an odd film question...

[Sinixstar]

So, let me start by saying - i'm not really a film (motion picture) person. I'm actually more into photography. However, I had a question about different film types that no photography (or even the film people i know) can answer.

 

Basicly - what I want to know is, What is the difference between 35mm motion picture film, and 35mm still photography film? I imagine (simply from logic and reasoning) that motion picture film is far more sensitive, but how much more sensitive? Is there any conversion ratio that can be applied to figure out if you had say 64 asa motion picture film, what would it's equal be in still photo film? Or am I just a complete idiot, and they're not as different as I think?

 

I ask this because, i actually work for a distributor of avant-garde/experimental films (sinful that I don't know more about film, I know), and I've noticed that the overall image quality seems to be far superior to that of any still photo film i've seen. The colors all seem to be a lot more crisp and realistic, there seems to be greater color and contrast range, and it just overall looks a lot better. I've been wanting to try and shoot motion picture film through my 35mm SLR and see what happens - but i'm trying to get an idea of the specifics first.

 

If anyone can help - it would be greatly appreciated.

[Filip Plesha]

We are discussing this in another thread here,so you can feel free

to give it a look.

 

You could say that there are no differences in qualitty of the image,in

both color redention or the resolution.Every technology Kodak or Fuji

develops for negative film emulsions finds its way to both fields.

 

Maybe it is time you start choosing what photo papers you

print your negatives on. Cheap consumer papers will render things

contrasty,with cheap looking colors (specially AGFA,by the way AGFA "prestigue" paper is good) But if you print it on a good professional Kodak or Fuji

papers,it will make a difference.

 

Allso it is about what you photograph and how you photograph.

 

Remember how still films can look gorgeous too?Take a fashion catalogue,

or take national geographic for example.

Those aplications use professional slide and negative films (usually slide)

 

All in all,there shouldn't be a huge difference at all.

And if there is some it should not be regarding the picture qualitty,but

rather stylistic:contrast,color saturation etc.

Try exposing both type of films using the same subjects and lighting

and print them on good papers.

 

I imagine that the reason you see such a difference is that all motion picture

print films are professional ,there is no consumer cinematography (if you count out 8mm films),and most photo papers you print on are consumer qualitty.

But if you ask me i'd say that it is more in the way you shoot something.

People using same still films ,same cameras, and same labs

can get vastly different results.You just have tok now how to bring out

the best out of your film and your little SLR

 

 

 

And about the sensiticity.It is the same in both cinema and still films.

ISO100 of AGFA ultra 100 is same as ISO 100 of eastman EXR 5248

 

These ISO ratings are only ratungs recomended by the manufacturer,

sometimes films work better for example a half of a stop overexposed

ot whatever,in other cases the best results come from rating them

as they say,but that is not important for this issue we are talking about.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Similar technologies are used for both motion picture color negative films and those intended for still photography. However, there are significant differences too.

 

Motion picture color negative films are usually made on triacetate base with rem-jet backing, requiring special steps in the ECN-2 process to remove it (pre-bath and rem-jet removal scrubbers and wash off). The ECN-2 process uses CD-3 as the color developing agent, not the CD-4 used for still films in process C-41. Tone scale and color reproduction are optimized for printing onto color print film or being scanned, rather than printing onto color paper.

 

And the majority of motion picture color negative film used is tungsten balance, whereas most still films are daylight balance.

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...0.1.4.4.4&lc=en

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/...ssing/h24.shtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jht...pq-locale=en_US

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona....18.14.11&lc=en

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona....16.14.30&lc=en

[Filip Plesha]

Wouldn't still negative films have to be allso optimized for scanning,

since today almost all consumer labs use digital printers?

i mean you can hardly find a lab today that makes optical prints,

most of them are laser exposed prints.

[John Pytlak RIP]

So far, most still film scanners are being optimized to the existing still film characteristics, as many still films still are optically printed. Scanners also need to handle archived negatives.

 

It starts out that way for motion picture films too, but some work has been done on films specifically optimized for scanning, e.g., Kodak PRIMETIME 640T:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...1.4.12.10&lc=en

 

Yet, most filmmakers want color negative films that can be printed AND scanned.