Christian Flemm

I wasn't able to capture the clear difference between the old and new material with my phone, but this photograph nonetheless illustrates the difference in appearance of the remjet-free stuff to the old stuff.

I think this is true only if the material running through the magazine is entirely without remjet. The jets of water that help remove the remjet remain on all the same if there is remjet and remjet-free material running through the machine all at once in the same magazine. In theory it would be possible to control for this variable by looking at the roll number if the sticker remains on the tin, or by snipping some film from the customer material and observing it with the naked eye (the base side of the remjet free material is brownish compared to the black color of the base side of the remjet material), but then it becomes a bottleneck in the workflow process, and a matter of enabling and disabling part of the processor to use less water.

As of yet the removal process isn't skipped. The new material runs in the same mag as the remjet material. It passes through the prebath and wash steps all the same - the only difference being that there is no remjet to remove. Kodak print films also had remjet at one point (in this domain I have experience with EXR print film, which was also confectioned without remjet), so machines processing ECP-2E had at one point to also run through a remjet removal process. Once print films with remjet were phased out, the lips and hoses relevant to remjet removal bath were also removed from the processor. Time will tell if the same thing happens with the ECN-2 process. But as far as I am concerned the process designation stays the same. Additionally, if we are talking technicalities, the process remains ECN-2 or ECP even if you run a skip bleach, so I cannot imagine the designation of the ECN-2 process changing at all.

d

I'm not at liberty to go in to much detail, but it was a 200 ASA B/W film that was made in-house by Lucky (Average gradient 1.8; Fog gamma .07). No other companies involved. It may be the thinnest modern emulsion I've ever handled. Rob - I'm not sure what machines you have at Cinelab, but we determined that it needs roughly 30 seconds longer in the developer than 5222 to hit our target density.

I've run acetate-based Foma R100 reversal film and Agfachrome 200D (polyester) - both with KS perfs - through my 2C without any mechanical problems whatsoever. On the image side, I've noticed that shooting KS-perfed film on my 2C results in an ever so slight loss in image steadiness. As Dom says, it's important to inch the mechanism forward to make sure that you're totally lined up. Otherwise, if you ask me, you shouldn't experience any problems. As for the Lucky material, we just ran some 16mm Lucky stock through the lab, and it was on a polyester base so thin that you could tear it. Not sure about the material in your posession, but maybe start with that stock if you're worried about damaging the pulldown claw.

Hi Ali, Your best bet would be to contact Kodak directly. They are cutting and canning this material on-demand. As so few productions are shooting on it, and as the material is so valuable (even as a still film), you're unlikely to source it otherwise. We see this material at the lab every so often in Berlin but beyond Poor Things the processing has almost exclusively been for advertisement shoots. Contact EIAmericas@Kodak.com and ask. A fresh 400ft roll should run you just over $500 USD. Best, Christian

Thanks all for the commentary - I didn't consider the change from R9 to R10 bleach. Based on looking this up, I see that the original D94 recipe became D94a. D94a added DTOD to the D94 recipe, cut out the Sodium Thiocyanite and replaced the potassium bromide with sodium bromide. From photrio: The late filmmaker Robert Fenz claimed that the older emulsion was superior, and benefited from being underexposed by one stop. Travis Wilkerson followed Robert's advice when it came time for him to shoot his film An Injury to One. Thanks for the help.

Dear Forum, I'm wondering whether someone might be able to explain why Kodak retired the 7278 emulsion and replaced it with 7266 in 2003. Are there key differences in the formulation of these two emulsions that lead to, for example, a different grain structure or stronger dynamic range? I started shooting 16mm in 2010, so have only known the '66 emulsion. I did however have the pleasure of shooting on Plus-X reversal, which I miss quite a bit. As ever, Christian

Just to reply to Gautam, for a period of about a year I was involved in making reversal-to-reversal dupes from and to Ektachrome. I made several tests on a friend's Oxberry, and then again on my tabletop contact printer. The trick, I discovered, was to shoot at box speed and have the film pulled one stop in the developer. I made a control sample of this workflow with Andec processing, and subsequently tested with hand developing in the old 30m 16mm JOBO spiral in Tetenal chemistry. If you've nailed the exposure of the camera original, you can manage a near-perfect "one light" dupe, with minimal increase in contrast and saturation. It was in these instances where my contact printer did the trick. With that said, for any camera material that is sufficiently under or over (but especially over) exposed, one would need to use an optical printer and find the correct aperture or lamp setting for each scene, which is truly painstaking work. From experience, I had very bad luck in trying to duplicate over-exposed material, given the nature of reversal film. To be clear, I was only doing this to have multiple projection copies of my films, and to duplicate camera materials for editing in a way that is specific to my filmmaking practice. This was far more affordable than making an internegative and printing from that. I do think that mine is an impractical approach, and would advise others to instead: Digitize and "film out" onto 50D, then time and print the neg (for those willing to go the digital route) Contact print the camera original onto 50D with a step printer (after making tests), then time and print the neg. Go the @Ludwig Hagelstein route. I agree with him that it is the best option, but also far and away the most expensive. However, if one has the resources to shoot a film on 35mm Ektachrome, as the hypothetical filmmaker in Owen's initial question does, one might also have the resources to do this. The most affordable option would actually be, I think, my method, which also happens to be the most time-intensive option. And one would need to be privileged with, in the end, access to an optical or contact printer. Otherwise, DIY-ing a film-out from a scan is probably one's best bet. Best, C

Dears, I make personal, 16mm films with my Bolex and often find myself wanting to shoot while traveling abroad. Typically, it is a hassle to source an adequate tripod, and what's more, I'm often dissatisfied with the tripod system I end up with, which has led to hiccups and problems while shooting. For reference, when I am not traveling, I always use the original geared head Bolex tripod, which I love. So, I'm wondering whether anyone might be able to recommend a travel, travel-size or collapsable tripod that could fit either into a backpack or checked suitcase. The tripod would need to be sturdy enough to both take the weight of the Bolex and absorb the vibrations created by the movement of the camera motor (so that camera movement is not noticeable during projection*). If the tripod is a geared head with four axes of movement, that is even better. I understand that such a tripod that meets all of my prerequisite demands may be a tough find, but am hoping that some of you may have a few interesting recommendations. Best, Christian *I do not digitise my work, so post-stabilisation is not possible.

Hi all, Does anyone know what my zoom lens options are for ARRI Standard mount? As of yet, I've been unable to source a comprehensive list of lens options (prime or otherwise) in this mount, and often find it difficult to determine which lenses are fitted for 35mm, when the majority of lenses on the second-hand market seem to be for 16mm. That said, I already have a set of Zeiss primes, so am more concerned with finding a zoom at the moment. Best, Christian

Hi Boris, I have a few for sale. Message me privately! Best, C

Dears, I’m looking to purchase a new, original door for my Arriflex 2C. Let me know if you have a spare that you would be willing to part with! Best, C

Dear Mark, Please see a folder of three photographs here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1rTdQDtAZ7KW_OAM2vrAibu4GY4TTlIOG?usp=sharing My unit is a six plate ST 1901 with two mag sound heads. Best, C

Dears, I recently moved my old Steenbeck into my new apartment and noticed upon powering it up that the speed control flipper had become loose, causing the newly-untensioned flipper to freely slide around from one speed to another. While this hasn't issue hasn't impeded the machine's functionality, I nonetheless took a look under the hood and noticed that the metal disc that holds the flipper unit in place had become loose from the industrial adhesive that was applied to it at factory. To fix this, I'd like to re-adhere the metal disc to the flipper unit, but am curious as to whether anyone who has (or hasn't) encountered the same issue with their machine may suggest a particular glue to solve the problem, or suggest an alternate solution. Best, C

The manual for the Arriflex III actually details the capacities of the available magazines as 200ft and 500ft; and says that "The 60m magazines, as well as the 150m magazines...are identical to those used with the," Arri 2C. So, I guess I have my answer.

Ended up cutting off the male end of the original cord and rewiring the severed end to an XLR. Then, via an adapter, XLR to D Tap. Works great. Thanks again Rob for your advice.

Dears, This may seem a particularly daft question, but as I have a shoot coming up and am in the process of cutting down 1000ft film rolls into 400ft+ rolls for my mags, I'm wondering exactly what the true capacity is on the 2B/C's "400ft" mag. I notice when running the camera that the footage counter goes up to 500ft; however, today when I popped a ~450ft roll into my mag, it felt quite tight despite otherwise fitting. I'm writing wondering whether I should be wary of loading so much film into the mag, or if I will be fine (as Arri would not label the mag as having a 500ft capacity if it could not run that much film). Best, Christian

Dears, This question has been asked on the forum before, but seemingly everyone else has had the luck of having an XLR port in their Arriflex motor. I own a IIB and need to devise a portable battery solution, however my 24fps motor has only the obsolete, two prong connector (I've attached a screenshot below of Visual Products' page ... despite being a variable speed motor for a IIC, mine has the same connection). I understand that the motor needs 16V, but that 12V batteries seem to work fine. Further, I own a V-mount battery and would love to adapt the motor to D Tap, but any solution would work. I would appreciate some advice on where to start. Is it worth using the old plug directly to a battery brick? If so, what is that plug type called? Alternatively, how could I have the motor adapted to accept D Tap? Best, Christian

Hi Rob, Processing as reversal either industrially or by hand won't be an issue here in Berlin 🙂. However it is/was my understanding that B&W films with strong anti-halation layers, or B&W films that do not have a clear base, reverse quite poorly. Given that I won't be scanning the material, but developing it for immediate projection, I'm trying to determine whether I can use this material to create a strong projection positive. As for shooting, I'd be running it through my Arri 2B. I was more curious as to whether you / anyone on here found it strange that the base is so thin. Though I'm not as well-traveled with ORWO material, I've never handled acetate material this thin. Thanks again for your input. C

Hi Rob, Thanks for the recommendation. To be clear, the only reason I was curious as to the stock's lineage was to determine in advance how suitable it would be for reversal processing. The base being as clear as it is is a positive sign, but as I mentioned above, the acetate base is also incredibly thin, similar to polyester-based stocks. Any thoughts on this? Best, C

Hi all, Not to piggyback off of Rick’s thread but if he’s all out I have some rolls of Fuji material in 35mm that I’d be willing to part with. Please PM me for me info. Best, Christian

Howdy Rob, I’ve also only ever had good luck with old Plus-X. I hand-processed a roll of Plus-X in Super 8 for a friend not so long ago; the cartridge expired sometime mid-70s but came out good as new. It’s not clear how old the ORWO stock is. Still I’d guess it’s no older than 1980. The native ASA of the stock is 80, so we have bulk rolled a six still canisters and are testing 80, 64 and 50, as well as those same speeds with +1 push. For anyone following this thread, ORWO told us that NP55 is not at all related to UN54. Best, C

Dears, I'm currently testing a batch of ORWO NP55 motion picture film in still rolls in an attempt to determine how best to expose and develop this long-expired film stock. Ultimately the film will be shot as motion picture. When loading, I noticed the film's acetate base is so thin that the highlights of my friend's ceiling lamp were well-visible through the stock. Any ideas as to why this is the case? I've never held an acetate-based film which felt so thin, similar to polyester. On another note, any old timers or ORWO historians know whether the NP55 emulsion is related at all to the modern UN54 emulsion? I am curious to try NP55 as reversal. Best, Christian