Reversal Print Film Stocks

[Steven Budden]

I know there are, I just need to be pointed in the right direction. Anyone know who makes reversal print stocks. I imagine companies overseas still make them but I'm not sure which one. Fomapan?

 

Thanks!

 

 

Steven

[Marty Hamrick]

I know there are, I just need to be pointed in the right direction. Anyone know who makes reversal print stocks. I imagine companies overseas still make them but I'm not sure which one. Fomapan?

 

Thanks!

Steven

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Color or black and white?

[Steven Budden]

Color or black and white?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry... black and white.

 

Steven

[John Pytlak RIP]

I know there are, I just need to be pointed in the right direction. Anyone know who makes reversal print stocks. I imagine companies overseas still make them but I'm not sure which one. Fomapan?

 

Thanks!

Steven

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No longer available from Kodak, due to insufficient demand and sales volume to justify the significant cost of reformulating for the new reversal B&W process (that eliminated dichromate bleach):

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...04Revised_Q.pdf

[K Borowski]

Theoretically, with some tweaking, the current Kodak negative to postive B&W print stock could possibly be adapted to making prints from reversal originals. B&W is a much simpler process, as opposed to color, so there are no masks to deal with, and the only problem I can see would be with any backing issues adn with figuring out the proper exposure times by trial and error. Also, it is possible that Foma may make such a stock. They make a 100-speed B&W reversal stock in regular 8mm, 16mm and 35mm (still and cine IIRC) that is pretty damned good. So it seems logical to check with them as well.

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

[Steven Budden]

What are the options now in terms of making a print from a reversal stock?

 

Or how would one duplicate an old reversal film if needed?

 

Steven

[John Pytlak RIP]

What are the options now in terms of making a print from a reversal stock?

 

Or how would one duplicate an old reversal film if needed?

 

Steven

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You would make an internegative, and release prints from that. The internegative then also serves as a long term preservation element, or can be used for telecine transfer.

[Steven Budden]

You would make an internegative, and release prints from that.  The internegative then also serves as a long term preservation element, or can be used for telecine transfer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks! So what are the options now in terms of making a print from a reversal original?

 

Also, in terms of hand processing and editing original... how would I make a print. In order to make a print there can only be cement splices? Or are tape splices ok in some machines? I understand if I edit a workprint with tape I then conform the negative with cement...

 

but what if I edit the original reversal with tape? Or should I use tape first and then go in and replace with cement? (tedious) or should I make a "workprint" edit that and then conform original? The thing is, I'd like the film to get roughed up naturally by the editing, which is one of the reasons I'm interested in editing original (ala Stan Brakhage).

 

Any help appreciated.

 

Thanks!

 

Steven

[Steven Budden]

No longer available from Kodak, due to insufficient demand and sales volume to justify the significant cost of reformulating for the new reversal B&W process (that eliminated dichromate bleach):

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...04Revised_Q.pdf

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So the new camera reversal stocks were reformulated but not the print stocks?

 

What has been the response to this change so far? Also, theoretically how much would it cost to reformulate a stock like this?

 

Thanks!

 

Steven

[John Pytlak RIP]

Thanks! So what are the options now in terms of making a print from a reversal original?

 

Also, in terms of hand processing and editing original... how would I make a print. In order to make a print there can only be cement splices? Or are tape splices ok in some machines? I understand if I edit a workprint with tape I then conform the negative with cement...

 

but what if I edit the original reversal with tape? Or should I use tape first and then go in and replace with cement? (tedious) or should I make a "workprint" edit that and then conform original? The thing is, I'd like the film to get roughed up naturally by the editing, which is one of the reasons I'm interested in editing original (ala Stan Brakhage).

 

Any help appreciated.

 

Thanks!

 

Steven

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Again, to make a print, you first make an internegative from the reversal original, and make your prints from that.

 

The vast majority of editing today is from a video transfer. The original film is then cut using KEYKODE and an Edit Decision List (EDL) generated from your edit. 16mm is usually cut into A and B rolls so the cement splices won't show:

 

http://www.acvl.org/handbook/chap3.htm

 

Don't "rough up" your camera original, as you can't change your mind or redo it if you make a mistake.

[John Pytlak RIP]

So the new camera reversal stocks were reformulated but not the print stocks?

 

What has been the response to this change so far? Also, theoretically how  much would it cost to reformulate a stock like this?

 

Thanks!

 

Steven

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Reformulation of the B&W camera reversal stocks was justified by the sales volumes. Today, 16mm B&W reversal is mostly either projected directly, or transferred to video, with few direct prints made. The print stock (7361) volumes did not justify the hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of dollars needed to reformulate a film for the new process.

[Steven Budden]

Reformulation of the B&W camera reversal stocks was justified by the sales volumes.  Today, 16mm B&W reversal is mostly either projected directly, or transferred to video, with few direct prints made. The print stock (7361) volumes did not justify the hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of dollars needed to reformulate a film for the new process.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks!

 

Millions! Ow. So presumably there is still stock here and there?

 

Also, transfer to internegative and then print... if it is the same as it has always been, what has changed in terms of those two reversal print stocks being discontinued?

 

Thanks!

 

Steven

[John Pytlak RIP]

Also, transfer to internegative and then print... if it is the same as it has always been, what has changed in terms of those two reversal print stocks being discontinued?

 

Thanks!

 

Steven

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As I noted, most editing is now done using a video transfer, rather than having to make a reversal workprint. If 16mm release prints are needed, you make an internegative, then print onto 2302, which is not a reversal print film.

[Steven Budden]

As I noted, most editing is now done using a video transfer, rather than having to make a reversal workprint.  If 16mm release prints are needed, you make an internegative, then print onto 2302, which is not a reversal print film.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I see thanks. So is the look of reversal entirely lost on this non reversal stock?

 

Steven

[John Pytlak RIP]

I see thanks. So is the look of reversal entirely lost on this non reversal stock?

 

Steven

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No. The "look" of reversal is primarily due to characteristics of the camera original film. If the internegative is made correctly, the 2302 release prints will retain the same "look". But going through an internegative offers additional opportunities to manipulate "look" in post production --- for example, the lab can vary developer time of the internegative film to change contrast.

 

A film that could be used to make the internegative is EASTMAN Fine Grain Duplicating Panchromatic Negative Film:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...1.4.6.6.6&lc=en

 

Note the effect developer time has on the contrast:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...ves/ti0147b.pdf

[Nate Downes]

I am definately going to keep this in mind there John for the feature I'm trying to put together. Shooting it on reversal for the desired look, so I'm keeping an eye on options for printing it.

[Steven Budden]

I am definately going to keep this in mind there John for the feature I'm trying to put together.  Shooting it on reversal for the desired look, so I'm keeping an eye on options for printing it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So it is impossible to match the look of reversal with negative film? How close can you get?

 

Steven

[Filip Plesha]

I assume printing reversal through DI would be easy, since film-out recorders can record print-contrast digital files, like HD footage, or DV footage. A scan from reversal would fall in the same cathegory as HD footage (has viewing contrast).

Unless the scanner has insuficient dynamic range for prints and reversals (which I doubt considering the cost of those machines) the print should look close to the original projected reversal footage

[Filip Plesha]

So it is impossible to match the look of reversal with negative film? How close can you get?

 

Steven

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Depends on which reversal film you are trying to emulate. A print from negative film already looks about the same as medium contrast E6 film.

E6 film doesn't really have a special kind of look that is so different from negative film. They both are designed with same technology, they are just modified a bit for different kind of processing. The difference is basic, and can be emulated with tweaking contrast, and such things.

 

If you put side be side a good drum scan of E6 film and a good scan of negative film (set to print contrast) and match them in color and saturation, you can't really tell which is which. Modern, E6, C41, ECN2 are just variations of the same look (variation in color contrast etc.) Kodachrome on the other hand is quite unique, and even if you match any other film to it in terms of contrast and such, you can tell which is KR.