Marc Roessler

Indeed the roll I tested says "ORWO UN54"... I just compared the processed UN54 with the processed 7222. My UN54 definately has longer pitch than the 7222, visible even with a 15 cm long piece of film. Some quick calculation how are we are off and whether this could be explained by short pitch vs. long pitch: 2994 has 7.605 mm pitch, 3000 7.620mm. One perf hole has a height of 1.720 mm. This means that, aligning 2994 and 3000 at one perf, alignment will be off exactly one perf hole size (i.e. it will just "close" when aligning the films) after 115 perfs: (1.720 / (7.620 - 7.605)) = 114,666 The UN54 vs. 7222 is out of alignment for one perf after about 40 perfs!! There's definitely something fishy going on. Greetings, Marc

UN54 is a film that can be processed either as negative or as reversal. Now of course the big question is whether they use negative or print pitch... Can someone who has the appropriate equipment take a measurement? Right now there's claims for about any of the dimensions being off.. width, pitch, lubrication/rem jet and I've also heard thickness.. so seems we're back to step one: could be anything?

steve, why not go with a 100' roll first? The 16BL should be OK - same movement as the 16S, and this one basically runs any 16mm film stock. What Dirk writes sounds reasonable...

Indeed the frame grab posted above looks like some processing error. Haven't tried the N74 yet.. may give it a try some time soon. The loop isn't lost, so takeup tension is not the issue. The loop just skips position with relative to the transport claw. You have to re-center the loop by de- and re-attach the mag, then it works again (for another 10 seconds...) In the processed neg this is clearly visible... the claw "looses" one frame, visible as a 1 frame "hickup", but still has enough of a loop to continue running. After a few seconds a second frame slips and the loop is then gone, the claw pulling against the feed/takeup sprocket. Even if it didn't loose the loop: with UN54 my XTR is too noisy for sync sound filming inside closed rooms. Maybe the mag needs adjustment specifically for UN54. But then again, the camera works flawlessly with ALL other film stocks, b&w and color, from both Kodak and Fuji. I wish Orwo would just stick to that de facto standard. Greetings, Marc

I had planned to shoot a short on Orwo UN54 beginning of this year. Luckily, I tested the stock first... For my tests I shot some fresh from the factory UN54 and had it contact printed and 2K scanned (ARRISCAN).. Image wise this is a nice stock, if it only would go through the camera ... the stock ran noisily and the loop slipped every 10 to 20 seconds or so. This was on an Aaton XTR Prod that did not have any trouble with any other stock so far (Fuji, Kodak). Just to make sure it's not some funky b&w incompatibilty I tried some 7222 as a second test which went through the camera silently as usual and without any trouble. Some googling turned up that even (some?) ARRI SRs have problems with UN54. Seems to work on Arri 16S, Bolex etc. Not sure what it is.. I assume one of perf pitch, neg thickness, neg coating.. Really a pity, because this would be a nice somewhat-replacement for 7231 Plus-X. So, if you do plan to shoot UN54 or N74, by all means: test if it works with your camera! Greetings, Marc Roessler

As for buying S16 glass, prices definately have been falling A LOT for S16 glass during the last 2 years... since I bought my set of S16 super speeds.. :wacko: Not sure what the BMD will do for this, maybe prices will rise again...

Kodak just posted an interesting picture from the set of "September 11 1683" https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/3622_10151437890328558_1046078377_n.jpg (hope this link works for everyone) It's a very old school looking wooden slate with little (apparently) ring binder type drop-down wooden letters. Does anybody know why one would use such a slate? Is this available somewhere or was it custom made for that film? I have to admit it adds a very nice touch to the set of a historical film .. Greetings, Marc

In Germany this would be ARRI, Munich (of course) CinePostproduction/Geyer, Berlin ARRI Schwarzfilm, Berlin (afaik) TF Cinenova, Wiesbaden (previously ABC & Taunusfilm) Andec Film, Berlin Did I miss any?

Jose, great pictures! However Joel is right that with neg the perf holes would be black. Is this maybe scanned from an S8 contact print? Can you elaborate a bit on your post workflow? Which scanner, what file format used (DPX 2K log?), what kind of degraining/sharpening etc... Did you overexpose the 50D to tighten up the grain even more?

Thanks Richard! 4 g KMnO4 (potassium permanganate) dissolved in 1 Liter of distilled water 110g NaHSO4 (sodium bisulphate) dissolved in enough distilled water to form 1 Liter of solution The permanganate must given some time (with agitation) to fully dissolve. Then mix the two and filter (to remove any manganese dioxide). Should be prepared just before use. I'll try as part of a complete reversal process with some Fomapan 100R soon and let you know about the results. Greetings, Marc

Indeed! the acid it is more dangerous to handle and ship one is diluting it anyway so there is no real need to start with concentrated sulfuric acid NaHSO4 is cheap and really easy to obtain. It is also used as a pH value control agent for swimming pools, by the way. Checking needed if it's pure enough, though.

Nevermind.. found my error. Of course this strip of film had already been fixed, so no latent silver remained in the emulsion. After bleaching away the already developed silver there's nothing left to re-expose and re-develop. Seems the bleach works like a charm!

Good tip, Brian. I tried that.. all steps done in daylight. Had a small strip of processed fomapan 100r (processed as reversal). Bleached that strip with the described solution - worked quite well, silver image gone with small traces of image visible. After that I thought why not try the clearing bath step as well with the sodium meta bisulfite.. unfortunately at this step the image vanished completely, completely transparent base, no trace left of the image at all (very much unlike of what fomapan looks like during re-exposure, which is citron yellow). Even re-developing the test strip did not bring any image back. Any idea what where it went wrong? Did the bleach step work?

For reversal processing of Fomapan, or reveral processing in genereal: has anybody successfully used a NaHSO4 (sodium bisulfate) solution instead of thinned sulfuric acid for the permangante bleach? Much easier to obtain and easier to handle...

Hi everyone... apparently Witter-Cinetec is about to release a new color reversal film. The stock is re-slit AGFA Aviphot Chrome 200 (same emulsion as Agfachrome RSX II 200; also distributed as Rollei CR 200 slide film). This has an estar base and will be available in Super 8 and 16mm. I'm trying to get hold of a roll for testing, will keep you posted. Original announcement in German: http://www.wittner-c....php#20130205-1 Greetings, Marc

Hi everyone, does anyone here have any information on the ASCII Timecode (for sending and receiving timecode) that Aaton uses? It seems this is a single wire protocol for RX/TX.. Another related question: which devices actually support this format natively, besides the Aaton manufactured equipment? Greetings, Marc

Just to avoid confusion... Note that 100T and 100D doesn't say anything about how the film is to be processed. It just tells you speed (100 ASA or EI) and color balance (Tungsten vs. Daylight). The process is usually listed on the can, in most cases it's ECN-2 (i.e. normal color negative process) or E6 (normal color reversal process). For Kodak's (somewhat) current stocks, there is only one 100D stock made by Kodak, and it is 7285 Ektachrom Reversal Film for E6 processing. 100T may refer to the (somewhat) latest version 7212, but there have been older stocks called 100T as well. It's always a good idea to add kodak's number (7212, 7285, ..) when mentioning a stock, then it's what clear which stock you refer to. Welcome to the boards.

I agree that for some projects it's actually too expensive. It all depends on the amount of total effort you put into it. On the other hand, if a project isn't worth shooting on 16 or even 8, isn't there another problem to begin with? (It's different of course if you decide not to shoot film for other reasons. Film is not the ideal medium for every project, that's clear too.. for "ext/night with available light" I think an Alexa would be the better choice...) S16 is not that grainy as long as you stay away from the 500 ASA films. On the cinema screen (2k DCP) without degraining the S16 grain is apparent even with 200 speed films, it's a matter of taste there. But then again there are very nice degraining tools. S8 grain is very in-your-face grain and sharpness wise of course... Tastes do change and the slick digital look is very en vogue at the moment. However, whereever there's a trend there's usually a counter-trend too: I see quite some commercial music videos and ads shot on s8 at the moment .. one example is "DU" ("you") from Cro: Certainly a look only suitable for some clips, but I really enjoyed it here.

I don't think film and processing is that expensive. It's usually the (high quality) scanning that is expensive. Even for a short film, once you factor in cost for travel, parking, food, props & wardrobe, filming permits, renting lights, sound mix, DVD duplication (you give free DVDs to your crew, right?) in my experience you end up with 15 to 50 % of the budget spent for film stocks and processing. Let's face it, making a film is expensive, regardless of whether you shoot film or digital. Coming to think of it.. sitting through some indie films with endlessly long scenes where nothing is told to the viewer, I sometimes think that the cost of film stock and processing is a good thing. Forces you to be more to the point.

Hi everyone, as you all know things aren't going so well right now for our big yellow mama Kodak. And let's face it, in case Kodak (and the Vision technology) fades away, for color projects this will be the death blow to film as a serious choice as a recording format. Now my thought is, usually buying stocks (talking about financial stocks here, not film stocks) is seen as gambling, you're trying to maximize your returns by investing in stocks which you expect to rise. But when you buy stocks of a company, it also means that you invest in that company, giving them money to work with. (you should keep that in mind when buying shares of companies with questionable ethics, by the way...) Currently Kodak shares are somewhere around 18 Dollar-Cents. For example buying shares for 50 Dollars will give you around 277 shares. Yes they may drop. Yes you may loose all your money in case Kodak goes belly-up. But on the other hand, as a film affictionado loosing 50 Dollars will be the least of your problems in case we loose Kodak? It sure is just a tiny drop in the ocean, but I guess it's better than just sitting there and doing nothing... Greetings, Marc

Andec Film in Berlin/Germany will process it.. www.andecfilm.de/ Bit far from India, though. Richard, do you happen to know what's special about the Foma processing? Is it only the special internal anti halation layer?

Robert, looking forward to that! I think the N74 might be to grainy for me in S16 though (target format is 2K DCP). I've sent mail to Orwo and I hope they can give me some more information on what's going on. On a side note, for that film project I'm searching for two to three well stored 400' rolls of Plus-X as a replacement for the misbehaving UN54. If someone in Europe reading this has some for sale, let me know! Greetings, Marc

Bummer.. how in the world can they get away with this??

Hey everyone, today I had a test shoot on Orwo UN54. It really gave me some trouble. The camera was a well-maintained XTR Prod that happily ran any Kodak and Fuji material so far no matter how old it was (shrinkage). Loops are set perfectly, double checked all of this. I used fresh UN54 material, ordered 3 weeks ago. The camera runs quite loud right from the start. After running for about 10 to 15 seconds, the camera looses the loop (clearly audible) at which point I switch it off of course. After taking off the mag, re-centering the loop and reattaching the mag the camera is good for another 10 to 15 seconds. After some googling I found this thread (German, use google translate for a translation): http://www.am-neudeck.de/forum/messages/1/373.html?1281891954 Apparently others had this problem as well, with XTR, Minima and SR. Konvas 2M, Arri 16S, K3 and Filmo seemingly work fine. Can this be a problem with perforation tolerances being off? I know the Aaton claw slides in with a wedge shaped move, so could it be this mechanism relies on tight tolerances more than other (older) cameras? This really sucks, I thought UN54 might be usable as a Plus-X replacement, but now I will probably have to go with Double-X I guess.. Any ideas what might have gone wrong here? Greetings, Marc

Hi everyone, when using a video synchronizer (which locks the shutter phase to the CRT), I've read one should adjust phase until the shutter bar is not visible in the viewfinder. But isn't that wrong? In the mirror finder one sees exactly what the film does not see (timing wise), so shouldn't phase be adjusted for the bar being in the picture in the viewfinder? Greetings, Marc