Todd Anderson

Very sadden to hear this. But what a fulfilling life he must have lived. It will be very difficult for me to ever sell my Aaton cameras, as they are such beautiful machines. Does anyone know of the "dragonfly" project that he was working on and how close that was to being completed and/ or realized? If my understanding was correct, it was a very small (documentary?) camera — digital as I recall — that he was working on.

Looking forward to hearing the announcement and welcoming a new stock with a different character!

Yeah, I just wish it was just up to the Motion Picture Division, though. Kodak just sold off another division, a portion of their commercial print supply division ("Flexographic Packaging Division") for $340 million to reduce outstanding debt term. I mean, good for them, everything helps and I am glad they have assets to sell. It is just that I always see it as the fait of Kodak lies on how well they can market and sell in all of these vertical markets and / or their commercial print division. There are some positive signs here and there, but they do always seem to be on thin ice. The Motion Picture Division seems profitable, as you say, and from my understanding, but it is such a large "ship" that whole company. I keep crossing my fingers. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190409005268/en/Kodak-completes-sale-Flexographic-Packaging-Division-Montagu

Thank you for the additional information! That at least seems promising that there are some long term options for motion picture stock — as long as there is a demand — especially, if Kodak is not able to stay stable in the coming future. That if it ends up being, like you say, running a batch / roll, and then selling that off or making a pre-order on a batch to be paid in advance for those interested in shooting film. My personal hope is that from a textural perspective — and partially tonal — that the stock your team is working on is closer to the Fuji stocks, or old Agfa stocks, something that is not as clean as the current Kodak stocks are in 35mm (the new Kodaks stocks are wonderful in 16mm, but possibly a little too clean at times in 35mm, in my opinion). Another pallet encouraged!

Again, that is all good news. And I can understand the complexities and difficulties with such a project. If these questions are possible to answer, can you tell me if the production of this particular motion film stock (by this team), if the plan / solution in place — looking towards the next few decades — is something that could be indefinitely produced? Meaning, that you do not see any holes in the infrastructure that would cause an issue? For example, that the parent company or facility that has the actual equipment and means to make the film stock is not dependent on the revenue of making these small batches of motion film to survive? That they have other vertical markets — an industrial market, etc. — that is thriving and what is simply taking place is that they are just doing this on the top of their other business model (I assume, that these will just be small productions runs now and again that your team contacts them to run for you)?

That is good news to my ears. If I may ask, when you say "it is in the works", is this still something that is happening "for certain" with just some details that need to be ironed out before a official public announcement? Or, is there a possibly the deal could still fall through and your understanding is more along the lines of, "this is very likely to happen, but not just certain yet"?

Besides Ferrania out of Italy, whom is the other company that is in line to start making motion picture film in the new few years? And which country do they reside in? Are there any more details, such as formats (16mm / 35mm) and the speed of the stocks they plan to introduce? Color or just B&W? Very interested to know. Thanks!

++ ARRI / ARRIFLEX 235 2-Perf Kit - NEW ++ See the ebay listing below for all the details and pictures, but I have for sale a brand new 2-perforation kit for a Arriflex 235. eBay item number:202005645342 ebay link: http://www.ebay.com/itm/ARRI-ARRIFLEX-235-2-Perf-Kit-NEW-/202005645342?hash=item2f0879881e:g:jkAAAOSwL5pZgQ9D ebay listing below: “Up for sale is a brand new 2-perforation kit for a Arriflex 235, purchased by myself direct from ARRI in New York. The kit includes: (1) factory ARRI 2-perforation movement; (1) 2-perf gate; (1) 2-perf reduction gear and short drive belt; as well as a conversion kit installation manual and carrying case. This 2-perforation kit has never been used and all the pieces in the kit have only been removed from the case to photograph for the ebay listing here. The kit originally cost over $15,000 and were produced in very limited quantities. The kits are at the time of this writing no longer made and of course have long ago been sold off from Arri, themselves. This is a wonderful opportunity for either a Arriflex 235 owner / operator, or a rental house that can capitalize on the recent resurgence of 2-perf film productions. The kit comes with a installation guide and it does not look very difficult, but keep in mind unless you work on cameras it would be best to get a camera tech on your side for the installation. Last time I checked, Arri in New York was charging $500 for installation of this kit (including training in case you need to swap out the kit in the future). I was told Clairmont Camera in Los Angeles will also install the kit for a reasonable price, and I am sure many camera techs would have no problem doing the relatively easy installation. Also, keep in mind that the wonderful thing about the factory ARRI 2-perforation kit is that it was meant to be a kit that could be swapped in and out with your factory ARRI 4-perf or 3-Perf kit depending on what your project calls for. It is not a aftermarket permanent modification. You always have the choice to revert back to 4-Perf or 3-Perf in the future. The number of 2-perforation cameras ever produced are obviously very limited across the world. For a owner / operation, even including this new 2-perf kit in the sale of your camera either now or in the future will no doubt at least double your camera’s worth if and when you plan to sell it. And the same can be said for the rental house in terms of transforming a 4-perf camera into either a item for higher re-sale value, or a item for rent with much greater value. Lastly, a copy of the official invoice I received from Arri (with my street address and phone number removed) is shown in the last image to show proof of purchase. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to send me a e-mail. I should also mention that since I am just an indie film guy and not a dealer, I have to sell the kit "as is", and do not take returns. But feel comfortable knowing I have 100% e-bay feedback. And my selling history of any camera gear I have put up for sale is perfect. Thank you. NOTE: (1) The shipping calculator on ebay is not very accurate, especially with Insurance included. I have added a $30 'shipping and handling' fee to try to estimate the cost of shipping and insurance better. Regardless, if the shipping + insurance is cheaper than what is quoted I will refund any difference in cost. NOTE (2): this auction is for U.S residents only. You must have a U.S. address to ship to. Additionally, any or all taxes that are associated with your particular State are the responsibility of you the buyer. Thank you. NOTE (3): only the items seen in the images of this listing are included in your purchase. No camera is included, as should be obvious.” Thanks — T

I understand what you are saying, Tyler, but I happen to agree with Freya. Also, considering with digital projection, there is no restriction for theatrical options aspect ratio wise these days. And in my comments above, I was suggesting that the gain in a true 2k scan by shooting R16mm vs S16mm was if one planned to finish at 4x3, which was my suggestion (versus cropping). I love shooting interiors, and with 4-perf 35mm (with the extra headroom and foot room), I just kind of fell in love with 4x3, versus cropping for 1:78. The openess of the frame felt natural, and considering lenses are round, you could get a sense that the falloff makes more sense for an image considering it is truer to lens design. Anyhow, to each their own. But I tend to agree with how Kubrick felt, and that is use the whole negative of which ever format you are choosing (I even finish in 1:66 for S16mm and prefer that older European standard versus 1:85 theatrical). I was also pleasantly suprised when I saw 'Jackie' in the theaters (shot S16mm), and that they decided to project that at 1:66, as well. -T

Stephen, I would keep your R16mm Aaton and just start shooting and not worry about S16mm. With the new Kodak film stocks (especially the Kodak V3 50D) and a proper scan, you will be more than happy with the results. Years ago, I started with a Beaulieu R16mm, and then I bought two Eclair ACL’s (both R16mm), and went through the trouble to convert one of my Eclair ACL’s to S16mm — mainly because at that time, before 1080P, it was beneficial to have a Anamorphic 1.78 transfer to DVD for the added resolution. But now with 1080P, you can just have a 1:33 windowbox transfer at 1080P versus a 1.78 letterbox transfer and the resolution of the file will be the same horizontally, wether from a R16mm scan or S16mm scan. What I mean with the above is, because a 2K scan is inherently 1:33:1 (2048 x 1536) if you scan a R16mm frame at 2K (also 1:33:1) , you are actually getting a larger file from the scan than if you scan a S16mm frame at 2K because when you scan a S16mm frame at 2K (1.66:1) it is actually a crop of a 2K scan to accommodate the horizontal aspect ratio. With R16mm, you get a ‘true’ 2K scan which is not cropped, if that makes sense. In other words, your R16mm 2K scan will be 2048 x 1536 as opposed to a S16mm scan that will be about 2048 x 1300, or so. Sure, the grain size will be slightly larger on the R16mm scan, but you will not have a lower resolution file to work with. Also, if you wanted to re-frame and were cropping for a 1:78 finish (I personally would just learn to love the wonderful 1:37 aspect ratio which stands out today in the sea of all those 1:78 digital cameras), or what have you, you would have even more flexibility for any reframing that may need to take place. I sold my S16mm ACL before even using it a while back as I bought a S16mm Aaton XTR. I love my Aaton, but I paid at the time $2000 for a clean ground glass, because since it was a XTR (and not a XTRProd), it had that horrible ‘universal’ ground glass that Aaton’s had, which had markings on the same ground glass for 1.78, 1.33, TV safe, and all this stuff that made looking through the viewfinder and framing (at least for me) a nightmare (the XTRProd's could accommodate user changeable ground glasses, but not so with the plain XTR's or XTRPlus'). So, I had to pay $2,000 for that factory ground glass from Aaton (the camera itself was only $5,500 used) just to get a clean 1.78 ground glass with no other marking inside. I say this, because you are fortunate that you have a 1:33 ground glass that is pretty clean with not a host of other markings. So, again, another positive to the camera you got. Again, keep your Aaton as is at R16mm and just start shooting! I have a Bolex (R16mm) and a 35mm ARRI 4-perf camera and I love shooting and framing both of them at 1:37, which is one of my favorite aspect ratio’s (partially, because I love shooting my medium format still film cameras in the square 6x6 medium format). Coincidentally, I placed a wonderful R16mm zoom lens (that use to belong to my Eclair ACL) up on ebay with a Aaton mount. Read the description in the ebay listing, but it would be a very affordable high-quality zoom lens for your R16mm Aaton (and it is great being T1.8). The lens is EXC+ condition and you will not be disappointed, especially at the current price. Depending on what you are shooting, a light weight zoom is wonderful for certain projects (you do not need to break out the tape measure, but just zoom to focus, wonderful if a one-man band operation project) and then try to find some Zeiss Superspeeds at some point for projects where primes make more sense (likely priced around $500 to $1,000 per focal length). Ebay link for the Angenieux 9.5-57mm H.E.C. T1.8 Zoom Lens that I mentioned above (below): Starting bid at $499.00 http://www.ebay.com/itm/-/201985959358?ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT eBay item number: 201985959358 - T

New link on ebay for the Angenieux 9.5-57mm H.E.C. T1.8 Zoom Lens Starting bid at $499.00 http://www.ebay.com/itm/-/201985959358?ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT eBay item number: 201985959358

New link on ebay for the Angenieux 9.5-57mm H.E.C. T1.8 Zoom Lens $899.00 http://www.ebay.com/itm/201977569299?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649 eBay item number: 201977569299

Sorry, Brian. And, sure, I will make sure it doesn't happen again. My preference is to just keep things in the 'cine marketplace' section on here, but since this particular lens is such a good fit (and, honesty, a wonderful deal) for anyone that may have just picked up a R16mm Aaton LTR or XTR (perhaps, someone that wasn't really looking for used equipment, per se) I was trying to make sure it had a little more presence. But, no worries. I'll make certain to limit doing so in the future.

Hello, I have placed an excellent condition Angenieux 9.5-57mm H.E.C. T1.8 Zoom Lens on ebay. As mentioned below, this lens has the Angenieux "High Effieciency Coatings” and elements which makes for a much higher quality lens optically which is faster, shaper and produced superior contrast images than that of the older style Angenieux lenses. Even if this is the same physical body, it is a completely different breed of a lens and on par with Zeiss 10-100 T2 and Cooke 9-50 16mm Regular 16mm zooms of that era optically. The images it produces are beautiful with more of a “Cooke Look” that is more French. Below is the link and description in the actual ebay listing. Thanks. Bidding price is $949 http://www.ebay.com/itm/201967344966?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649 eBay item number:201967344966 EBAY DESCRIPTION: “Up for sale is the rare and fast Angenieux 9.5-57mm H.E.C. "High Effieciency Coating" T1.8 Zoom. If you are not aware of the difference between the newer H.E.C. coated Angenieux lenses and the older Angenieux lenses, they are a completely different breed and have optics that are equal to that of of the Zeiss 10-100 T2 and Cooke 9-50 16mm zooms of that era. This has to do with the coatings on the lens elements and the glass. The Angênieux High Efficiency Coating (same as that used on 11.5-138 T2.3 HR and 25-250 T3.5 HR zooms) each surface of each element is multicoated. And the glass is Angênieux Fluophosphate low dispersion glass. While having a similar body appearance to that of the older Angenieux 9.5-57mm lenses, this Angenieux 9.5-57mm H.E.C zoom for sale is of much higher quality optically and is faster, sharper and produces superior contrast images than that of the older lenses. The lens for sale here is in extremely excellent condition (both cosmetically and optically) and is a later production model with a 15xxxxx serial number. I doubt you will find another used Angenieux 9.5-57 H.E.C in this condition. The lens was also evaluated (with a clean bill of health) by Duclos Lenses in Los Angeles and Duclos also installed a $350 ARRI-STD mount to AATON mount adapter, which almost feels more like factory mount — it feels that solid and robust. Of course, the adapter can be removed and the Arri Standard mount will be reveal if you need to use the lens with a Arri standard mount camera or install a Arri-Std mount to PL-mount adapter, etc. The lens also includes the Chrosziel lens dampener as seen on the lens in the images. This is a great lens for a regular 16mm Aaton, Arri or Eclair ACL camera. This is of course a lens that was primarily meant for a R16mm camera, as so, S16mm use will have vignetting at certain focal length and aperture combinations. The telephoto end of the zoom would of course not have issues for S16mm use. If you are anticipating using this lens at every focal length on a S16mm camera, you would be able to do so with the limitation of cropping about a 2.35 center aspect ratio and perhaps a little off the sides at the wider end. Personally, I have shot with this Angenieux 9.5-57 H.E.C. on 16mm film and the results were outstanding. The footage telecined on a Spirit 2K at 1080p, and the shots were as nearly as sharp as my Zeiss Superspeed's in the same test and had a nicer feel. I would say this Angenieux zoom is closer to the “Cooke Look”, but “French” in character, if that makes sense. It has a really beautiful feel. If you google " Visual Products Angenieux 9.5-57mm HEC T1.8 " you will see they have a version of this lens for sale for $2,200 without the Chrosziel lens dampener. This lens was designed for professional use when they were produced in low quantities and while I cannot find the exact figure of the original factory price, the older Angenieux 12-120mm zooms were $7,100 in 1985 dollars. I would imagine the 9.5-57mm H.E.C. sold for $10,000 at the time of its production. As so, this was a very expensive lens to make and it shows in the quality of the elements and workmanship. Lastly, the way you can tell if 9.5-57mm zoom is an "H.E.C" is by reflecting the front element coating into the light. The normal coating (the old low contrast Angenieux's ) had just purple and / or amber colors. The H.E.C coating had more of a rainbow of colors like green, yellow and purple all in the same coating (see image #3 in the attached pictures to see some of that green, yellow, and purple I speak of). Also, the front element has a slight curvature if you look at it, where as the older style front element was relatively flat. And lastly, the serial numbers usually started with a 14xxxxx or 15xxxxx (versus the 12xxxxx, and lower of the old lenses) and the lens cap should have the newer san serif bold Angenieux type font.”

I have placed an excellent condition Angenieux 9.5-57mm H.E.C. T1.8 Zoom Lens on ebay. As mentioned below, this lens has the Angenieux "High Effieciency Coatings” and elements which makes for a much higher quality lens optically which is faster, sharper and produces superior contrast images than that of the older style Angenieux lenses. Even if this is the same physical body, it is a completely different breed of a lens and on par with Zeiss 10-100 T2 and Cooke 9-50 16mm zooms of that era optically, It would be a perfect match for Aaton, Arri, or Eclair R16mm camera. The images it produces are beautiful with more of a “Cooke Look” that is more French. Below is the link and description in the actual ebay listing. Thanks. Bidding price is $949 http://www.ebay.com/itm/201967344966?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649 eBay item number:201967344966 EBAY DESCRIPTION: “Up for sale is the rare and fast Angenieux 9.5-57mm H.E.C. "High Effieciency Coating" T1.8 Zoom. If you are not aware of the difference between the newer H.E.C. coated Angenieux lenses and the older Angenieux lenses, they are a completely different breed and have optics that are equal to that of of the Zeiss 10-100 T2 and Cooke 9-50 16mm zooms of that era. This has to do with the coatings on the lens elements and the glass. The Angênieux High Efficiency Coating (same as that used on 11.5-138 T2.3 HR and 25-250 T3.5 HR zooms) each surface of each element is multicoated. And the glass is Angênieux Fluophosphate low dispersion glass. While having a similar body appearance to that of the older Angenieux 9.5-57mm lenses, this Angenieux 9.5-57mm H.E.C zoom for sale is of much higher quality optically and is faster, shaper and produced superior contrast images that the older lenses. The lens for sale here is in extremely excellent condition (both cosmetically and optically) and is a later production model with a 15xxxxx serial number. I doubt you will find another used Angenieux 9.5-57 H.E.C in this condition. The lens was also evaluated (with a clean bill of health) by Duclos Lenses in Los Angeles and Duclos also installed a $350 ARRI-STD mount to AATON mount adapter, which almost feels more like factory mount — it feels that solid and robust. Of course, the adapter can be removed and the Arri Standard mount will be reveal if you need to use the lens with a Arri standard mount camera or install a Arri-Std mount to PL-mount adapter, etc. The lens also includes the Chrosziel lens dampener as seen on the lens in the images. This is a great lens for a regular 16mm Aaton, Arri or Eclair ACL camera. This is of course a lens that was primarily meant for a R16mm camera, as so, S16mm use will have vignetting at certain focal length and aperture combinations. The telephoto end of the zoom would of course not have issues for S16mm use. If you are anticipating using this lens at every focal length on a S16mm camera, you would be able to do so with the limitation of cropping about a 2.35 center aspect ratio and perhaps a little off the sides at the wider end. Personally, I have shot with this Angenieux 9.5-57 H.E.C. on 16mm film and the results were outstanding. The footage telecined on a Spirit 2K at 1080p, and the shots were as nearly as sharp as my Zeiss Superspeed's in the same test and had a nicer feel. I would say this Angenieux zoom is closer to the “Cooke Look”, but “French” in character, if that makes sense. It has a really beautiful feel. If you google " Visual Products Angenieux 9.5-57mm HEC T1.8 " you will see they have a version of this lens for sale for $2,200 without the Chrosziel lens dampener. This lens was designed for professional use when they were produced in low quantities and while I cannot find the exact figure of the original factory price, the older Angenieux 12-120mm zooms were $7,100 in 1985 dollars. I would imagine the 9.5-57mm H.E.C. sold for $10,000 at the time of its production. As so, this was a very expensive lens to make and it shows in the quality of the elements and workmanship. Lastly, the way you can tell if 9.5-57mm zoom is an "H.E.C" is by reflecting the front element coating into the light. The normal coating (the old low contrast Angenieux's ) had just purple and / or amber colors. The H.E.C coating had more of a rainbow of colors like green, yellow and purple all in the same coating (see image #3 in the attached pictures to see some of that green, yellow, and purple I speak of). Also, the front element has a slight curvature if you look at it, where as the older style front element was relatively flat. And lastly, the serial numbers usually started with a 14xxxxx or 15xxxxx (versus the 12xxxxx, and lower of the old lenses) and the lens cap should have the newer san serif bold Angenieux type font.”

I have placed an excellent condition Angenieux 12-120mm Zoom Lens on ebay. Below is the link and description in the actual ebay listing. Bidding price is $299. Thanks. http://www.ebay.com/itm/201967335813?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649 eBay item number:201967335813 EBAY DESCRIPTION: “Up for sale is a extremely excellent condition Angenieux 12-120mm F2.2 Zoom lens. I doubt you will find a cleaner used Angenieux 12-120mm zoom on ebay, or elsewhere. This one feels like it was barely used, and is silky smooth when you turn the zoom and focus. I would rate this lens about a "9" or "9.5" on a scale of 1-10 for used lens of this era. There may be some very, very small cosmetic blemishes on the outer barrels of the lens, but certainly not the glass and it, again, feels as if it was barely used. It is just very smooth. In short, the lens will be one of the cleanest you may come across. The lens has a factory Arri B-mount, but adapters to PL-mount are readily available. As this was a factory R16mm lens, if you intend to use this with a S16mm camera, there will be some limitations. According to the very reputable CinemaTechnic site, the Angenieux 12-120mm zoom covers S16mm at minimum focus at about 40mm through 120mm and at infinity focus from about 15mm through 120mm. I imagine you may be able to find more information to verify those numbers on the internet yourself and even examples off footage shot. I would also imagine if you were to extract about a 2:35 center from the frame (and, perhaps, if needed, a little off the sides on certain focal length / aperture combinations) you could use this lens close to its full zoom range on a S16mm camera with such limitations. Thank you.”

David, thank you for the additional information on 'Ritual'. It sounded like a good production choice to have that location for most of those three weeks. And I finally finished 'Love Witch'. The cinematography — and color pallet control and handling —was certainly a enormous part of the films success, in my opinion. And I really enjoyed your informative interview on the extras. Nice to hear both your articulation — and passion — for the films traditional approach, as well.

David, Two things: 1) I finally got around to watching the DVD of “"Ritual" that I purchased. Wow, what a beautiful look with the Agfa stock. And just beautifully lit in general. It is too bad there is no way to convince the rights holders to make a 2K scan of the negative for a limited run as a blu-ray release. I suppose they unfortunately would feel they may not see the return they would like. I’m not sure how difficult it would be for yourself and the director to throw together a Kickstarter page for such a proposal, but I wonder if that is a feasible option? But it is a pretty interesting film and holds together very well for what you said was only a 300K budget at the time. Do you recall how many interior and exterior shooting days you had at the actual home location? And do you recall the cost per day at that location? Such a beautiful property and adds so much production value. I’m sure the expense would be five times for such a location now in the Los Angeles area. 2) I received the blu-ray of ‘Love Witch’ in the mail yesterday. I was back late, so I was only able to watch the first forty minutes of the film, but the transfer looked incredible, as did the look and feel of the film (I loved the tea room scene with the pinks. The close-ups on the lead actress looked amazing). Did you say the digital transfer of the blu-ray was sourced from a 2K scan of a color timed IP? Very nice textural quality. Great to see a 35mm (very) independent feature film of this nature being made in a time when it is too easy to just resort to digital. The extra effort really got as close as modern day film stock / production option wise possible to that 1950’s look. Wonderful. Best, Todd

If anyone knows of a place that has specifically re-celled the factory Arri 235 on-board batteries successfully, I would love to know. I've heard a few varying stories that range from, "no problem", to "the battery packs are kind of glued in there a bit and you have to scrap off all this excess glue and that makes them a bit more difficult". Thanks in advance.

Kenny, Thank you for the addition information. And, yes, the latitude seemed wonderful. I usually shoot with a Aaton XTR, but I am taking a small trip to Portland and it is of course easier to just travel with a wind up Bolex. I went ahead and purchased a new roll of 50D and 250D from Kodak, but I am going to bring along two rolls of my expired film (a roll of 50D and 200T), as well. I hope to have time to shoot both the new and expired. We'll see... And yes, I would love to see the results of the expired Reala footage. Post it back in this tread if it ever comes in! — T

Jay, I now understand. Thanks for the additional information. —T Kenny, Yes, I saw the white specs around the 2:20 mark. Looks like it only effected those brief few seconds. Not too bad. The majority of the footage had a really nice / interesting look. Color will always be subjective, even if it is fresh stock, but your footage looked fairly natural in some areas and then other areas had this sort of interesting ’bleached’ look in some of the colors and the flesh tones. It was also super clean grain wise. I'm sure getting plenty of even light helped with that. Did you color grade the footage yourself, or did you have the post house grade it? Thanks again! Todd

Jay, Thanks for the information. You mention the stock had set in an un-regulated building for 5 years. Do you mean it was sitting at room temperature for that time frame, or something more extreme (I’m assuming it wasn’t refrigerated)? —T Kenny, That footage looks fantastic! And the content of your little piece is wonderful. I love everything about it. Do you know the storage history of the roll you shot? Was is stored at room temperature, in the fridge, or in the freezer as far as you know? Or, did your friend just have it laying around? Also, you mentioned some of the film’s carbon backing sticking to the emulsion. Did that cause any sort of complications with the film processing or scanning? (meaning, were you leaving behind any residue of that backing during the lab or post house’s respective processing or scanning)? Lastly, was the scan from a ARRI scanner, Spirit, or Lasergraphics? Did you receive LOG DPX files and colored the footage yourself, or were you given a color collected ProRes quicktime file from the post house? Thanks again for sharing, I appreciate it. —T

Hello, I have two sealed loads of 50D (7245) and one sealed load of 200T (7293) of 16mm Kodak EXR stock. I bought these used many years ago. So, there is a possibility of not knowing the early storage history. I have had them through about three location moves and believe I have kept them in the fridge most of that time (they were a few years old, I believe, when I purchased them fifteen years ago). I was thinking of loading them up in my Bolex and just having some fun (nothing that would be critical if it was a failure; besides the development cost and scanning). I sometimes like shooting expired still film stock (though, more in the four to six year old range). I realize there would be mild to heavy graininess associated with loads and some major color shifts, which I am not too concerned about as long as the grain isn't the size of golf balls. I imagine the 50D will have been holding up better than the 200T. I was thinking to overexpose by one to two stops to compensate. What do you think? Anyhow, has anyone else shot any twenty year old 16mm stock lately and had it developed and scanned? Let me know your thoughts! Thanks, Todd

David, I hope with all the information you have gathered, your details notes on many of your shoots and your all around technical and artistic talent, you have a book on cinematography in the works, even if it is slow going. Let me know if you do get around to it, if that is the case, and I will help you with the design. —T

David, Thank you for posting the Agfa stock frames. I just ordered a used copy of the DVD on Amazon. The lighting looks amazing and very naturalistic. No doubt the monochromatic production design / color pallet is subconsciously making me make it feel lower contrast, but it does seem closer to how I view the Fuji Eterna stocks. Though, I see your mention of overexposing, so I assume that is playing a part in contributing to that sort of milky / slightly ‘flashed’ look I perhaps see, too (non-telecine related color / contrast shifts, notwithstanding, of course) Perhaps, the only benefit from the film sitting for five years is that you eventually got a DVD release versus a VHS for your personal library. But I imagine it must be frustrating having to wait that long when the whole crew put in such an effort and could have likely used everything for their respective reels. For the DVD, was the 4x3 just a ‘open matte’ transfer from 1.85 center ’academy’ framing? And in those days, would they have even asked you if you would have liked to sit in on the DVD / telecine transfer? Thanks again for sharing. — T