John Woods

Interesting link.

So if you wanted to incorporate colour negative into a B&W project the only way is to get an interpostive made and then create a B&W internegative from that?

AFAIK nearly all B&W films can be processed as a negative or a positive, its just that some are designed to work better with a particular process. Since you're not worried about getting lab perfect results just something workable you've got a lot of freedom to experiment with.

You should try some test strips of push processing as 200asa is not a stop faster than 160asa. You could try solarizing the 7222. You could also create your own contact prints, which can be done by hand with a photographic enlarger and a 16mm sync block, or on a steenbeck with a slight modification. Main Film has a JK optical printer which can also create positive prints.

Just how is the orange mask overcome in colour printing? Using cyan or other subtractive colour filters?

How much film can those projectors handle? 10ft or so?

Charles, interesting little camera! It looks quite compact, what are the dimensions? Did that film come out of the camera?

My cores look exactly like those ones where the film is held on by a brass ring.

If you're interested send me a PM with your address and I'll mail you a couple cores so you can use that camera.

Your friend is lucky to have someone put so much time and effort into such a unique gift.

Where did you acquire these toy projectors? Are they a vintage gadget from the 70s?

Pay the money for an HD transfer of all the footage, there are many quality places to use in Europe, you'll get your film back on HD with no regrets. Do the SD thing if you think you'd be content to keep the film SD, otherwise you're paying to get the film transferred twice and then you have to spend time re-cutting the HD footage.

The other option is to invest in an HD S8 transfer machine, do it yourself and then corner the lucrative English S8 to HD market!

I've got some of this 7207 Tri-X negative expired film from the 80s. The box is marked as Gun Camera Refills. Its double perfed with Regular 8 perfs and comes on a tiny non-standard core that won't fit on anything that a regular camera uses. I got it cheap and will spool it onto daylight spools for some tests.

I'm curious if anyone knows anything about this type of film (like what R.P. stands for?) or about gun cameras and why it uses R8 perfs (better registration?). Thx!

The advice I was given was overexpose by about a stop to overcome the base fog of old film and then push one stop for each decade of age.

I shot some decade old film earlier this year, it was EXR stock maybe 200T. I did the above advice, processed and printed by Niagara Custom Lab, looked great, that is it was great for what it was. Contrast wasn't great and it was grainier than normal but with good colour.

Thanks for the link. Makes sense, even with lag Canada often gets on some products I can't imagine that all of those 1970s NFB films were all shot on reversal.

Does anyone know when colour negative film first became available on 16mm (and perhaps what the stock was)? I had been told that it was surprisingly late, like not until the 1980s but he wasn't 100% sure.

I havn't tried it or seen the results but Niagara Custom Lab have started offering this service for 16 & 35. They have a sample of the cost breakdown on the page by using recanned stock you can get 5 min for as low as $500 and that price includes optical sound.

http://www.niagaracustomlab.com/digitaltofilm.html

You could also shoot one frame at a time off a monitor.

I don't know what prices/labs are like in London but if you're sure your camera works, then there isn't really a need to burn a full 100' on a magazine test unless you've got the cash to burn. I'd do a scratch test with short end (5-10 ft) and then shoot maybe 10-20 feet and process it to a negative only & inspect the negative visually. Edge fogging might not show up in a telecine. You could also maybe get a workprint struck which would cost less than a transfer. If you tell the lab its a magazine test they might have a deal to offer on a tiny amount of film or have their lab techs look at it for you and give an assessment.

Also if you're set on getting the footage transferred, it'd be better to get it done to a cheaper tape format than digibeta. The tapes are expensive and there is no need for additional expense or the higher quality for what would be waste footage.

He doesn't have a fancy Spirit to work with but this guy has a good eye and his rates are quite reasonable, especially for small amounts: http://www.framediscreet.com/super8mmtransfers.htm

As far as shooting B&W neg. is there any reason why so many alternatives to just calling up these manufacturers are proposed? I normally bleed Kodak Red and Yellow. But it doesn't get any simpler than shooting an analog to Plus-X. Wasn't "Good Night and Good Luck" or one of the other recent digitally desaturated "Black and White" movies commenting how even 500T stock was quite fine-grained even in relation to Plus-X? Granted that was 35mm. . .

IIRC one of the stated reasons they went with 500T was because they could work with a smaller lighting budget. A reasonable statement but given that countless small films have shot Double-X when their BFL is a 2K I think they were just hiding behind studio constraints, either that or modern filmmakers are just addicted to 500 iso. Even the Coens were forced to shoot The Man Who Wasn't There on colour neg because of studio demands.

It seemed like a missed opportunity when even Corbjin's Control was shot on colour neg.

I think we both made the bath too strong. I read the same Ilford data sheet and thought it would work out. I ended up developing the rest of my film by skipping the bath stage altogether and going for a more thorough wash. Looked good IMHO.

Interesting, I had a similar experience this weekend. Read the same Ilford sheet, and used metabisulfite with the same results. Clearing bath was cloudy, a blue-purple tinge IIRC, and the film had a very very faint image, almost completely clear in places. I havn't had time to do some further strip tests since then, but some further research suggests that metabisulphite is more acidic than its sulfite form, so perhaps a smaller does or shorter time is in order. I used two teaspoons for 1 liter of water.

I forgot to mention that Cherry Kino has a free booklet on hand processing:

http://cherrykino.blogspot.com/2010/11/diy-filmmaking-booklet.html

Also in that blog post you can find a link to download a pdf of Recipes for Disaster by Helen Hill, which is loaded with DIY film techniques.

It all depends on what you think are 'decent results' :)

There are no current books dedicated to hand processing cine film AFAIK, but The Darkroom Cookbook is one of the most well regarded reference books if you are looking for chemical formulaes. Also, The Book of Alternative Photographic Process, is worth a read once your experienced and if you're looking for ideas for experimental techniques. That book is not quite as transferable to cine film but is full of cool techniques that you won't read about in many places.

I like this site that transcribes a book published in the 50s, its got forumlaes and covers the basics: http://www.siltec.co.uk/0_chapter_links.html

Also search Vimeo for "hand processed" and you can get a lot of samples of what you can do.

If you're planning to get this film finished digitally then why don't you shoot with tungsten light and shoot a chart for your first shot. Correct the colour to this chart on the computer and use those colour settings on the rest of the footage.

The humidity concerns are valid but the advantage of storing in the fridge is that the film is kept at a constant temperature. I think that fluctuations in temperature shorten a film's lifespan. A friend of mine has kept a hoard of exposed 35mm still film (Fuji & Kodak 400-800 asa) for 6+ years. For a surprise last summer I grabbed a couple rolls and got them developed and the film looked good.

I'm intrested in the reversal process since it has the advantage of not having to buy more film to make a positive. i guess i'll start saving for a tank then.

You should start with the bucket or spaghetti method. Get some plastic buckets often you can find these for free in back alleys. And dunk your film from bucket to bucket. I recommend you start with a strip test or two, pull a couple feet out of your cartridge and then experiment with developing times and see if you like the results.

This method will result in extreme scratches, emulation flaking and uneven processing but it works and with aggressive agitation you can get results with very little chemistry. Larger amounts of chemistry, gentle hands and experience you can quite minimize the scratches. If you like the process then spend the money on a russian tank or a g-3.

Don't be afraid to experiment! Too many beginners worry about having everything perfect the first time out. Shoot a test roll around your house of your family & friends. Learn from that roll, then get more ambitious.

Hand processing can be quite rewarding, especially if you get over the fact that you are not going to get results like a pro lab (especially when you are learning) and embrace the power of hand processing. Push/pull, solarization, tinting/toning, etc. can be done at your whim. If you are mixing your own chemistry you can alter the formula for your own look. Remember Kodak's formula's and timings are just one way, there are books and websites with lots of information on manipulating film chemistry.

Hi my local film co-op is looking for a Cramer 8/16mm film processor and a JK Optical Printer (preferably with a S8 gate). Send me a PM if you've got either. Thanks!