Dirk DeJonghe

We have processed a couple thousand feet of Tri-X reversal as a negative for a school. The grain is very fine, the latitude is much less than Double-X, same as reversal and you loose about one stop of speed. I don't recommend it except as special effect or in emergency.

You can order from CST in Paris: https://www.cst.fr/produits-et-services/mires-film/

In France, if you receive any kind of government subsidies, you are required to deliver a 35mm film element for archiving. I also work for the Danish/Swedish Zentropa group where many recent digital productions are recorded to 35mm digital intermediate for archiving.

I have looked at the Kinetta scanner previously, it is the type of scanner I would buy if my work would be predominantly for archiving of old and damaged films.

Each roll of 100ft 16mm you will shoot will cost at least 100€ (stock + processing + telecine). Having a good reliable camera is self-defense.

Several issues here, printing colour negative to B&W stock. 1. normal B&W print stock is orthochromatic, sensitive to blue only, not good for colour negative. 2. 7222 would be unsuitable due to low gamma (0.65) you need about 2.30. 3. 7222 has a grey base 4. most suitable for direct positive print would be sound recording stock such as ST8, still with grey base and non-straight density curve 5. official way to do Colour negative to B&W print traditionally: make colour intermediate positive, then panchromatic B&W duplicate negative 7234 if you can find it, from there normal prints on B&W print stock.

It is a KEM editing table with an output to a video camera for basic 'telecine' work. I would not call it a telecine but something that can playback film and capture it to video.

If you use non-official formats, you will run into trouble soon or later. There is a good reason for standards.

If you want a simpler explanation, read Appendix 1 'Film Testing Procedures' in Ansel Adams' 'The Negative'. He will show you how to do an empirical test to find the practical speed of your emulsion with your exposure meter, your lens and camera setup, and the labs processing. Once you have determined the correct film speed (you only need about 5 meters to do this test), then you do the classic keylight test where you start from the speed found in the previous test and search for the limits of over and underexposure. From the previous test you already know that the limit of the shadow detail is at -4 stops by design, you only have to find the limits of overexposure. You have control over the shadows with your exposure and 'let the highlights fall' according the the latitude of the filmstock you tested in the keylight test.

There is no reason to have two magazines as you describe. If you use the exposure meter correctly and having done a test beforehand, you know the limits of your shadows and highlights. You may want to read or reread Ansel Adams' 'The negative'.

I recommend to do a test beforehand. Overexposing works against you by increasing grain and making the scan more difficult due to metallic silver. A sweet spot seems to be a negative that would print at light 18-20. In practice this will be around 160 ISO, but test first. This particular film was scanned at 2K DPX.

Here is a short section of a S16 film shot on 7222 we did two years ago. The intention was a 1964 look. http://www.deoverkantfilm.nl

A lab scratch is usually quite easy to identify, the rollers on the processing machine are about 40mm wide and the film gently moves from left to right on the roller. The main culprits for scratches in the processing machine are the squeegees where something may get caught. In this case the scratch will have an easily visible zig-zag pattern. If the scratch is steady and straight, it usually comes from the camera.

If it would be a physical scratch, the top layer (blue) would be (partially) removed by the scratch and you would see a blue line on the print. Look at the layers individually and look if only the blue,green or red layer is affected or a combination.

If the scratch doesn't move left to right, it is most likely caused in the camera gate. A piece of crud may be touching the emulsion and may cause a pressure scratch, the film is 'exposed' maybe in one emulsion layer only, just by local pressure, there may not be any physical scratch where the emulsion is removed.

I would suggest to have this negative rewashed, preferably at another lab.

Simon is right.

This is the old Ektachrome Commercial. It needs ECO2 process which was already outdated when I started ECO3/7252 process in 1976. It has a remjet backing; It is extremely unlikely to still give a useable result. You could try processing it as a B&W negative.

Double-X certainly has halation. It shows up as white circular halo around strong light sources such as car headlights. Shoot the same shot with ECN and it will be missing.

Anyone has a lead to rent or to buy?

For 'Irina Palm' we created a look which was Bleach Bypass combined with a one-stop Pull process to get desaturation (bleach bypass) without the contrast increase (one stop pull).

I have a fair number of 3000ft/35mm cans if this can help, just pay the shipping charges.

Satsuki, Your explanation is correct. On B&W film you have to be careful with negatives that are too dense (over 25). The grain increases with density on B&W and the negative becomes harder to scan if too dense (silver in the emulsion) leading possible to more digital noise in the scanner that can combine in an ugly way with the increased grain. The best advice to the OP is to do some tests and talk to the lab.

Double-X is certainly not a modern Vision3 stock; It is a very classic B&W stock, first launched in 1958 if I remember correctly. You don't want to overexpose Double-X since it will increase grain and make scanning more difficult; Aim for printing lights around 20 for Double-X. The real Vision3 stocks can be exposed at about 2/3 more open than rated. Aim for printing lights of around 27-32 (green channel). You should shoot a few test rolls and see how it compares with your photographic experience. Talk to the filmgrader in the lab.

You will need to find magnetic striped camera filmstock. If you find any it would be ME4 or VNF1 process, long in the tooth.