Dirk DeJonghe

If you have a 1080p 'scan' from a telecine versus a 2K 'real scan' from a real scanner, then there will be a noticeable difference, with my equipment: less grain, better image stability, better sharpness, less weaving side to side, less registration error, etc. Of course, a scanner is more expensive to run than a telecine and usually customers only scan selects after editing; The difference is much more than just the amount of pixels.

Have you considered shooting on real film, even S16 will give a very nice B&W result, saving the additional expense of adding grain. Fedex knows the way from Sydney to Kortrijk (SFS).

If money is no object, we can record the digital images to 5222, then scan back to DPX. Been there done that; it was used for last year's Coca Cola Superbowl commercial and also for parts of an upcoming Hollywood Christmas family film (both in color). Otherwise, in Baselight there is an excellent digital grain plugin where you can modulate highlights and shadows differently to match real film stock.

James, Dominic Case's book is a very good starting point. Most of what you ask is still done here on a daily basis

We do plenty of 16mm prints for loop projection. Do not project an original reversal in loop unless you want to get rid of it. Loops do wear out and with a negative you can make as many prints as you want, a minimum of two is recommended in case something happens to the first one; loop projection is a specialized business. We apply a special lubrication to the print that allows it to run smoother and last longer.

There should be a small screw on the bottom of the viewfinder tube, about one inch in front of your eye. Unlock it and slide it forwards or backwards until the image is upright. It could also be that you need to rotate the viewfinder 360 degrees if there is no internal stop.

You can still order it from Kodak, what is the problem?

The current version of 7222 has a very different smell than before, the image looks more like a Plus-X that a Double-X with deeper blacks. Running sensitograms we had to reduce the development time a bit. The stock could very well be made by another company. I have run Double-X for more than 30 years and I can identify it from color or Plus-X by smell in the darkroom. Anyway, the images look very good and that is what counts; Here is a sad youtube video: https://youtu.be/JDzQ1gx71EI

Good idea for one big production, what will you do if you have two big productions not in the same location?

Anthony, If you hop on the TGV to Lille, you could look over my shoulder at a few samples of the 'new' Double-X in action. I can't post it here for obvious reasons. We worked on the feature film 'Tzameti' shot on 5222 that won the best foreign film prize at Sundance. 'Two years at sea" won in Venice (7222).

Agfaphoto was a spinoff of the consumer photo films only. The main Agfa still makes aerial and some MP stocks as well as medical products. Anthony, is your project 35 or 16? Traditional or digital finish? The trick to reduce grain in 22 is to expose it just enough, printing lights 18-22, not more.

Agfaphoto went bust, the real Agfa still makes excellent color print film and B&W sound recording film in Antwerp; The real choice is between Kodak Double-X and Orwo UN54 and N74. We processed about 60 400' rolls of 7222 in the last two weeks and it looked beautiful; There seems to be an unpublished improvement in the 7222 stock, we needed to adjust the processing slightly and the characteristic acidic smell of Double-X is no longer there.

Have a look at this interesting documentary about Kodak: http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/still-hoping-for-future-kodak-moments/?_r=0

I feel that the first priority is to use the existing films to the full extent possible before asking 'specials' from Kodak; It is already hard enough to get 'normal' stock such as Intermediate color stock in single perf. It is a matter of having enough footage per emulsion type to keep the manufacturing chain open. There are only 300 people at Kodak still making photographic film including MP. The 7222 seems to have changed for the better recently, it used to have more grain and a typical acidic smell that is gone now, they didn't tell anyone but it certainly has changed.

Dennis, I don't have any unexposed 7276. We process some from time to time for customers. Would gladly do the sensitogram if I get some stock.

Yesterday I had a request from a film school to do a transfer to DVCam. They receive Quicktime ProRes files from us since years. I think they want to show the 'old' way to students??

They are not the same stock. You can process 7276 as negative with some loss of speed, but you don't get the extended latitude of a real negative. Unfortunately 7231 is no longer manufactured.

Dennis, the reason people still shoot film is because it looks different from digital (in a good way). You could argue why some artists still use oil or watercolors for painting while photography has been around for 150 years or more and digital pictures can be taken with most phones now. As a lab owner/colorist I have to balance between science and art. There are a few customers that want 'the full story' but most of them are interested in getting the images they want in the easiest possible way. I just got a fresh batch of 7222 and it comes to a gamma of 0.72 with our standard process, it will probably drop with aging. I have a feeling that Kodak may now bring it to market sooner after manufacturing, letting it 'age' less than before. If someone would come in with a major production, we would process this emulsion differently to get a gamma of 0.65 (unless agreed otherwise).

I have never processed 7266, but plenty of reversal 7242,7241,7256,7252, 7250,7251,7239 (in order of appearance). A couple of years ago I had an interesting technical conversation with the tech guys at Kodak Chalons about the true speed of 7222. After exchanging many sensitograms (they expose, they process, we expose, we process and then all change), we came to the conclusion that yes, the 7222 does not have its rated speed and secondly and most importantly, every decent cinematographer should test before production and establish his own look and speed with his own equipment. So, unless you have a blind faith in Kodak, lab processes, lens stops, exposure meters, filter factors etc, etc, please do some real-life testing before starting.

Since he is using an 85N6 he is using 'tungsten light' (as seen by the film) so the basic starting speed would be 160 ISO. With a setup like this I would really recommend a test beforehand. Unknown light meter + unknown camera + unknown lens + reversal stock = LOTS of room for error.

The Bolex shutter is 130°, combined with the semi-transparant mirror gives you 2/3 of a stop loss for the camera. The 85N6 will give you tungsten light filtration and 2 stops density, total of 2 of ND plus 2/3 for 85. This makes a grand total of 3 1/3 stop loss or indeed 16 ISO as Satsuki mentions. I would suggest to do an exposure test beforehand because the reversal stock has very little latitude. Nothing looks worse than an underexposed or overexposed reversal film;

We get daily shipments from all over the globe, mostly by Fedex. Never had a X-ray problem with them. Plenty of X-ray problems with people who carry their stock in checked luggage. Mixing 7222 and 7266 is not a good idea, avoid it unless you want the effect. Speak to your lab first and test first. Most of my customers expose 7222 around 125 ISO to start.

The development time went from 7-9 minutes at 25°C in ECN1 to 3'15" at 41.1°C in ECN2. So an identical machine could run twice as fast. I never worked with ECN1, I started ECN2 in 1980, before that only ME4, VNF1 and ECO3.

"What was the purpose of changing the processing speed/temperature?" Decent labs process at the official process temperature (for ECN2 it is 41.1 +- .1C). Push processing is done by reducing the speed of the machine, increasing time in developer. Pull process by reducing developer temperature. Maybe they refer to the old ECN1 process that was low temperature for non-prehardened films, similar to photographic process C22 evolving into C41 'hot process'. If the chemistry gets out of balance, grain and sensitometric qualities will suffer; very important is the bromide level in the developer, it is given off by the film, and needs to be in a close range. It acts as a restrainer and for example would show an increase in Blue D-Min if too low in ECN2. Since blue is the most grainy layer, it would quickly become disturbing on smaller formats.

You are right David, but the blue layer is already the most grainy one to start with. To me a 250D looks similar to a 100T as far as grain is concerned (subjectively),