Alex Anstey

Interesting - this was in the fridge but never frozen, so hoping that works in its favour. Something quite cool and sad in shooting some of the last ever Fuji stock.

Thanks for the replies. Good to understand why this is no longer an option in a lot of labs. Cinelab (UK I should add, not US) had this to say which tallies with Tyler and Robert mentioned: "Regretfully we are no longer able to process Fuji film. Although Fuji ceased manufacturing of motion picture film negatives in 2013, there has continued to be an availability through some distribution channels and private stock holdings. Whilst storing film at low temperatures can sustain its photographic sensitivity and viability for many years, we have found most recently an increasingly unfortunate problem with the removal of the remjet backing at the first stage of the developing process with Fuji stock. This results in contamination of the processing baths at the developing and successive stages. The consequences of this are not only a sub-standard and possibly unusable result with the Fuji film being processed, but the possibility of contamination adversely affecting subsequent film being processed. Whilst we have continued to try to support filmmakers choosing to use any film, we have had to make the decision now to stop processing Fuji stock." Good news is they recommended DeJonghe in the Netherlands who still process it, so for anyone in Europe looking, this seems like the best bet - https://www.postproduction.be/homepage Good to know Cinelab in the US also offer it Robert - thanks for that.

Long shot but has anyone had any luck finding a lab that would process old Fuji stock? I’ve just shot 400ft that I’ve had sitting in the fridge for years only to discover Cinelab won’t process it.

Nothing quite hones the senses and gets the pulse running like the sound of £££ going through a magazine!!

Also worth picking up a copy of Jon Fauer's Arri 35 book which is basically an instruction manual on how to use your BL4 - really good. Version on ebay - https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/185326785867?hash=item2b2656554b:g:y6cAAOSwL69iI67L

Yeah, it's a crying shame as take 482 is very rarely any better than take 1. If anything, as the actors tire, it tends to go downhill. And don't get me started on continuity/energy!

100% this and harks back to my initial post when starting this thread - film brings discipline and thought.

Do they factor in the cost of a DIT/digital lab on set though? + back-up storage of dailies etc.

Haha - would love to single-handedly prop up Kodak's movie division. All excellent news of course, long may it continue!

This bugs me too - a lot of opportunity to create a new film look but so much energy goes into emulating something that already exists! But all good points. Ultimately, content and story are really what's important, everything else is a tool to help convey that, but we will eventually lose celluloid. It will come down to a business decision by Kodak that film is no longer viable and that will be that. Fully aware this debate has dragged on and on, but it seems like this could happen quite soon now (which will be devastating for the annual film vs digital debate!). As Satsuki and Heikki say, better go shoot some film before it goes!

"The cinematographer of Knives Out wants to end the film-vs.-digital debate” - https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-debate-movies-cinematography [WARNING - LUDDITE ALERT!] I think there’s something quite sad about this - it really could be the nail in the coffin for celluloid in cinema in the next few years? One aspect the article misses is that part of the greatness about shooting film isn’t the look, it’s the discipline. I’m working more and more on movies where a level of discipline has gone out the window. Reams and reams of material shot because you can just ”keep rolling”, even between what would once have been separate takes (literally hours of hair and make-up touch ups, etc). Really painful, often completely mindless and, as an editor dealing with so much material, ironically it often results in us missing good moments. I don’t think all that extra coverage necessarily means better performances, there’s a heightened feeling on set when film rolls - all departments and cast rise to that. I love celluloid, love the look, the idea and the ideals behind it. It’s a bit of a shame emulating has become such a thing - the water colourists trying (and now succeeding) to emulate the oil painters. Times change, things evolve, I totally get that. Digital film making has a host of advantages over film - and it can now look truly beautiful (although the ever marching desire for more ‘k’ is getting dull and possibly a bit wasteful as cameras are used and disposed of way too soon - hello new Ursa). I'm sure the Kubricks of the world would have lept at the advantages that digital cinematography brings... But film… I know it’s a pain in the arse, I know it’s bulky and heavy and expensive and slow to process (not necessarily a bad thing - thinking time) but it’s magical and I can really now, finally, see a world where it will no longer exist and that really is sad. (apologies for yet another digital v film thread)

In case anyone ever stumbles across this looking for an answer to a similar question... I replaced the unit with one from a BL3 and all seems to be working fine.

Hi everyone - selling my 2M. In great condition. Very little use and a recently serviced by Olex 17EP motor. Listing here... https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/192606458713

Hi all, looking for a full aperture gate for an Arri BL4s if anyone has a spare lying around.

Hi everyone, The footage/fps readouts on the camera control panel on my BL4s are dead (the unit still turns the camera on and off, just lost the numbers). I managed to find a camera control unit on ebay but from a BL3 that works (albeit reading in meters). Does anyone know if replacing the current unit with this one from the older model might harm the camera? (Had a look in Jon Fauer's book but nothing is said about cross compatibility on these units). Thanks!