John Pytlak RIP

Plus-X Reversal 7265 would be my choice.: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/s8mm/t7265.jhtml

In most cases, the camera original film is "pushed" or "pulled" in processing. Most labs simply change the speed of the processing machine to affect the time the film spends in the developer, which is where the actual development occurs. Care is needed to assure the other solution and wash times are not compromised by changes in machine speed.

Once a still film is reformulated and optiimized for motion picture use, it becomes part of the motion picture lineup, and its business case is determined by motion picture.

I just finished another round of IV chemotherapy to hopefully slow the inoperable cancer, which has caused partial obstruction of my small intestine. So far, the side effects are tolerable, mostly fatigue. I am mostly on a liquid diet, but can tolerate a small amount of solid food like soft boiled egg and well-chewed sausage. If I overdo the food intake, I can get painful cramps due to the obstruction. When I am feeling good, I like to keep up with my friends on the Internet groups. On good days, I still can drive short distances like to the pharmacy or grocery store. For now, I am on disabilty leave from Kodak since last September, when the cancer was first diagnosed in my appendix.

1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform) can no longer be manufactured per the "Montreal Protocol", since it can deplete the upper ozone layer. Any still on the market is recycled material. Kodak won the EPA 2003 Stratospheric Ozone Protection award for developing Particle Transfer Roller (PTR) film cleaning technology that has minimized the need for solvent cleaning. (I led the development team): http://digitalcontentproducer.com/pr/video...k_receives_epa/ Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene, "Perc") is used for wet printing and film cleaning. It's main use is by the dry cleaning industry. Disposal, and vapors are regulated, but it is not banned. Most labs have efficient recycling systems for perc liquid and vapors.

If the unexposed film edges do not reach a good "D-Max" opaque, the problem may be stock that is too old or stored improperly, or a processing issue. Has nothing to do with exposure.

Still on a mostly liquid diet, and able to tolerate only a limited amount of "low bulk" solid foods like soft boiled egg or well chewed sausage. My new chemo on March 5 "knocked me for a loop" with severe fatigue and nausea. But am much better now, even getting out the house by driving to shopping etc. Next round of chemo is Tuesday, April 3, and I expect to feel sick for a few weeks after. But it is the only medical hope of shrinking the tumors that are causing a partial blockage of my small intestine. Cancer is a bummer! But life goes on.

One key to obtaining sharp and steady images on a contact printer is the relationship of the perforation "pitch" to the printing sprocket the original and raw stock are wrapped around. Bell and Howell found that a printing sprocket of about 12 inches circumference was just right to prevent slippage between a processed nitrate negative that had about 0.3 percent shrinkage from processing, and the unshrunken nitrate print stock. This legacy survives today, such that a "short pitch" (e.g., BH-1866 perf) negative is printed to a "long pitch" (e.g., KS-1870 perf) print stock. In effect, today's triacetate negatives are "preshrunk" to maintain the 0.3% pitch differential dating back to the days of nitrate film when Bell and Howell optimized continuouse contact printing parameters.

I agree with Mr. Mullen's response. Any 800T you find on the short-end market today will probably have some age degradation --- increased fog level and graininess, and it had a fairly high level of graininess to begin with. The Kodak VISION2 500T Color Negative Film will yield superior image structure, even if push processed: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products....4.16&lc=en

Intercutting color and B&W silver image print film can be problematic, since the silver image film absorbs more infrared energy in the projector, and often will have a focus shift. Best to have splice free prints on color stock. More and more B&W films are released on color stock, since some theatres have "lost the handle" on properly handling B&W silver image prints (heat issues, focus shift, need for print lubrication). Large volume release processing of B&W prints often requires special lab setup.

A film that old (even B&W) has likely suffered some adverse aging effects.

Kodak has a worldwide lab directory online: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/....4.17&lc=en Kodak has several sales offices in China that can provide film and help locally: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/about/ww...amp;lc=en#china CHINA (Peoples Republic) Kodak (China) Ltd Beijing Liaison Office #1 Guanghua Road, Chaoyang District Kerry Center, 9th Floor Beijing 100020, China Phone: 8610 6561 6561 Fax: 8610 6561 2199 Kodak (China) Investment Ltd, Shanghai Liaison Office Building 8, Jinqiao Office Park No. 27, Xin Jin Qiao Road, Pudong Shanghai 201206, PRC Phone: 8621 5884 1000 Fax: 8621 5884 1720 Kodak (China) Limited, Guangzhou Liaison Office 10F, Office Tower China Hotel by Marriott Liu Hua Road, GuangZhou 510015, China Phone: 8620 8666 9888 Fax: 8620 8667 2230 http://www.kodak.com/CN/zh-cn/motion/motion_home.jhtml

A slower film like 7212 or 7217 would likely be fine after three years of refrigerated storage. But if it were not handled or stored properly (e.g., it spent a few days in a hot camera truck, or was air-shipped and x-ray inspected), there could be issues. For anything critical, have your lab run a clip test.

5218 has lots of latitude for overexposure. An extra stop of exposure (rating the film EI-250) will give you a very "solid" exposure with lots of shadow detail and a finer grain structure. Pull-processing will reduce contrast, and is not needed unless that is the "look" you want.

Kodak normally does not put an expiration date on professional motion picture film products. Older film may suffer age effects such as loss of speed and contrast. Even with refrigeration, natural radiation can fog film over a long period of time. If you suspect the film has been improperly handled or stored (e.g., subjected to heat or x-rays), a clip test is highly advised. Older films are automatically pulled from Kodak's distribution channels when testing shows aging effects.

Kodak has consolidated all motion picture films to Rochester base making and sensitizing. The base making, sensitizing and finishing equipment in Rochester is state-of-the-art. If anything, efficiencies in making film have occurred due to the consolidation. Kodak is unlikely to build any new base making or film sensitizing lines (original cost was hundreds of millions dollars each), but the equipment we have today is well maintained, and upgraded constantly. There are several active development programs for new motion picture stocks. B)

I suspect it was not a film print, as "poor registration" could have been a setup problem with the digital projector. Was there color fringing? How did the pre-show trailers look? Whether it is film or digital projection, a skilled projectionist is needed. I've seen too many digital presentations with obvious problems like flare from dirty optics.

In most cases, a tungsten balance film would be used for a night exterior with mixed building lighting, automobile headlights, and street lights in the scene.

For a cityscape of lit buildings and streets, EI500 should be more than sufficient. In general, shooting "wide open" with 7218 should give you a fairly solid negative that will yield rich blacks on transfer.

If you've been pleased with FotoKem, why not continue to work with them? A good relationship with your lab should be nurtured.

I agree, for a video release, you can easily get the "reversal" look in post production during the transfer from camera negative. Stock choice and exposure can be used to achieve any graininess you may desire. If you want to originate with reversal, 5285/7285 are fine, but the 100D speed rating may be a limitation.

5277 definitely gives a "softer" look than 5218. Since the film you have is likely several years old, you should definitely do a "clip" test, or better yet, shoot a few representative scenes to look at tone scale and graininess. http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...tive/5277.jhtml

A bit of overexposure will usually help with shadow detail, especially on an older film like 5279. 5218 has superior latitude, finer grain, and better shadow detail.

Since KODACHROME film does not have incorporated dye-forming couplers, processing in any other color process will yield no image. Processing in a B&W negative process will yield a B&W silver image.

Just a quick health update: I'm still on the full liquid diet (no solid foods), since January 1. Even so, my liquid nurishment is having a tough time going through my small intestine due to partial blockage, as I get cramps in the latter part of each day. Just completed my third round of chemotherapy, which hopefully will open things up again. Only major side effect of the chemo has been fatigue -- I need to take at least one long nap each day.