Kodak Custom Film Orders

[Scott Pickering]

I have read Kodak does master rolls in 50 inches by 2000 feet. How many 2000 foot rolls of 65mm would one get off a master roll? I assume 1000 feet rolls would double that?

 

And if ordering a custom roll done up, does this mean Kodak could make whatever stock you request or does it have to be a currently made stock like all Vision 3 stocks? I'm thinking Plus X negative, as that was only discontinued a couple years ago. I would assume they still have the capability to produce it again if asked?

[Bill DiPietra]

Plus-X was discontinued in 2010 and I think custom orders usually refer to stocks that they currently offer. Whether or not Kodak still has the ability to make discontinued stocks is a good question. I doubt they'd do it, but the best way to find out would be to call up and ask.

[Aapo Lettinen]

I believe it should be possible if the base material and developing chemicals are the same. They are doing the emulsion (gelatine) stuff in batches and then coating it to the base. I have understood that they are using the same coating machine for all the films so it is really down to the emulsion only. it is probably more than one master roll though, if they have to cook custom emulsions they would want to make a huge amount of it, not just a brick or two. It's just chemistry and following the recipes, the practical batch size would be the problem for them.

 

when cutting the master rolls the sides are unusable but I don't remember how many percent in average that number is of the total width. maybe something between 15 and 25% I believe

[Simon Wyss]

Scott, as much as I know it’s rather 40 inches by 6000 feet.

 

Film manufacturers don’t like to slit in differing strip widths, slitters are set up for 105mm (microfiche), 70mm, 65mm, 35mm, 16mm solely.

[Ari Michael Leeds]

Why would you need to custom order Plus-X when you can get Orwo that is the same thing?

Or are they unwilling or unable to make 65mm?

Also, at that size, are you REALLY worried about too much grain with Double X in 65?



You need to be happy for what we DO have. Support what's available, thank God, Quentin Tarantino, JJ Abrams, Steven Spielburg, Martin Scorsese, Fate, Chance, Luck, and the Stars that we have what we have. And devote more time to actually funding and SHOOTING this movie, instead of endless debate on the internet about what you do NOT have.

To put things in perspective: You have four times more color stock options than they had when they shot "Lawrence of Arabia."

Be thankful and use the tools that are available instead of nitpicking, my film-shooting friend.

All the best.

[Bill DiPietra]

Why would you need to custom order Plus-X when you can get Orwo that is the same thing?

 

ORWO is not the same thing as Plus-X even though many people talk as though they are. Having used all, the grain structure of ORWO's UN54 (100ASA) is much closer to Kodak's Double-X - very grainy and nowhere near the fine-grained, high-contrast look of Plus-X.

[Ari Michael Leeds]

So you are saying that UN54 is not finer grained than Double-X? That does not coincide with either my experience, the experience of others, or the technical curves they advertise.

And it's 65mm where grain is less than half as important, if you get my meaning.

[Bill DiPietra]

So you are saying that UN54 is not finer grained than Double-X? That does not coincide with either my experience, the experience of others, or the technical curves they advertise.

 

And it's 65mm where grain is less than half as important, if you get my meaning.

 

I can't speak to 65mm since I've never shot on it, but I understand what you're saying about the grain (or lack thereof.) But I'm talking about the stocks in general.

 

On the 16mm level, I'm telling you what my experiences have been. If UN54 suits you as a replacement to Plus-X, that's fine. But I've been disappointed with it and see the stock as more of a visual relative to Double-X. At the end of the day, it's what you see on the screen that matters - not what the technical ads say.

[Ari Michael Leeds]

So you are saying, (I've only shot it in 35mm) that in 16mm, you see no substantial improvement in this stock over Double-X?

I suppose that's possible. There should be smaller grain, though. And, if anything, the difference would be more, not less noticeable than in 35.


Are you certain you had good exposure, good processing, and what was done with the negative, scan or print?

[Bill DiPietra]

All the settings were correct and I had a print made. However, I shot this when UN54 film came out. So, to be fair, I'd have to do a new UN54/7222 test to see if there were any significant differences.

 

But we were talking about this being a replacement for 7231, not 7222...

[Ari Michael Leeds]

If it's even marginally better than Double-X for grain, then I think it's fair calling it a Plus-X replacement. Panatomic-X, Ilford Pan-F 50, no.


Keep in mind, it's possible the labs didn't have a developing time for UN54 down when it first came out, and have since made changes to give it a proper level of shadow detail without increase in grain size.

[Bill DiPietra]

Keep in mind, it's possible the labs didn't have a developing time for UN54 down when it first came out, and have since made changes to give it a proper level of shadow detail without increase in grain size.

 

Didn't know that. I'll test it again when I have the time. Thanks.

[Ari Michael Leeds]

My understanding, with B&W, is that the lab will develop to a certain gamma (how contrasty the linear part of the film's characteristic curve is).

Unlike ECN-2 films, which are all standardized, B&W is not so standardized. Considering this stock comes from the former Soviet Block, it's not designed with the Kodak standard developer, things of that nature in mind.

A lab representative, believe Robert Houllahan (sp?) is one, would have experience with this. He'd know far more than I do. But understand, I have good experience with this in 35, and am playing devil's advocate in that there are some obvious variables that can lead to increased grain, like bad printing, underexposure, or even underdevelopment.

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

Bill, I'd give it another shot on the UN54. The ORWO production lines changed for the better a couple of years ago, and since then their stocks are more consistent as-advertised. It doesn't have the snap of '31, but it's a pretty strong substitute.

[Scott Pickering]

Thank you for your comments guys. I'm still doing research to see what is possible, but yes getting this funded has been a stumbling block. PM me if you have suggestions on that. I like the look of Plus X with its sharp grain and big contrast, especially deep blacks. Other B&W films look flat in comparison. Yes this can be fixed if a D.I. is used, but seeing if chemically produced IP and IN film can be used.

[Aapo Lettinen]

it would probably be much easier to get Kodak to make a custom batch of b/w for you than color film, much fewer layers and therefore much fewer different emulsions and filters to cook. you should ask them directly. you may have to buy couple of features worth of stock to make it happen if possible at all, but if you get couple of productions involved I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work out

[Robert Houllahan]

I just bought a 400' of UN74 for something I am doing, I will order a roll of UN54.

 

I have shot UN54 in the past, early on, and found it to be quite good and I did a split where we developed 1/2 the roll as Reversal and 1/2 as Negative. I will find this (from a few years ago) and scan both Rev and Neg on the Xena 5K Pin Reg machine as 16mm 4K and make the scans available.

 

I still have a precious small amount of 7231 and I could maybe use a bit as a test to compare with UN54.

 

And yes B&W stocks are developed to a certain gamma and we could plot the gamma on each and post that.

[Doug Palmer]

Scott, as much as I know it’s rather 40 inches by 6000 feet.

 

Film manufacturers don’t like to slit in differing strip widths, slitters are set up for 105mm (microfiche), 70mm, 65mm, 35mm, 16mm solely.

If Scott had too much for his 65mm project, is it technically possible to split a 65mm roll into four 16mm rolls ?

[Doug Palmer]

If Scott had too much for his 65mm project, is it technically possible to split a 65mm roll into four 16mm rolls ?

Just a thought :)

Would be nice to get some more Plus X neg in 16mm.

[Ari Michael Leeds]

Technically possible to split 65mm (not sure if you could get 4, maybe three). In terms of financial possibility, no. You don't do that. You don't cut film to a certain width, change your mind and recut it.

You'd pay as much for doing that as buying twice as much film cut to the right size to begin with.



@Rob - I'm not sure on the way ORWO B&W works, or different B&W stocks in general: Do the ideal development times differ from emulsion to emulsion?

I'd assume Kodak would have standardized Plus and Double to the same time, but is there variables from emulsion to emulsion?

I remember the big upset when Kodak dicked around with their B&W speeds, but now it seems like there are a bunch of people who defend this now-discontinued stock like some sort of perfect emulsion.


B&W film is relatively simple to make compared with color, and there are alternatives to Kodak here.




But, maybe I'm not writing coherently. What I want to know is if you guys have to do different runs of different films with the time in the developer tank different depending on if it's Kodak or ORWO?

Edited March 1, 2016 by Ari Michael Leeds

[Simon Wyss]

65mm film has a width of 64,97 mm ± 0,05 (2.558" ± 0.002) according to ISO 3023. If we assume nominal width, we have an excess of 1,17 mm over the four strips of 15,95 mm. Even the 65mm strips at the lower deviation cut into four will leave 16,23 mm wide strips. Guess whether they want to do something about that.

 

I have built a prototype slitter for somebody that cuts two times 15,95 out of 35mm stock. 1,5 mm fall off on either side. It works but I’m not very fond of the idea.

 

Also, 70mm and 65mm film is made with a thicker base than 35mm and 16mm still. You would have a 0,15 mm thick stock at the least meaning less than nominal lengths on spool or in magazine.

[Ari Michael Leeds]

Is that with the perfs?


It's a silly thing to ask, as you can just buy the film in 16mm. Why on Earth would you slit it???

[Aapo Lettinen]

you might want to slit clearance films or short ends because 16mm short ends are very rare nowadays when most professional productions and tv are switched to digital and the remaining prods are shooting wider stocks, 35mm and 65mm.

Factory sealed stock at normal price, certainly not. but if you have cheap excess stock like lots of short ends and you don't need to care about key code numbers or have very small tolerance needs for perfs etc. , then why not :lol:

[Ari Michael Leeds]

Reinventing the wheel, and probably not financially sound.

Yes 16 is way down, but slitting film isn't cheap, either.