer that becomes removed in a processor by underwater remjets. I may appear pedantic. In fact, the film IS coated with a substance called remjet, which is an abbreviation of REMovable JET. Jet is another name for lampblack: very finely divided carbon particles (which is what the coating consists of). You can take my word for it, or check with Paul Read: Restoration of Motion Picture Film (Butterworth Heinemann, 2000). You are right that the remjet is removed (after softening in an alkaline solution) by sprays or jets, though they are most certainly NOT underwater. The impotant thing about remjet removal is that the carbon is sprayed off the back of the film but not allowed to touch the emulsion surface, where it would be instantly and permanently bonded onto the wet emulsion. This calls for very precisely adjusted spray nozzles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camarotype Posted October 11, 2010 Share Posted October 11, 2010 B&W cine film has no ramjet just different perfs. but i don't think it's an issue on the 2c. i've tested cameras with photo film and developed myself with no problems. get a 100'bulk load of tri-x and run it. probably cheaper to get a short end on ebay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Simon Wyss Posted October 16, 2010 Premium Member Share Posted October 16, 2010 they are most certainly NOT underwater. Well, Dominic, in all our friendship, when I first got involved with film processing in 1987 there was this Photomec colour positive developing machine in which a pair of circular brushes was under water. Somehow Cinegram, the lab’s name, managed to make the backing flake off successfully. Sure, things change, and the jets today are not under water. Bryce, you will successfully expose 35-mm. still stock with the following cameras, regardless which perf type: Prestwich models from 1896 on Williamson, 1897 Schneider, 1898 Moy & Bastie, 1900 Ernemann from 1903 on Pathé from 1896 on Prévost, 1905 Gillon, 1905 Walturdaw, 1907 Debrie models from 1908 to 1920-21 Lubin, 1908 Chronik, 1909 Bell & Howell Eyemo models Defranne & Gennert, 1910 Akeley, 1911 ICA models since 1912 Universal Burke & James, 1914 Ensign Houghton, 1914 Barker Educator, 1917 Campbell Cello, 1918 Zollinger, 1918 FACT, 1919 Askania models from 1920 on Amigo, 1920 Ertel models since 1920 Arndt, 1921 Hahn-Goerz, 1921 Cinex, 1922 Stachow, 1922 Cinégraphe Bol, 1923 Kinarri, 1924 DeVry, 1926 Hodres, 1934 Zeiss-Ikon, 1934 Morigraf, 1935 Šlechta, 1938 Eclair Caméflex/Camerette, 1946 Maurer & Wäscher, ? Russel, ? Schimpf, ? An ARRIFLEX or an ARRIFLEX II is not suited for type P perforation. 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