Robert Houllahan

Yeah the Imperx dual camera-link camera I use is 4112x3008 12-bit at 14fps I think the Flir is 4096 pixels wide and not sure of the rest of the specs so yeah different machine vision camera manufacturers setup the same sensor in different ways.

This is because the Scan Station does almost everything in CUDA on the GPUs and at least on my SSP the Scan Station app is 32bit and does not use much memory or CPU, CUDA is why it is so fast.

I think the IMX-253 (4112x3008) Pregius sensor goes down to 14FPS at 12-bit and 33fPS at 10bit in CameraLink or even less in GigE Not sure if that is a sensor or interface limitation I run one using CamerLink on the Xena we do 8mm on and get 14FPS with machine vision GPU stabilization going. I scan to a 100Tb 8G FibreChannel raid formatted to NTFS and can scan and render to a Mac over 10Gb/e simultaneously the Xena runs Win10 so I am not seeing a frame rate limitation on that FC Raid system. The Xena Win10 box sees it as a local disk and the Mac is a SMB share.

Hahaha no you cannot pay a lab to develop in caffenol and it would not work anyway the time in developer in a linear processor will be far far too fast for that.

Yes you can, I think any B&W Stock can be developed that way. It will likely yield a grainier look than what we do as a lab in a linear processor with F76 developer.

If 7266 is shot properly is is not particularly grainy it has a smooth look imo and it is only when underexposed and pushed that it builds up allot of grain. If you overexpose Tri-X it gets thin and ghostly looking as there is not allot of latitude but I do like that look personally for some things. 7222 has more latitude to work with and takes well to being pushed we just did a really nice spot for Beats by Dre which was almost all 35mm 5222 pushed +1 and +2 and it has great subtle texture and was shot with hard light with allot of contrast and dark areas.

Fuji may have recommended a different pre-bath formula but I can guarantee that no lab every mixed that. We used to have a deal selling Fuji stock I think we sold 400ft 16mm with process and a transfer for $120... sold allot of it... those were the days of sub $100 400ft 16mm rolls.... I have never personally liked the idea of freezing film to keep it and I definitely think that contributed to rolls of Fuji having backing removal issues. We did have 100ft come through recently and it had no problem.

7266 tends to be more contrast with less grain and it is usually run as Reversal so a positive and has less latitude. 7222 has more latitude (it is a negative stock) with more grain but if it is run in F76 the grain can be really nice. Also takes to a push +1 or +2 well in F76 developer.

We run it (it is getting rarer and rarer) but the Rem-jet tends to stick. Fuji is ECN2 it is not a different process but for some reason the Rem-Jet backing tends to stick on Fuji stocks now especially down on the tighter end of the wind i.e. end of the roll. Any lab running ECN2 can run it but the results will vary, we ran a 100ft roll of F250 about three weeks ago which was fine.

I have run allot of feature length films with small budgets through Cinelab over the years and there are ways to make it work even on very small budgets. The cost of scanning has dropped allot which kind of offsets the increase in the cost of film stock. Really depends allot on the subject matter and creativity of the people making the film. Also frankly there is allot of fetishistic tendencies towards camera gear and what scanner and all kinds of stuff that does not necessarily show up on screen but people want on set. If the writing is good and the cast can act you can make a film with a olde aaton some vintage glass bubble gum and duct tape.

Nobody is really using a Rank-Cintel telecine much anymore, even the "Classic" Spirit is largely gone now. The Universal MK2 makes a somewhat good image for what it is, the camera has limited dynamic range and there is no built in optical-GPU stabilization like a Scan Station or Xena 6.5K etc. Also I am not sure if the 2K image size is the picture area on that or wider like the Blackmagic. Also the lamp on the Universal MK2 is rudimentary and does not adjust RGB to match the stock. The Blackmagic Cintel scanner will do a better job and those are pretty "cheap" at $30k and maybe allot less if you can find a used one. It is also limited in resolution to about 2K wide for the whole 16mm frame.

Probably a sort of standard 10%-20% of the original cost i.e. $45K-$85K

Could very well be poor turbulation / agitation the developer in ECN2 is very agitated in processing not only by the film traveling in a continuous processor but also by wands driven by pumps that agitate the tank.

Ok I can share this now, all Push 5222 some +1 and some +2

We made them some 16mm prints from digital for on set 16mm projection / props. Have not got around to watching it yet.

That has not been our experience with X-Processing VNF in ECN2 and it can look really great once it is graded.

Well that is true but also some people will want to use it for it's unpredictable and damaged texture or look if they shoot is as I was for my friends with the Plus-X. Here is that vid, a mix of 1962 Plus-X neg some R8 Fomapan and Canon C500. digi. And then there are found films which need to be developed. For the found or shelved films which need to be run it often comes down to a simple will it work question? We ran a set of EXR Color negative films in ECN2 last year that had been in the fridge of a museum since 1984 and the results were quite good in ECN2 in a PhotoMec processor. With mild color shift and quite reasonable fog levels on almost all the rolls and just two had a bigger color shift. Some of the films were outside in bright sun and some were shot within the submarine the museum had acquired and so they were in darker lighting. Once scanned they were brought into quite good color balance. I have noticed that films with latent images tend to have less fog than unshot stocks.

XX22 can look really great but you have to use the right developer and do a good target test. We just ran a huge pile of 35mm for a Beats commercial and a number of rolls were Push +2 shot in hard contrast lighting so lots of falloff into shadow and it really looked great. The right developer bath can really make the grain really nice on the stock. ECN converted to B&W never looks right to me.

I would just add that B&W Stocks just do not have the "falloff" that color stocks do. I shot a music vid for some friends a few years ago and used a can of Plus-X 16mm negative that had expired in 1962 and in bright sunlight the stock looked really spectacular rated at 40iso which was a stop down from the can 80iso rating. I think the big driver of color stock fade and fog is the dye couplers being a bit more volatile and without them B&W really stays more stable over time.

Nope no connection.

VNF really cannot be run in a linear E6 machine we always do a X-Process in ECN2 for VNF,

We do them but honestly if you want to use or sell the stock I would not bother. If you have a production that expects it to be perfect you or they should / would buy fresh stock. Expired stock is great for music vids or ad work that wants more texture. I shot a MV for my friends and used a can of 16mm Plus-X negative that expired in 1962 and it looked fantastic. We are running a bunch of VNF 16mm as X-Process in ECN now for a pretty serious film that the DP wants the specific look for and it can look amazing with the right touch and that stock is quite expired indeed.

It is fussy to run and E6 chemistry is more complex and gets exhausted faster than ECN so all around it is a miracle that we even have Ektachrome is 2022.

Ten years is really not all that old and if you figure overexposing a stop per decade the stock should be in ok shape. Also people do like aged stock for certain types of work as it will have more texture.

Hey what exactly is the point of this? Can this be kept to a specific area of optical sound and not go all over the place? Its a million posts now. it seems that there are a few ways to approach optical sound recording. 1. analog semi free run D to A i.e. the subject header. 2. Analog with sync to an encoder so analog data can be correlated to run of the capstan. 3. Digitizing with picture taking imager (AEO) 4. Digitizing with a separate track reading camera. not to diminish the possibilities of optical analog sound but if wow and flutter can be eliminated 3/4 of these the approaches all seem like they are workable depending on the amount of post work to be done. ymmv