John Pytlak RIP

If raw stock is old, or has been stored improperly, both fog and graininess may increase. If you push-process the film, it will accentuate these problems.

My SMPTE Paper "Shedding New Light on Darkroom Illumination" talks about human visual sensitivity, and has a few graphs of sensitivity data: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/...on/page01.blind A dark-adapted eye is VERY sensitive, but not very discriminating of detail or color.

Sounds like that 7246 may have been quite old, or kept improperly. A lab can usually run a "clip test" to check fog level against fresh film of the same type, or even run full sensitometry to see if there is any contrast change. If the fog level is elevated, it's also likely you will have more graininess. Here's information about proper film storage: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/...ical/care.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/sleuth/

As Dominic notes, motion picture EI is based on the exposure required to obtain an "acceptable" image, as well as sensitometry: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/exposure.shtml

Is ANYTHING in the image in sharp focus? If so, you may have just focused incorrectly. Did you check out the camera and lenses before the shoot? Any chance the film was threaded incorrectly, so it didn't seat in the gate properly? :( If the ground glass was removed and put back in incorrectly, the viewfinder image might not represent what was being shot. Did you focus by eye, and check the focus with the lens distance markings?

Photographic gelatin: http://www.usask.ca/lists/alt-photo-proces.../may01/0398.htm A by-product of the food industry, Photographic Grade Gelatin is much purer than gelatins used for food. Kodak founded EASTMAN Gelatin Corporation in 1930, but suppliers worldwide are now also used.

I believe that the issue has been getting 16mm E-6 processing.

I'll second Dominic's warning about rem-jet: NEVER "sneak" a film with rem-jet backing into a process without proper rem-jet removal. It will ruin your film, and any other film going through that process. You will be "persona non grata" for many people. :angry: Kodak color negative films use "colored couplers" that have a coloration that forms a "positive color correcting mask" as the couplers form dyes by reacting with oxidized color developer. So a B&W negative process would develop a silver image, and leave SOME of the colored couplers behind without reacting. As Dominic notes, it MIGHT be possible to bleach the processed film to convert the silver image back to silver halide, then redevelop it in a color developer to form a dye image --- NO guarantees of what the results would look like. :unsure:

The Kodak Entertainment Imaging Website has many articles about production and the choice of film stocks and processing techniques. For example, the keywords "emotional impact" yielded 11 hits, and "mood" gave 106 !: B) http://www.kodak.com/go/motion (use "Search Cinematography" tool in the lower left of the home page)

Definitely consider the use of the new Kodak VISION2 films. :) The 5212 and 5217 are especially suited to blue and green screen work, with the 5212 even sharper than the SFX200. http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...4.4.4&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...techv2_05.shtml

What did they compare the sensitometry to? Normally you would compare the log exposure required to obtain a density of 0.20 above the D-min of the film ("speed point"). So an EI800T film should be 0.20 log Exposure (2/3 stop) faster than an EI500T film, as measured by the sensitometric curve shift at the speed point. If the film had been stored improperly or exposed to radiation, the fog level would be elevated and graininess would increase because the largest grains had been fogged. http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...tructureP.shtml

Here's what Kodak Cinesite is now offering for Digital Intermediate: http://www.cinesite.com/?1221&0&3821 http://www.cinesite.com/img/Cinesite/Holly...ng/di_chart.pdf

Certainly an EI800 film used for 16mm will be more grainy than a slower film. Underexposure or push processing will accentuate that graininess even more. Another factor that can lead to more grain is the age and keeping of the stock. High speed films are especially sensitive to improper storage, and exposure to radiation (either long-term exposure to natural radiation like cosmic rays, or short term exposure during accidental x-ray security inspection). Any chance your stock is old, or stored for a long time without refrigeration, or has been through an x-ray inspection?

Kodak offers a very wide variety of camera films: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...1.4.4&lc=en Here are the Kodak color negative films, ranging in speed and color balance from EI50 Daylight to EI800 Tungsten, and offering a variety of "looks". Choice is often based on speed/grain/sharpness, "look" (tone scale and color saturation), and price. The new Kodak VISION2 stocks offer the most advanced emulsion technology, featuring significant improvements in tone scale and image structure: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...4.4.4&lc=en The color reversal films offer a very different "look", especially when cross-processed: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...4.4.6&lc=en And Kodak continues to offer (and improve) both B&W negative and reversal films: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...4.4.8&lc=en As noted elsewhere, the use of "Digital Intermediate" offers remarkable flexibility in adjusting "look", but it can also "filter" the ultimate quality available from a particular stock. For example, the new Kodak VISION2 100T Color Negative Film 5212/7212 is the sharpest color negative film available today, yet going through DI masks some of this improvement.

Today, even commercial remote sensing satellite images can resolve images as small as about 1 meter across on the ground: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/government/rs/s...ht/ikonos.shtml Images from this Kodak-built satellite imager can be found here: http://www.spaceimaging.com/ For example, here is Baghdad from this COMMERCIAL satellite: http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/top10_2003/top10_1.htm# (Click on the full sized image, and count the cars!) Rumor has it that the true "spy" satellites can read a newspaper's headlines from outer space. B)

I'd also lean toward the 5218, with as close to normal EI-500 exposure you can get. Push if needed. The 5229 will hold slightly more detail in the shadows, but you won't get quite as much density in those night skies. B) http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...4.4.4&lc=en

Kodak has made many of those "eye in the sky" systems: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/government/heritage/ :D http://www.kodak.com/US/en/business/aim/aerial/ Aerial Films

Mitch is correct. Likely best to do a 16 ---> 35 blow-up IP, then introduce the hard matte during optical printing of the 35mm DN (to get black framelines). Or consider the use of digital intermediate.

Look at what's been done in other films. Makeup, costuming, art direction, etc. can be as important as the film choice and lighting. Is it for film finish? Or telecine? Some use 16mm reversal films or even Super-8 for "home movie" or "newsreel" type flashbacks. Avoid the obvious and overused "scratched" or jumpy/splicy look, but do try to match any real footage of that era you may be using. Using the keyword "flashback" in the Search Cinematography tool on the Kodak EI website yielded 20 "hits" of productions: B) http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Generally, noise concerns with really "heavy" color negatives are mostly a matter of the particular telecine used. You require more light, or more gain, to "punch through" the highest densities on the film and get a good low-noise signal. Telecine noise usually shows up first in the highlights.

Malinko --- why so shy? ;)

Kodak's Dr. Roger Morton and his team have presented several technical papers on the subject of film sharpness and dynamic range, and what scanner resolutions are needed to fully capture all the image detail without artifacts. Here are some links (some may need SMPTE membership to access on-line): http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...t2001/dfm.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDe...s/dCinema.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDe...ctron2002.shtml http://www.electronicipc.com/journalez/det...=45390011120508 http://www.electronicipc.com/journalez/det...=45390011120705 The articles are published in the May and July 2003 SMPTE Journal, and the February/March 2002 SMPTE Journals. B) As mentioned, grain size does not necessarily correlate with sharpness. Unlike CCD pixels, where fairly large and uniform sensors are layed out in a regular array (aliasing concerns), film grains are randomly distributed with a distribution of grain sizes, and overlapping grains, with technologies that are used to increase sharpness and reduce light scatter (Kodak T-Grains, interimage effects, absorber dyes, etc.). The very largest grains in the very fastest films are typically less than 5 micrometers in size, with most in the range of a micrometer or two. AFAIK, electronic sensor pixels are typically larger than the largest of film grains.

Are you looking for a particular "look"? B&W films can be processed to achieve different "looks", especially for tone scale. I know the older Kodak films like EASTMAN Plus-X Reversal Film had been available in Regular-8 (2R-1497 perfs) and Super-8. B)

Here's the link to information on the Kodak website: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...4.4.8&lc=en There were some nice demos made to introduce the new B&W Reversal Films last year. Your Kodak representative can probably arrange a showing. B)

Glad to have been of help. B)