ORWO NC500 initial thoughts

[Tyler Purcell]

We've officially wrapped our first shoot with the ORWO NC500 16mm film stock. This is "supposedly" a brand new color negative stock out of Europe. Much of the look is similar to their previous stock which was discontinued a few years ago. 

There have been many discussions about this stock coming out for years now, but we finally have it, we've finally shot it and we have the results. 

1) First thing and the most disappointing is that the stock is poorly manufactured. Not only is the width inconsistent, but so are the perfs. This leads to a very "wobbly" frame compared to Kodak color negative. We shoot quite a bit of film and I've never seen a factory stock that performs this bad when it comes to specs. We've also seen image strobing and pulsing within longer takes. It's harder to see in bright scenes, but in darker moments, it's very clear. This mixed with constant dirt within all frames, does show there are major manufacturing issues that have yet to be solved. 

2) The color profile is very odd. We tried multiple methods of scanning the film, but they all left us baffled about why there seems to be missing channels of color. Running our typical Kodak color test film through the scanner delivered perfect results, so we're beyond baffled. The limited dynamic range does not help either. I'd say its more akin to Ektachrome then Vision 3 in terms of contrast. 

3) We rated this stock at 320 ISO because in early testing, people suggested that was a better range. I do think this did muddy the waters in the tests below. I regret not working with box ISO because it would have been a better test. I'm also very interested in processing some E6 and C41 to see what the differences are, whether this stock may actually work better as positive. I do know as it sits now, it's a very "limited" product that almost feels like it needs to be underexposed to get anything decent out of it, even though the grain level would be extreme. 

4) Finally, the test video below was rushed and I'm slightly embarrassed with our results honestly, but it's still worth the video. We received our film on Friday of last week and we shot this entire thing on sunday (our first available day) and rushed it off to the lab so we could have it scanned and edited by monday. Sadly Fotokem had an issue with the processor, so we didn't get it until today (Tuesday). Time is rough right now, I just don't have the ability to be running around shooting stuff, so we did the best we could. Some shots are out of focus, some tests are "meh" and unhelpful as well. Again, this was a rushed job and our next test will be far more conclusive. I have many friends doing 35mm tests right now, so hopefully they can shed some light on better settings in production. I also didn't know the base color balance. So we shot with and with out 85 filters, which of course was dumb. If I had an 81 EF filter, I would have rather tested with that. We didn't find any filtration was needed. 

In summary, it's really cool that we have another color negative on the market. I do think the stock may work in situations where you want a gritty look. If it were half the price of Kodak, maybe it would make sense? I just don't know at the current wildly varying prices what value this stock has out of "ok this is cool, another color stock". It feels like open source film stock, where you kinda figure out what works best for you and thats what you do with it ya know? For me however, the consistency of Kodak is widely superior in every way. If I'm going out to shoot, things must work ya know? We all know that of course, but I'm just worried people will blow a lot of money on this new stock expecting something it isn't. I hope our next test is more conclusive and I will be back with those results very soon! 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2023 by Tyler Purcell

[Aapo Lettinen]

it kinda resembles slightly expired very basic amateur photo negative stock... like those cheapest ones which were just sold out of those big pools/boxes on supermarkets and not stored preperly in a fridge. Something of the colours resembles those

[Fedor Karpenko]

Yeesh I can't imagine they were unaware of these QC issues.

[Robin Phillips]

@Tyler Purcell I got my 2 cans yesterday, honestly Im unlikely to be able to do a real test as I'd hoped this month the way things are going. If you want 1 of my cans just DM me and I can send it to you if you wanna run an additional test at box speed so we can all see how it looks. 

[Tyler Purcell]

24 minutes ago, Robin Phillips said:

@Tyler Purcell I got my 2 cans yesterday, honestly Im unlikely to be able to do a real test as I'd hoped this month the way things are going. If you want 1 of my cans just DM me and I can send it to you if you wanna run an additional test at box speed so we can all see how it looks. 

If you wanna, I ain't gonna say no haha!  I do have more film tho, so maybe hold onto it until I've run out? I got at least another 1k feet to muck around with. Next test will be very different. 

[Tyler Purcell]

29 minutes ago, Fedor Karpenko said:

Yeesh I can't imagine they were unaware of these QC issues.

Yea right? 

[Tyler Purcell]

5 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

it kinda resembles slightly expired very basic amateur photo negative stock... like those cheapest ones which were just sold out of those big pools/boxes on supermarkets and not stored preperly in a fridge. Something of the colours resembles those

I think it's an old AGFA reversal stock they re-formulated. The technical issues with the manufacturing of the stock are different than the issues with the emulsion. I'm gonna make a gross assumption which is probably way off base, but I have a feeling if I shoot at 200 ISO and process E6, I bet it works like an ektachrome stock. I have a feeling this is based on the old AGFA Chrome reversal stock. 

[Giray Izcan]

To me, the grain resembles double x stock in 16mm... I wonder how this stock would look on 35 scanned on a good scanner. I have a feeling it might have a nice/different look, but on 16, forget it. If the prices made sense, I would like to shoot it on 35 and get it scanned professionally on a good scanner. 

Edited February 1, 2023 by Giray Izcan

[Robino Jones]

7 hours ago, Robin Phillips said:

@Tyler Purcell I got my 2 cans yesterday, honestly Im unlikely to be able to do a real test as I'd hoped this month the way things are going. If you want 1 of my cans just DM me and I can send it to you if you wanna run an additional test at box speed so we can all see how it looks. 

If Tyler is not going to take it I'll take it - @tyler's test was great but maybe a second opinion / different camera/scanner could be good ?

[Friedemann Wachsmuth]

6 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

but I have a feeling if I shoot at 200 ISO and process E6, I bet it works like an ektachrome stock. I have a feeling this is based on the old AGFA Chrome reversal stock.

I can't prove it but think you are on a wrong track here. ?

Can't wait for your tests though! I'll shoot my two rolls next Sunday, haven't decided yet how I'll process them. I was considering ECN-2 and the getting a proper print, so that I can't really bend its curves. 

[Tyler Purcell]

2 hours ago, Friedemann Wachsmuth said:

I can't prove it but think you are on a wrong track here.

The guys on the Facebook group seem to think it's a reformulated reversal stock. Heck, I'm gonna try it! hahaha 

2 hours ago, Friedemann Wachsmuth said:

Can't wait for your tests though! I'll shoot my two rolls next Sunday, haven't decided yet how I'll process them. I was considering ECN-2 and the getting a proper print, so that I can't really bend its curves. 

Let me know when ya get it done! 

[Niels kakelveld]

It does remind me of cross-processed reversal. I dont get why they would do that, I would love a higher speed, 400 something reversal stock it would be a market not provided for.

 

Reversal would not work because the base is not clear, it seems to have a mask of some sort but unlike normal C-41/ECN-2 film.

[Tyler Purcell]

9 hours ago, Niels kakelveld said:

Reversal would not work because the base is not clear, it seems to have a mask of some sort but unlike normal C-41/ECN-2 film.

It's for sure not rem jet, as it's C41. What would prevent it from being processed as E6? 

[Niels kakelveld]

On 2/2/2023 at 7:06 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

It's for sure not rem jet, as it's C41. What would prevent it from being processed as E6? 

Doesn't it have a brown/orange/yellow mask like normal negative colour film that would persist (in its negative equivalent) when developed as a positive? The base would not be clear.

I'm sure there is a proper emulsion-engineer name for it but that is escaping me now.

[Tyler Purcell]

6 hours ago, Niels kakelveld said:

Doesn't it have a brown/orange/yellow mask like normal negative colour film that would persist (in its negative equivalent) when developed as a positive? The base would not be clear.

I'm sure there is a proper emulsion-engineer name for it but that is escaping me now.

Sure, but I'm not going to project it. So we'll just grade it out. Film is shot and at the lab for the E6 processing, so fingers crossed? LOL 

[Jaehyun Kim]

The feeling I saw is similar to that of the FUJIFILM REALA 500D.

[Tyler Purcell]

5 hours ago, Jaehyun Kim said:

The feeling I saw is similar to that of the FUJIFILM REALA 500D.

Oh Reala has WAY more dynamic range. 

[Jaehyun Kim]

10 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Oh Reala has WAY more dynamic range. 

The texture and look are similar. very rough haha

It's a good resource.

I wish this company developed the film better

[Tyler Purcell]

23 hours ago, Jaehyun Kim said:

I wish this company developed the film better

They had issues last time they tried to make a color stock as well. Similar problems. 

I don't see how they'll be able to fix them without a considerable investment. 

We'll probably look back on this release as a great example why nobody has tried to enter the market. It's just way too tricky to compete with Kodak who not only has an edge on the formula, but also consistency that nobody else can get near. 

[Niels kakelveld]

When it comes to colour film with the quality and consistent of Vision3 I am afraid it is really going to be: Use it or lose it.

The film market -still and motion picture- is never ever going to be able to support the R&D that Kodak and Fuji Film put in to get to the point where they are now. The sheer amount of equipment and money to R&D stocks like Vision, Eterna, Portra, Velvia/Provia is insurmountable with today's market. In the 1990s and early 2000s the market would have supported a return on investment, but now even with the "renaissance" its peanuts.

Would the current market be able to support large repairs to the EK facility if it got damaged? all eggs are in one basket. It is a scary thought.

I think it took Kodak 3 years to bring Ektachrome back, its a miracle they made it.

Colour film with Kodak's and Fuji Films quality is something people take way too much for granted, until its gone.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Niels kakelveld

[Giray Izcan]

5 hours ago, Niels kakelveld said:

When it comes to colour film with the quality and consistent of Vision3 I am afraid it is really going to be: Use it or lose it.

The film market -still and motion picture- is never ever going to be able to support the R&D that Kodak and Fuji Film put in to get to the point where they are now. The sheer amount of equipment and money to R&D stocks like Vision, Eterna, Portra, Velvia/Provia is insurmountable with today's market. In the 1990s and early 2000s the market would have supported a return on investment, but now even with the "renaissance" its peanuts.

Would the current market be able to support large repairs to the EK facility if it got damaged? all eggs are in one basket. It is a scary thought.

I think it took Kodak 3 years to bring Ektachrome back, its a miracle they made it.

Colour film with Kodak's and Fuji Films quality is something people take way too much for granted, until its gone.

Of course it is peanuts in comparison to the 00s and the 90s. Nowadays shooting on film is more of a vanity affair and prestige thing as opposed to then - everything had to be shot on film...

Edited February 6, 2023 by Giray Izcan

[Jon O'Brien]

6 hours ago, Niels kakelveld said:

When it comes to colour film with the quality and consistent of Vision3 I am afraid it is really going to be: Use it or lose it ...

Doing my level best to do this. Was all set to shoot on 16mm last weekend to film an old historic steam train but the train broke down so no footage yet. Will try again when it's repaired. Couldn't help but see the parallels - old things can be charming and beautiful but are not always as trouble free as 'modern' things. Not all that long ago I was shooting on 16mm (on an old Bolex) and the film came off the take up reel on the 100' daylight reel so a lot of the film was spoiled. I will keep shooting film as long as I can though. It's worth it.

40 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

... Nowadays shooting on film is more of a vanity affair and prestige thing as opposed to then - everything had to be shot on film...

It wasn't until digital video technology was developed to such an extremely high level as it is today that I truly understood just how good real film is in comparison.

[Giray Izcan]

13 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Doing my level best to do this. Was all set to shoot on 16mm last weekend to film an old historic steam train but the train broke down so no footage yet. Will try again when it's repaired. Couldn't help but see the parallels - old things can be charming and beautiful but are not always as trouble free as 'modern' things. Not all that long ago I was shooting on 16mm (on an old Bolex) and the film came off the take up reel on the 100' daylight reel so a lot of the film was spoiled. I will keep shooting film as long as I can though. It's worth it.

It wasn't until digital video technology was developed to such an extremely high level as it is today that I truly understood just how good real film is in comparison.

So how come all the blockbusters are shot on digital except for a few here and there? Surely hundreds of millions of dollars for a budget, they wouldn't be shooting on an inferior format. 

[Jon O'Brien]

I don't care for the blockbusters that are coming out. But the film/digital discussion just goes around and around in circles, so not much point going on about it.

Do what you want in film/video, if you can. When I film things myself and see the results on a computer screen, both digital and film, I much, much prefer the look of the film images. This is my own artistic taste and preference for a video 'look' and I can't explain or account for the taste or preference of others. Same as when I go to an art gallery - some works (and the media from which they are created) there appeal to me much more than the others. It can't really be explained. Nothing regarding the meaning and personal value in art can really be explained accurately in words, I find. People are motivated to use certain media, if they can.That's about all you can say. If you are motivated to shoot real film and it has a lot of value for you, and looks absolutely great to you, then do your best to shoot with it. I got into digital because film really isn't practical anymore for a lot of applications. It's the 'film' medium of today but it lacks some charm and magic - but a lot of people don't seem to care too much about charm and magic. They just want Marvel movies and comic book explosions and fights, or whatever - and that's okay. In the end it's all entertainment.

Do what you can, and what you want to do. And that's it.

[Tyler Purcell]

8 hours ago, Niels kakelveld said:

When it comes to colour film with the quality and consistent of Vision3 I am afraid it is really going to be: Use it or lose it.

Kodak's factory is flat out amazing. Even if you messed up the emulsion, at least they have the proper coating machines and can properly cut the bloody stuff.