Eastman 7297 250D Negative

Hampus Bystrom · May 5, 2009

I just acquired a 400' roll of Eastman 7297 250D old stock which I bought extremely cheap. I though it would be a good opportunity to learn a 16mm Arriflex SR1 camera which I have access to. But of course it would be nice to not completely f-up this roll of film, even though it was practically free. I can't seem to find any samples or info about this particular film, what do you guys know?

Thanks!

David Mullen ASC · May 6, 2009

This stock came out in 1986 and was discontinued in 1997, so whatever roll you bought, it's at least 12 years old -- no wonder it was extremely cheap.

I don't think any samples would do you much good because the film stock now will look different, being aged. I'd rate it a stop slower, like 125 ASA, just for starters.

I just acquired a 400' roll of Eastman 7297 250D old stock which I bought extremely cheap. I though it would be a good opportunity to learn a 16mm Arriflex SR1 camera which I have access to. But of course it would be nice to not completely f-up this roll of film, even though it was practically free. I can't seem to find any samples or info about this particular film, what do you guys know?

Thanks!

Saul Rodgar · May 6, 2009

I don't think any samples would do you much good because the film stock now will look different, being aged. I'd rate it a stop slower, like 125 ASA, just for starters.

At least 1 stop, I would say. Last year I shot 100' of 7296 (500T) that I had, to see how many stops off it would be and if it would be worth shooting for something else. I shot it compensating 1, 2 and 3 stops over. 3 stops looked the "best," if I can call it that _the colors and the contrast were weird. 1 stop compensation looked dark and grainy.

7296 and 7297 are different stocks that will handle aging differently, of course. But I personally would rate it closer to 2 or even 2 1/2 stops slower _if I can't do a clip test, which would be the best bet. Ultimately I decided against shooting fast stock that old. Generally speaking, slower (50D) stock holds up better to aging than faster stock, I have found.

In my experience shooting film for video finish, it is always better to be right on the spot of course, but the telecined stock will generally handle overexposure better than underexposure. If you are going to print the footage, then you really should clip test the stock before you spend more time and money on it, but again, I would advice clip testing it in any case.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Saul Rodgar

Hampus Bystrom · May 6, 2009

Thanks a lot Saul and David!

As it's sunny here in Sweden I guess I'll just rate it at 50 and see what happens.

I loath to do a clip test because I'm sending my films abroad to Belgium and Dejhonge so, well it's too much of a hassle. It's going to be telecined at one-light transfer so I'm not expecting that much anyway. I've never shot 16mm, and I've collected some money for a short 16mm feature which essentially means I'll have to operate, light and direct the whole thing myself (I usually direct). I have acess to a steadicam aswell, I always hear these things are hard to operate so I'll try it out and see if I really do need an operator. I'm going for the Sukurov, Gus Van Santish, Béla Tarr-esque type of film.

Well enough about that... I'm just interested in what kind of stock it is, I mean, what is its charactercistics? Griany, contrasty, flat, etc?

K Borowski · May 6, 2009

I'd rate it at 32 or slower (25 wouldn't hurt).

I shot 1999-expired film last year, and two stops of over-exposure was underkill (though it worked for the application just fine).

Unless you want an aged look (i.e. a '70s porn music video look), underrate by at least *THREE* not one or two.

Overexposure is your friend. This is the most important rule for old-film filmmaking you will ever learn.

If you're finishing optically, I'd go to four, but with video, don't go over more than three. In any case, the high base fog will give scanner/telecine you are using problems anyway, so you're going to probably have higher telecine costs to correct it no matter what, probably.

Hampus Bystrom · May 6, 2009

Oh you mean like those 70's sexploitation films by Doris Wishman? That would be awsome actually! I'm not going to use this stock for the "real" short film later of course, then I'll be using Vision3. This is just for logistics, what the shipping will cost, how to handle the Arri SR1 and all of its little idiosyncracies, and so on.

Btw, is the Vision3 available in anything else than 500T for daylight purposes?

Saul Rodgar · May 6, 2009

Btw, is the Vision3 available in anything else than 500T for daylight purposes?

The new V3 '07 (250D) was released a couple of weeks ago. Haven't used it, but it should be a good "workhorse" film stock.

http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Produ..._250D/index.htm

Elliot Rudmann · May 6, 2009

Btw, is the Vision3 available in anything else than 500T for daylight purposes?

Kodak just came out with a new vision 3 daylight stock, 250D 7209. I'm not sure if it's available to ship yet though; can anyone here confirm this?

Hampus Bystrom · May 6, 2009

Kodak just came out with a new vision 3 daylight stock, 250D 7209. I'm not sure if it's available to ship yet though; can anyone here confirm this?

Right, cheers. Shooting won't commence until late summer so should be alright.

2:nd btw, I'm pretty wanton with the technical side of this project, and I love Cooke's S4 series, does these fit Arri SR1?

Elliot Rudmann · May 6, 2009

Right, cheers. Shooting won't commence until late summer so should be alright.
2:nd btw, I'm pretty wanton with the technical side of this project, and I love Cooke's S4 series, does these fit Arri SR1?

It depends on whether your SR1 has an Arri Bayonet lens mount or a PL lens mount. If it has a PL, then it can accept the Cooke S4s. If it has the Bayonet, you should be able to purchase an adapter for a few hundred dollars.

Hampus Bystrom · May 6, 2009

It depends on whether your SR1 has an Arri Bayonet lens mount or a PL lens mount. If it has a PL, then it can accept the Cooke S4s. If it has the Bayonet, you should be able to purchase an adapter for a few hundred dollars.

Okay thanks! The camera comes with a Zeiss 10-100 zoom, does that tell you anything?

It's also the logo on their webpage (it's a very lowbudget rentalhouse so it's their pride and glory):

http://www.yuri.nu I don't know if you'll be able to discern anything from that picture, but it's worth a shot.

Hampus Bystrom · May 6, 2009

Oh and I meant to ask, how does high base fog look?

Saul Rodgar · May 7, 2009

It depends on whether your SR1 has an Arri Bayonet lens mount or a PL lens mount. If it has a PL, then it can accept the Cooke S4s. If it has the Bayonet, you should be able to purchase an adapter for a few hundred dollars.

You can easily mount an Arri B or S lens onto a PL mount camera with an adapter such as the one displayed on the first link. However, I have never seen or heard of an adapter that you can put on an Arri B or S camera to turn it PL mount. In fact, as the second link indicates, this is not possible. One needs to physically change the mount on the camera from Arri B to PL to put PL lenses on, which is not cheap and as easy to accomplish as one would imagine.

http://cinematechnic.com/products/PL_Mount...pt_ARRIBay.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=r4LgHiMTM...lt&resnum=4

The SR pictured on the yuri site looks like Arri B mount.

As for the fog _it looks like, well, fog. It varies slightly in different film stocks. But it will look like you shot the footage in some weird atmospheric conditions. No good for most projects, in other words.

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard...eA-20254784.gif