Charles MacDonald

looks a bit like a redox blemish... can you provide further deails on the age of teh film and it's storage. Redox is normally associated with Microfilm, but can affect any thin emulsion B&W film.

B&W was always a niche product, and so might be more because of that, also it MIGHT require more silver as the image in B&W is silver, while the colour stock may use less. You may also want to note that it looks like they will sell ONE CAN of the Vison Color, But you need 3 cans worth to get the 3302. {16mm print film is almost always only sold as two rolls in a 35mm can.} you might want to inquire with the Filmotek- ORWO folks. to see what they offer as an equivalent.

well, D76 was introduced as a motion Picture developer in the 1920s. and Kane was shot for relaese in the 1940s. D96 has replaced it for movie use, although it is still the "Standard" developer for both film comparison and still photography use. I would expect that the LOOK of Kane has more to do with Toland's skill than the chemistry the lab used.

that would be in "Processing KODAK Color Print Films, Module 9 Process ECP-2E Specifications" which should be downloadable here : https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/processing-manuals

this picture is from an old kodak catalog, it gives all the dimensions except for "r"

It is generally assumed that one cannot re-perforate 16mm stock into regular 8 stock. The problem is that film is not dimensionally stable enough to ensure that the existing spacing is close enough that the new perforations will be perfectly centered. if not you will likely get a slight Jump in the image every other frame. here is one site which will sell you a PDF of the standards. https://www.engineertoolonline.com/product/SMPTE-109-2003/ here is another : https://www.pdfonlinestore.com/standards/smpte-109-2003.html you may be able to use that number to find someone else who can supply it. the actual standard for 8mm is actually SMPTE 239-2004 Motion-Picture Film (16-mm) - Perforated 8-mm Type R, 2R standard by Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, 01/01/2004 the Australian archive some some information at https://www.nfsa.gov.au/preservation/preservation-glossary/perforations

for a while almost every production had their own path. Depending a lot on if the picture required many effects. or even if the Negative was cut or if the prints were made from a digital intermediate. (Their was one TV series that used the scan and leave the negative alone method that had to recently go back and cut and scan the negative as the scanning done at the time or original broadcast was not FULL HD. Kodak even at one time made a LOW contrast Print film (Kodak Vision Primetime if I recall) which could be scanned for video. it did not catch on from what I have heard. with digital origination, the opposite of course with Prints when needed made from the digital master..

sometimes their is a hole that corresponds to a sync point to allow the picture and sound negatives to both be printed in -well - sync. Number punches sometimes used to identify individuals rolls. Also sometimes archives will punch a hole in the leader to do chemical tests on an old print.

that is why I suggested to use a cloth to only put it on the back. it is over 10 years since I last tried to use Movie film for home processed stills. at that time I used water to wet two sponges one on tech side of the film, to try and keep the black from getting on the emulsion, as several folks told me that if it got on the emulsion it might never come off. I had to wash both sponges about every 6 inches of film. this was done after the wash step and before the final rinse I was using in home made chemicals which were somewhere in between ECN2 and C41 - I did give a 1 minute extra wash after the sponge step. the negs I recently scanned from that period were within what the scanner software could deal with.

it is soften with the pre-bath, but is very dificult to get off. you might try wiping the back of the film with a microcloth wetted with pre-bath. but I am not sure how to remove THAT to ensure storage safety.

Filmotec makes some ORWO sound stocks, but I have no idea what edge printing they have. the printing down the middle was needed for the SDDS system as it used the rebate area to hold data. I might be tempted to contact the factory in Germany to see what they are doing: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contact Our enthusiastic and experienced team is always ready to help you with expertise and understanding for all your special needs. You can reach us by telephone from Monday to Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. GMT at the following numbers: Managing Director: Jake Seal Phone: +49 (0) 3494 36 96 80 Fax: +49 (0) 3494 36 96 82 e-mail: filmotec@filmotec.de Marketing and Sales Manager: Retirement_Boehme_210531 Opening and delivery times: Monday – Friday 07:00 – 15:00 Global Sales: Terry Bird email: terry@orwo.studio address: FilmoTec GmbH Ortsteil Wolfen Röntgenstraße 3 D-06766 Bitterfeld-Wolfen Germany http://www.filmotec.de http://www.filmotec.com

if your goal is to make new Super 8 Prints, you may want to check used book stores for books about how it was done in the prime days of Super 8. typically the starting point was a low contrast negative made from original sources. the Negative might have been larger than super 8, (16mm or 35mm) and optically printed on Super 8 perforated stock. Super 8 print stock would typcally be be 16mm wide with two rows of perforations, or even 35mm wide with 4 rows of perforations and a "discard strip" with another row, which would be cut off and discarded after processing. (try to find a 1970-ish copy of "eastman motion picture films for professional use" ) as far as making copies from existing super 8 Prints, have you considered that in many countries the copyright laws give the rights to make copies exclusively to the copyright holder for up to 95 years? if you were to negotiate permission, the copyright holder whould no dount perfer that there work be presented in the best light, again wanting prints made from 16 or 35mm pre-print material. the lightest objection, that their is no longer any available print stock, may be overcome as their are a few die-hard firms who can perforate any stock in almost any perforation, although to get unperforated stock from Kodak will likely require a large special order and also some assurance that the project will not cause any harm to their reputation.

when I tried to do this at home, I used to hang up the film over the sink and use two photographic grade sponges, very wet and hope that the one of the emulsion side whould keep the black off the front of the film. I found I had to rinse the sponge for about every 6 inchs of film. still the Pictures (stills) occasionally had a white spot or three. I was using the chemicals one shot, and they were often balck when they came out so some particles were probably enbeded before the development stage was even finished. using that method I don't think I used a prebath so the ugly blackness was loosened by the developer. that said Dale Neviles formulas did produce images that still had full colour 2 years later.

Professional Movie Labs would ALWAYS be using a continuous Processor. with a dedicated section to remove the REM-Jet as the very first step. The Machine will use some sort of water jet and perhaps some sort of Buffer to ensure that the rem jet is washed away and has no chance of getting in the emulsion side. trying to do it in a still darkroom will always require some ingenuity.

And the folks that do that sort of specialized work often will do one batch of each type of film a year, or so - plan on being very patient.

funny you should metion that: This article was in my news feed today... https://www.macfilos.com/2020/09/11/swiss-roll-hidden-for-70-years-these-photographs-were-recovered-from-an-ancient-leica-film-cassette/ now about your can of film, is it colour or Black and white? and if colour would it be acceptable if the image was recovered in Black and white? If colour is their money available. the WWII agfa colour formuals were made public as war reparations and with enough money one could duplicate them. the length of the film also counts,up to 100ft, (30Metrs) something like a LOMO tank could be used. which would allow techniques such as "stand development" where a weak developer is used for an hour or so to attempt to compensate for loss of detail. you are likly to have better luck if te time at 5C was far grater than at 40C.

yes, try to snap Poly film, and you will likely hurt your hand instead. Polyester base Microfilm is rated to last 500 years or more. Polyester is resistant to most chemicals. and can take a lot of heat before it melts. you can play with the emulsion chemically, although it is a similar gelatin coating to that found on acetate base film. One person who used to be associated with Ilford noted that they had a jam on their coating machine while coating some Polyester film, and the machine had to have Bent and Broken Steel Parts replaced.

and the x302 is now only on a poly base 2302/3302 depending on the size. Unless you can find someone to sell you some spooled down, both the Kodak and Orwo stock come as 2 rolls of 2000ft in a 35mm can.

is it a "c" mount unit?

oh and the stuff focus, generally means the lubrication has broken down. someone who knows the tricks has to dismantle the focus and clean out the old lube and put in fresh lubricant, and then reassemble and set the focus..

Ektar was the name Kodak gave to their top of the line Pro grade lenses. the tint is some old lenses is often due to Thorium in the glass. if minor it gives a slight Yellow (usualy) tint to the lens. sometimes treating the lens (carefully) with UV light can remove the tint.

One possible point of confusion is that when the dye transfer process was discontinued, Technicolor switched to making prints on regular Kodak print stocks (or possibly fuji or AGFA stock ) But the credits would still say "Color by Technicolor". The producer may in fact have used one lab for the camera negative and another lab for the prints - "Color by Technicolor, Prints by DeLuxe" And if the movie was so popular that extra prints were needed, yet another lab might have done the work, possibly without the credits being changed.

stick on an 85 filter and you are good to go. small exposure penalty. if you have to shoot daylight film under tungsten, the needed filter has a several stop penalty I believe that the manufacturers could get better grain results by making the film tungsten balanced.

there is the series of Harrison Film Changing Tents - you can find them at places like B&H photo. Biggest one is 48 inches by 28, and 19 high, but will fold away. NOT Cheep. the minilab ones may not collapse easily for storage, but would have solid sides which would be more rugged.

Foma r-100 is a B&W reversal stock. made by foma.cz only other currently made Movie stocks are the Filmotec- ORWO B&W films UN54, and N74. filmotec.de