Jump to content

Kodak 2253


Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

read the label on the can. It is a poltester base film with "Long" perfs for high speed cameras. Not quite "secret stuff. They was the standrd for Car crash tests of years, the loss of that market to digital was probaly the last straw for VNF.

 

I am not sure of the nummbers but they may have had to "rweek" the emusion to make it work on the polyester film. thus making a new number, the 2 indicates polyester.

 

I don't know if exclusive film is still running a VNF line. They might be a good source to get the processing done. http://www.exclusivefilm.net/ I am sure thay can give you some hints in any case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why would this damage a camera? I used Estar based film in still photography 10 years ago, and never had a problem.

If acetate film jams in a camera, it breaks. If polyester film jams in a camera, it doesn't break. Something else has to give, so, depending on how strong the motor is, either it burns out, or shafts get bent, or cogs strip out. Motion picture cameras are at risk because they are running continuously. In a STILL camera, nothing happens - you simply get jammed film.

 

BTW on an earlier point - RVNP = Rapid Video News Process or possibly Rapid Video News & Print. It's a variant of the VNF-1 process that provides faster turnaround - from the days when news really was shot on film, and every minute counted in getting news stories to air.

 

The print part of the acronym is for the lower contrast reversal stocks like 7399 (I think) that were used to make a direct print from a reversal original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If acetate film jams in a camera, it breaks. If polyester film jams in a camera, it doesn't break. Something else has to give, so, depending on how strong the motor is, either it burns out, or shafts get bent, or cogs strip out. Motion picture cameras are at risk because they are running continuously. In a STILL camera, nothing happens - you simply get jammed film.

 

BTW on an earlier point - RVNP = Rapid Video News Process or possibly Rapid Video News & Print. It's a variant of the VNF-1 process that provides faster turnaround - from the days when news really was shot on film, and every minute counted in getting news stories to air.

 

The print part of the acronym is for the lower contrast reversal stocks like 7399 (I think) that were used to make a direct print from a reversal original.

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up until last month, Kodak was still stocking this stuff:

 

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:fybUe...;cd=1&gl=us

 

It's suddenly disappeared-- not surprising considering that they announced they were stopping manufacture of it four years ago-- I suspect it's being dumped on the market right now, bought out and remaindered after a warehouse cleaning in Rochester or Colorado.

 

What this stuff was, was high speed surveillance film-- but it's 3000 long pitch-- which means it will most definitely not run smoothly in a regular short pitch camera.

 

Fuji Single-8 is polyester, so the problem isn't so much it regularly jamming, but the bad pitch-- which can cause a jam, sooner rather than later.

 

I wouldn't use it. But it is on sale all over the place so I can see the temptation. But mediocre 16 reversal, when neg is so cheap? I mean film costs will only be about $250 more at worst doing it the right way....

Edited by Jim Carlile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

p.s.

 

In case anyone's interested, here's the kind of thing it was used for:

 

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=198569

 

These aren't regular cameras, they don't work the same way, often they don't have conventional film gates and as such they used long 3000 lab pitch (same thing) for precision. 2253 is (was) a standard scientific lab film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

i am using sound film in my kinor (that also uses polyester as base) and if it jam, the camera simply stop. Like it does with acetate. I think that was a safety trick olexandr included in the mod he made to me. Anyway, what is the iso of this film? I have processed news film in e6 iso 100 and it was ok. iso 400 was poop. The other option would be cross process, then, any lab could do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richardson, I gotta pull out some of my techie info to answer your question, but some adjustment in the time temperature or concentration of standard E6 developer would work. Other than that, the two are basically the same.

 

I'll post a more detailed answer tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I told you it was a stupid novice question:

 

I thought the standard length like this was always 100' and had never heard of 125'.

 

You've failed to grasp the depths of my non-knowledge.

 

I figured it was something along those lines after I saw you were from Florida. I would've groaned if it was someone who wanted to know what a foot was (friggin' metric system ;-) ). . .

 

I looked through the thread though, and I think the only mention made to 125 was as a film speed.

 

Where you would run into approximately 125-foot lengths of film would be as short ends from 200- or 400-foot film loads that were then repackaged and sold to someone else, like a low-budget filmmaker, at a discount price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the thing--look at the photos of the package.

 

It says 125', and 38.1 meters.

 

So, what's the point? It's probably an unusual length for a specific high-speed camera.

 

Still films for long roll cameras were almost always 100-foot-lengths, but every once in a while they'd sell 200-footers. Anything up to 5 mi. length is technically doable.

 

IDK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figured it was something along those lines after I saw you were from Florida - Karl

 

Karl,

 

There are a LOT of Hollywood transplants here in Florida as well as a lot of great Native Florida Cinematographers who do beautiful work... there (may) very well be a lot more knowledgeable Cinematographers here than in... say your neck of the woods... 'Cleveland, Ohio' for example. I would not count Ira as a 'typical' Florida DP... B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

125' will fit on a standard 100ft spool because the estar stock is thinner than triacetate.

 

That could be it too Dirk, although IIRC, keeping in mind I am feeling this in the dark, some of the Estar products offered by Kodak are actually *thicker* than comparable acetate-coated stock. Of course, I have never really paid much heed to thickness.

 

I remember John Pytlak was saying that a lot of the thin-base stocks were only made special-order, and that camera stock would have to be roughly the same (I think it was only a 1/1000" difference or maybe 2/1000") before you'd have to readjust the distance of the pressure plate to the lens for optimal sharpness.

 

I do have some old aerial film, I think on 5/1000" estar base, that fits *150* feet on a, I think, standard 100-foot reel, 35mm though.

 

So, without a formula for determining how many feet of 7/1000" will fit on a reel designed for 100' of 8/1000" film, IDK if that's the reason why or not.

 

Isn't it actually 110' or so on a reel to allow for some threading leader? If so, then an extra 15' of film that's 1/1000" thinner sounds about right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would that length still fit on a standard 100' spool?

 

Since I'm 100' spool limited, I was curious about the size of the spool.

 

the 125 ft length is because the polyester base is thinner than the acetate, so you can pack more film in a 100ft spool. And Karl, thanks for the info and i understand that the process is the same, the problem with high-speed old films is that they fog more than low iso films. I had once 2 packs of orwo expired in 1982, apparently stored at the same conditions, one 400 and the other 100, the 400 was terrible while the 100 was almost like new. Best,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What this stuff was, was high speed surveillance film-- but it's 3000 long pitch-- which means it will most definitely not run smoothly in a regular short pitch camera.

 

But Kodachrome was .300 pitch, which is projection pitch.

So will Bolexes and Filmos not run smoothly with "regular short pitch" stock?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Premium Member
So, what's the point? It's probably an unusual length for a specific high-speed camera.

125 foot is a standard lenth for "Estar" film. the film is thiner and so 125 ft is the amount that fits on a 100ft spool.

 

In my younger days I did microfilming and we had Kodak Imagecapture film which I think came 200 ft on a 100Ft spool. (and you could not break that with your fingers)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

I just made some good progress with modifying E6 to give better results when processing VNF films:

http://www.filmkorn.org/e6-fuer-ektachrome-vnf-filme-optimieren/

Let me know if you need an english translation.

Bottom line: Add 3.5ml Benzyl Alcohol per Liter of working solution to the Color Developer. Stirr 10 minutes very well to dissolve this oily additive. You get way better Dmax and more saturated colors!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...