K Borowski

Hello everyone. I have heard from several reliable sources that T-grain technology, found in such films as EXR, Vision, Vision2, T-Max, and Portra have disadvanatages to traditional silver-halide technology. For instance, when I was taking a B&W class at college a while back, I was told by my instructor that T-Max 400 blocks up in the highlights much more than the old staple Tri-X does. My question is: Does the same hold true with EXR and the Vision(2) line? Also, I have heard that the Vision 2 films are the first film series designed for digital postproduction. What compromises does this entail in traditional postproduction? Surely optimizing a film for use with DI entails some drawbacks in the optical printing process. Since the VNF-1 films are being discontinued, I am left with a certain quandary as to which stock I should use. I am tempted to experiment with some of Fuji's older emulsion films which don't have their equivalent of T-grain, but I'd like some practical advice before I burn money on rawstock. Regards. ~Karl Borowski

Are there any '80s-era VHS camcorders that could shoot in 16x9??? B)

I apollogize. I meant to say anti-halo layer. Rem-jet backing is a black backing that has to be scrubbed off or removed chemically. With still film, there is an anti-halo layer that is a dye rather than a black backing. This is why a C-41 processor will get flutzed up if you were to take a roll of respooled ECN-2 film in for processing. The black rem-jet isn't going to be removed properly by C-41 chemistry and will come of in chunks, ruining other rolls of film and jamming the machine. Looking at Kodak's chronology of MP film, I don't see any mention of any changes between 7390 and 7399. Does anyone out there know if 7399 has a rem-jet backing? I don't know for sure. I know someone who works with the stuff, so I'll ask him next time I give him a call. Regards. ~Karl

It has been my experience that only color negative films have the rem jet backing, whereas most reversals have a rem jet layer just as C-41 and E-6 films do. However, I'm not certain. It should be similar to 7399, which is just an improved version. You should check the Kodak website. Their film chronology is very comprehensive and includes practically every movie film stock they have ever manufactured. Regards. ~Karl Borowski

Hello everyone. I was wondering if anyone here is experienced with the use of ECN-2 film in still cameras. I have a Canon Rebel 2000 and Canon AE-1 that I want to use with ECN-2 and I would like to know how these films compare with C-41 for use in paper prints and slide prints. I have, in the past, heard that there is an undesirable magenta cast in the shadows of paper prints made from ECN-2 negatives and I assume there may also be some sort of cast in slide prints made from C-41 negatives. Also, I have come upon a place, RGB Color Labs in California that deals with ECN-2 in still cassettes. Does RGB offer top-of-the-line, scratch-free processing, or do they have some of the same problems that the old Seattle Film Works had? Are there other labs of comparable or better quality that offer the same services? I know of one lab in Florida, but I have had a falling-out with them as they charge $2.50 per frame when printing slides even if the negative strip is uncut. As for using ECN-2 in still cameras, could I get better prices than 3 36 exp. rolls of ECN-2 negative film for $8.50? Would I be better off buying short-ends and respooling them? I know that a lot of people are going to tell me that I would be better off just going digital with set photography; don't bother answering if you want to tell me something along these lines. I understand that digital is quieter, but I can't justify buying/renting $8000 cameras which produce pictures with flat, unrealistic skin tones and a totally different look than that of the film running through the movie cameras. Thanks for your help everyone. I appreciate your time and advice. All the best. ~Karl Borowski

Thanks for your help John. I still owe you a drink for helping to get K40A DR8 back in production :D I feel that it is of the utmost importance for Kodak to continue to provide some sort of low-contrast reversal stock as well as print stocks in B&W as well as color reversal. I must admit that I use little of either at the moment, but when I start to do more and more independant films, I certainly want to have release prints and backup copies of my work. Digital just doesn't cut it for me. Certainly there are others out there who feel exactly the same way as I do. I wish that Kodak could keep 7399 in production for just a little while longer (maybe even doing a batch of DR8) so that all of that valuable footage shot on VNF has a chance to be copied. However, the problem again comes down to no one but auto crash tests labs using it anymore and the halving of sales of the VNF line every few years. Then again, why would 7399 be in production with the camera VNF films if noone were making dupes of their footage? On the other hand, 7361 is clearly a valuable commodity in the future as well as the present. The idea of improving the B&W reversal films but not improving the corresponding print stock is laughable. Imagine coming out with EXR films and not improving the old print stocks to match! 16mm reversal might not be Kodak's biggest market, but neither is 8mm. These formats are a stepping stone for student filmmakers, who are much more likely to keep shooting film after getting their first budgeted film if they have film to work with as students rather than DV tape and computers. The message that the discontinuation of 7361 sends to me is that I had might as well just output on tape rather than actually take the time and money to have prints made. What would Kodak do if all of the Hollywood filmmakers of tomorrow took the same approach? Please keep in mind that your actions now are going to play an influence on the filmmakers of tomorrow. Alain: Sorry, but I'm just a high school film enthusiast. I'm still working on my first film. I'm just really in to the whole process and I read up on how the whole process works and what the different characteristics of the different film stocks are. I agree that our pallette is shrinking. It's even scarrier when you take into account the companies who have ceased all manufacture of MP film. Agfa, Ilford, and Ansco come to mind. It's a real shame that 16mm filmmakers are left with only Vision2, Vision, and EXR negative films (does anyone even know what Kodachrome is anymore?) which are totally unsuited to a small-budget film in my opinion. Reversal is finer-grained than negative (or at least has the potential to be that way if only the Kodak Cine divisino would invest money in R&D like the still branch does) and harder to light for, providing an excellent learning tool. It is also the most economical since it can be projected right out of the camera. I don't know if there are others like me who choose to edit the analog way. I like to know that even if all of my computers crash, my files corrupt, my programs fail to work, that I'll still have a copy to run through a projector. Take care and good luck to you who actually have the money to shoot 16mm shorst. I hope that Kodak continues to take 16mm reversal seriously. I'll try my hardest to make sure that they do. One thing about your petition though: Kodak would take 10,000 signatures on paper much more seriously than 10,000 signatures in cyberspace. My two cents. ~Karl Borowski

From what I've heard and seen with regard to VNF, the film is only archival if stored properly (something which few people bothered doing back in the '70s). Any film is archival when stored properly, but Kodachrome is the only one I know of that can truly maintain its colors at room temperature. VNF on the other hand, has not been seriously updated in decades, is very grainy, and is not even intended for use as a true "artistic" film. It's applications were and are for a few more months primarily commercial. The reversal film that was designed with art in mind was called (ironically) Ektachrome Commercial, or, more affectionately, ECO. The 25 ASA rating gave this film respectable grain as opposed to the corse, grainy, low contrast structure of VNF. Again, the film is nice on standard-def television and on a moderately sized projector screen, but it certainly isn't likely to hold up well on the big screen, although it'd do better than something like DV or VHS or beta. I love VNF, but the fact is that no one wants to do things the way they used to be done, like making prints and editing the analog way. I feel this is a great shame, but I can't change the market on my own. People are and probably always will be enamored with getting the best results per least amount of effort. People will abandon movie film in general just as they did still film as soon as digital gets up to speed. There might be a few more devotees to MP film than there are to still film due to the greater amount of artistic applications in cine as opposed to the more documentary/journalistic applications of still film, but there is still going to be a continual decline. Let us act now to prevent the last of the old reversal stocks, K40, from going the way of VNF and fight to keep 7361, which I agree is a valuable asset and also seek a replacement for 7399 and maybe 7240 and 7239. Such a consolidation of E6 between still and cine units can only bolster sales of E6 and keep it in a healthy state of production. So many still photographers are just shooting C-41 and scanning or going DSLR route nowadays that it makes one wonder how much longer even E6 will be around. Regards. ~Karl Borowski

Unfortunately, there is almost no chance that these films can be saved. According to a reliable source, sales of these films were halving every year for the past few years. Quite simply, no one was using them anymore. However, I do think there is merit in attempting to get the Eastman Kodak company to release some of its older E6 emulsions (not the "E" series, which has a high degree of color saturation quite different from the low contrast emulsions of the VNF-1 line) with MP perfs. There are a few films, such as 6117 (Ektachrome 64), EPY-64 (Ekta 64T), EPT-160 (Ekta 160T), and EPJ-320 (Ekta 320T) which would adapt well in the MP world. Don't hold me to this, but I believe that either the 160 or 320 speed tungsten film is low contrast. Also, a reformulation of the VNF-1 films or simply over- or underdiluting existing E6 chemistry can provide the means to process these films with the E6 process. There are so many options here that are not being explored by EK and it is a damned shame. However, the prime consumers of these films were newscrews (haven't used it since the early '80s), auto crash test labs (are going digital now that high speed digicams are out), and a few independent filmmakers (who don't shoot nearly as much footage as crash test labs with cameras running at 1000 fps). Clearly it is the fault of the consumer, not Kodak that these stocks are going to way of ECO and K25 and 4-X.

I'll notice. FYI, omnimax already projects at 60 fps. Now that's clarity. Unfortunately, the format hasn't developed to its full potential and is used mostly for documentary purposes. However, in the future, there is the possibility that the format will expand and possibly cater to more dramatic purposes. Also, many ride films (35mm is used quite often for these) are projected at 48 fps, so the standard has materialized where realism is of importance (fooling an audience into believing they are on a roller coaster or some other such thriller). Regards. ~Karl Borowski

As I am a big big film supporter and Star Trek fan, I would like to say that this will make me stop watching Enterprise. However, that would be dishonest on my part. I confess that I haven't watched Enterprise with any regularity (seeing one or two episodes per season) since season one. I'd like to say it is because of the blatantly bad digital effects, but that isn't true either. The truth is that Star Trek Enterprise is a waste of film just as it will be a waste of tape or hard drive space now that Rick Berman has decided to turn into a fu**ing Ferengi. Gene Roddenberry is rolling over in his grave right now, not because of the switch to digital, but because of the reasons for the switch (solely money) and because of the atrocious poop that Rick Berman and Paramount pictures dare to call Star Trek. Not only is the writing for that show terrible, but they rushed the whole fu**ing concept instead of taking a year or two off to regroup after Voyager. They have no real strong original personalities on the show. Each and every character is an attempt at getting elements of some of the prior Trek characters back. The disregard for the stories of the prior Trek series is attrocious. I'd even call it offensive the way the writers have callously disregarded statements in several episodes of the prior "Treks" without a second thought. I found the episodw where NX-01 discovers an early version of the borg, 70,000 light years away from where they should be at this point in the Trek universe to be very very bad taste. I think the episode with the Romulans is similarly wreckless in disregarding much of what is established in "Balance of Terror" from 1966. Hell, the show's premiere totally disregarded the fact that Klingons didn't have nose ridges or elaborate makeup prior to Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Yet another mediocre aspect is the show's singular lack of any models whatsoever. Sure digital is great and can produce spectacular results when used correctly, but when I can still tell the difference between models and digital effects on a moderately sized NTSC television, then obviously they are doing something wrong. I hope the show tanks this season, or better yet, right now, so that it can do no further damage to what was up until now, the most successful television franchise in history. The Star Trek series was known for overall solid writing with an emphasis on humanity's current dillemmas in future environs and morality. T'Pol's recent sexual escapades serve to further degrade Trek. I also have, as I have mentioned before, a really big problem with Star Trek no longer using 35mm motion picture film. For those of you who aren't up on the original series, the first pilot episode was filmed in 1964, nearly 40 years ago on 35mm negative. Since then, there have benn approximately 700 episodes shot in the same manner as well as 10 motion pictures all shot on 35mm negative. To disregard a 40 year legacy of filmmaking in favor of a technology that still isn't up to par with film after all of this time is disgusting. Not only is what they are doing degrading the final quality of the image, it is also placing in further jeopardy not only student filmmakers who wish to work with film, but also other television shows, who now have to justify more and more the use of film for television, as well as the hard working people of both the Eastman Kodak company, and to a lesser extent, Fuji. Having met some people over the past year who have devoted their lives to film, it really appals me that TV show are discarding film origination as if it were of no consequence to others. I can't say enough about the people I've met. I know a guy who's been processing VNF for 25+ years and processed my 7240 for free only to have his job put in jeopardy by the arrival of digital cameras that use Japanese parts and components rather than American film. He even has offered to give me and my friends a tour of the facility and several thousand feet of unused film. I know a guy who processed my DR8 film as if it were 16mm so I could save money and not go broke using his service, giving the same careful time and attention to my film as he would any professinoal production. I know a guy who kindly helped me get the attention of the correct people in the Eastman Kodak company so that they would resume the production of K40 in DR8. I know a guy that sent me film before I even paid him so that I'd be able to get it before I went to Hawai'i, running the film to the post office personally right before it closed. Film isn't just a strip of plastic, it's a product that provides money for these people and others who really care about their product and really deserve what they are getting. For all of you on this forum who have the money to make movies with film, please remember that your decisions effect not only your production but these people as well, who really care about the product they offer, improve, support, and develop. Take Care. ~Karl Borowski

Of course, the problem with copying digital repeatedly is that there is some generation loss that even digital formats suffer from after about 10 generations if the copying isn't done perfectly each time. Since a lot of digital copying is done in real time, or onto formats such as DVDs or CDs that will corrupt and become unusable should the data stream stop, whenever there is a pause during copying these devices will try and make up by interpolating the information where these errors or stops occur. Be careful what you use when you're copying digital files. Also, DVDs and CDs are not arechival storage media. They are finding that such media can corrupt and oxidize in as little as 20 years. Regards. ~Karl Borowski

Hey Dave, how about a $20 Bolex B8? Now that is economy :D ~Karl

Rich bastard? You don't need a million dollars to make a film. With a little bit more time, money, and effort, film gives you much more professional looking results. I am doing a few little shorts on DR8 (the smallest movie film format) and so far it looks great, much grittier and livelier than DV or SVHS. If you want to move up to 16 or 35mm, there are bargains to be had with short ends and recans. Film just gives you a certain look that video doesn't have. Of course, with an F900, I honestly can't see a difference on a small TV set, but with HDTV or a theatre, there is still a big big difference. As for using the XL2 to make theatrical features, it ain't gonna happen. The XL2 is a DV camera. DV is in some respects worse than SVHS because there are compression artifacts unique to DV that show up especially under the scrutiny of large scale projection. 35mm, even after 4 generations of removal from the master negative, is almost grainless to my eyes. Back in the 70s, they were using 65/70mm, which was even better. Video has to come a long way to fill in the shoes of film. I personally don't plan on seeing Episode III of Star Wars because the previous two were such disappointments (I & II both had terrible story lines and hoky special effects, and II was just ugly because it was done on digital. Did you see the night time interior scenes of episode II?) Watch IV, V, and VI and then try and tell me I and II compare. Regards. ~Karl Borowski

I totally agree with you Adam. While 16x9 is sadly here to stay, it shouldn't have had to be that way. Going back to the origins of the whole "widescreen" fiasco, one finds that it is because of television's emergence that movies switched from 4x3 themselves into widescreen. That's right, widescreen is a sham just like stereo sound, digital everything, and supercharged V4s. It was meant to keep people from forsaking movies for TV (really stupid considering how low-res TV was and is compared to 35 or at that time even 70mm). It is a shame that someone won't take a stand and say "I'm doing this movie in 4x3". Maybe it isn't possible anymore now that all the projectors are either flat 2 perf or anamorphic. You are absolutely justified in detesting 16x9 on TV. A lot of the people who own HDTVs are so damned stupid that they stretch out regular 4x3 and then when they watch a movie in 16x9 it's stretched out TWICE AS MUCH. I think I'll just get a good old big screen 4x3 analog TV set, which looks a lot better than digital television, and hope that some of you guys up in the big leagues can keep 4x3 alive and well. Regards. ~Karl

While photo.net was my own personal choice for photographic advice in the past, I have of late been seeking answers to photography questions at www.apug.org. While I know that digital photography is here to stay in the still realm and is making headway in the cine field, I find it quite annoying when digital buffs intrude in the film oriented fields of photo.net with "advice" like "why don't you just go digital?" or "it'd be better if you put it through photoshop!" or "why are you still using an enlarger?". If you are seeking film advice and don't one of these "helpful hints" then use APUG.org for an unbiased answer. Regards. ~Karl Borowski

I don't know about transferring Kodachrome to neg stock and making it look "old school", but I do know that there are ways of making Kodachrome look like the vintage Kodachrome of the 1940s. Taking Kodachrome 64 and shooting it at EI 80 without extended development gives it a more saturated color, so it figures that shooting the same film at 40 or 50 with normal processing will accomplish such a faded look. Of course, with K40A, shooting at 32 will probably come across the same way, but it will probaly take some experimentation. Since the film has less latitude than K64, it might be better to pull less than 1/3 of a stop. Also, filtration of some sort might give the film the right "feel" Regards. ~Karl Borowski

Dan: you're joking, right? Lucas's two new movies are awful compared to IV, V, and VI. All technology aside, I and II were just plain bad. And not using film? That's just low (although II had a much better story than I). I'd rather see puppets, optical mattes, and a kick-ass story than all of the latest digital technology with no substance behind it. The battle scene at the end of VI was incredible. Most people who watch that today assume that it was done with computers it's so complex. However, I would agree that digital technology, if used tastefully, can be a wonderful asset to special effects and a real timesaver. Unfortunately, special effects have gone the way of Star Wars lately, and I just cannot get my subconcious self to believe that 2K digital graphics are real when I'm in a movie. There are so many shots that look like they were done on laptop computers and are just no believable. Maybe 4K will help. . . maybe not. Regards.

Amen. I feel that a 2K scan is suitable for maybe S8, not 35mm. Someone was saying a while back on this forum that 6K is all that is needed to capture full detail in a 65/70mm movie such as Lawrence of Arabia. I sincerely doubt that such a downgrading in image quality would stand up on the big screen compared to a true 65mm print. We are lucky though that the industry is now moving into 4Ks. I don't think we'll see much higher resolution than that for a long while. Kodak seems to think that that is all that is necessary to capture the information written on film, as they describe in their new system that uses DIs to reduce generation loss. What a shame. I definitely think 4K is losing a lot still. Regards.

I can understand using tape for televised documentaries, and film is quite expensive with the high shooting ratios necessary for a documentary application. Surely though for a documentary such as Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 that is getting theatrical distribution, film is clearly the best choice. 16mm equipment is compact and affordable and has been the standard for documentary and in the past newsgathering work. Synch sound isn't always necessary if one has access to an old Auricon camera with the capability of recording sound on film (optical or magnetic). Regards.

Not sure if this helps at all, but there may not be any lighting on the show. I know the show was started with the intent of satiring COPS. There was an article in my local newspaper the past year where they said that the show was done as 90% improv, leading me to believe that they aren't to worried about the aesthetics of lighting when they're taping. I love Reno 911, but it's not really artistic at all. It's just plain hilarious. THOSE DAMNED KOREANS! Regards. ~Karl Borowski

In a word: NO!

Hi schnozzle. It's great that you're posting under this forum, even if you didn't mean to ;-) I'm probably crossing into Mr. Pytlak's territory here, but I understand that, if properly stored, color negative will last 100+ years before fading occurs. Mind you, this is in a temperature and humidity controlled vault. For truly archival storage, Kodak still recommends making color separations onto three strips of black and white film ala technicolor. They make a special black and white film solely for this purpose, although I doubt that many movies actually make it to separation. Frankly, most people only care about the "here and now", so they couldn't care less about what future generations will be able to see which is a shame. Why else would people abandon Kodachrome in favor of Ektachrome or film in favor of relatively unstable digital media? Regards. ~Karl Borowski

. . .or you could just use film. Haven't you been paying attention to the problems that digital still cameras *still* have with doing time exposures? Why not just use something that works?

Hey Mr. Tyler! I'm glad you decided that smaller format film is worth having its own forum. I very much appreciate the efforts of those on this forum who voiced their opinions and made this all possible. My only problem with this is that you neglect the other 8mm formats besides S8. These include: DR8, Single 8, DS8, & R8. Wouldn't "8mm Only" be a more appropriate name for this forum? Am I not allowed to post about these other formats here? Regards, ~Karl Borowski

J Jukazami, I have something to say to you: $300-400K (price of raw stock, process, print for those who don't bother shopping around for deals and have money to burn) is less than half of what an actor makes for one TV show, let alone a professional big budget movie. Why don't you digital guys work on a way to replace big-budget actors with digital facsimiles or something instead of wasting all of your money developing poop that becomes obsolete the moment it comes out and breaks down in about ten years. That's right, in ten years CCDs start to bug out and hard drives start to demagnetize. Even if a small miracle occurs and they last longer than that, what's the point in keeping them when they can't be upgraded and there's something better around. You tout the incredible advantage of digital. How does something that has a useful lifespan of a mere decade comapare to cameras that will continue to be useful as long as 35mm is made? Oh yeah, you can make film yourself too, so even when WW III happens (and fries all digital devices by the way) and we filmmakers are hanging out on streetcorners scratching our hairpieces and carrying around hand crenkt [sic] cameras, we'll still be able to make our film. What happened to reel-to-reel video tape? beta? laserdisc? Yeah.