10yo 35mm film

Ed Nyankori · February 24, 2005

A friend of mine just bought a Konvas 35mm package and Ive been moving this milk crate of ten year old 35mm film around for a couple years. Im giving him 4 recans

160' of 5298

180' of 5293

200' of 5293 (200t)

200' of 5231

I just included that info incase you know something I dont (thats not hard)

Is it worth processing??? Im giving it to him so he can run some celluloid for kicks but if its still possible that its good then maybe we'll put something together like a music video...

The film was recovered from a local film resource non profit type. So I guess its not been handled to badly before I shoved it in my basement. I think it spent a summer in the attic now that i think about it...

Rik Andino · February 24, 2005

Do a clip test--clip a portion of it...like a foot...send it to get tested

If it's good then you'll---if not you'll also know

Call your local film development lab to find out more information...

Good Luck

Adam Frisch FSF · February 24, 2005

This has been answered before here.

But basically - if you do a clip test it will fail, guaranteed. That doesn't mean it's not usable, contrary to popular belief. Labs have density values for each RGB layer that the compare to, and when it fails in one layer ever so slightly, they deem the film "unusable". This is for three reasons mainly:

1. To protect the lab from being attached to films shot on grainy and shitty looking film, which would reflect badly upon them.

2. The lab aim values are designed for optical correction on analog Hazeltine machines - not telecine. Therefore the tolerances have to be narrower because there is no digital trickery to save it.

2. It's in the labs interest to deem a film unusable because they can reclaim the silver from it and sell that back. Free money for them.

I've shot some seriously old film in my days and not had one single major problem. Even old Kodak 5296 film left unrefrigerated on a shelf for 7 years was ok after some overexposure. Not grain free or perfect, but well within the limits of what I call usable. And with todays quite advanced de-grain software and noise reduction in post, this issue is less and less important.

As usual with old film the base exposure will increase and fog the film more and more as the years go by (film in effect self develops in the can due to cosmic rays). The trick to counter this is to overexpose as to supress the base fog. The analogy to audio's signal-to-noise ratio can be made: In order to supress the hum and noise built into the recording format, you record your signal at as high a volume as possible without letting it clip. You want to put some distance between what's already there and the signal you are recording. Same here. Overexpose. By how much is up to you to decide - I'd probably go for a good 2-3 stops on such old film.

My personal opinion is don't pay for clip test - they will fail. Just shoot it, but beware that you are in an unsafe zone so don't shoot stuff you can't easily replicate.

Phil Rhodes · February 24, 2005

Hi,

I have 360" of Vision 500 that was deemed unusable - it's about 15 points over in the cyan, which is probably recoverable, but the costs involved in finding out are so high that it seems almost like the cost of just buying known-good stock is worth it. £300 for a camera, £50 to process it, £300 to transfer it, who's going to pay all that and not just buy fresh stock.

Phil

Stephen Williams · February 24, 2005

Hi,

I have 360" of Vision 500 that was deemed unusable - it's about 15 points over in the cyan, which is probably recoverable, .....

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi,

I find that the grain increases with a loss of contrast range with badly stored stock. (2-3 years not in the fridge + 6 aircraft flights). Very noticable with Vision 800, I was given 2000' but it worked well on a flashback scene! I tested ît first, processing and telecine on the end of another job!

Stephen Williams DoP

Zurich Switzerland

www.stephenw.com

John Sprung · February 24, 2005

Depends what kind of tests. If you just want to find out if it scratches or has light leaks, it's fine. May or may not be OK for checking sharpness and focus.

-- J.S.

andrewbuchanan · February 25, 2005

I don't know I had a different experience... I had some 250D left around from a shoot (about 4000 feet or so). It was enough to save some money on a doc I was working on, so I decided to use it if I could. It was dated 2002 and though I don't know how it was stored when it was in date, I got it just after it expired and kept it in deep freeze for about a year (winter of 2004).

I figured slower stock, kept in deep freeze would be okay.

I cut some test strips off and sent them to the lab. The lab got back to me and told me that it tested a little outside the useable numbers, but should be fine if I wasn't projecting. I think the note said... "...for screen no, should be fine for telecine". I don't remember the exact test numbers, but they were not too far out of the ordinary.

I went ahead and shot and with the film. When I got the results back, I was shocked. It looked like total s*%t. I'm a bit of a perfectionist, but even the completely ignorant producer could see the contrast and color problems. The bad thing was I ended up looking bad, even though I had followed the correct procedure. Fortunately it wasn't that big of a project.

The moral of the story is this: old film is great, but use it for music videos, short projects, things that YOU personally can risk. In a professional circumstance, be very careful because going the cheap route can be more expensive in terms of reputation and future work than you realize.

Phil Rhodes · February 25, 2005

Hi,

> ..for screen no, should be fine for telecine

That's more or less what they said about that stuff I shot the other week. Perhaps that's why it looks like a pile of crap!

Phil

Sam Wells · February 26, 2005

Hi,

> ..for screen no, should be fine for telecine

TPhil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a Red flag you should spot mile away !!

If they said, "you might save it in telecine" that might be somewhat accurate.

But as a flat statement ? Total BS

It's like "You wouldn't want to eat this sushi, but it should be fine for serving your guests" :P

-Sam

John Pytlak RIP · March 1, 2005

Film that old, and stored improperly, will likely have issues:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/...rage_cond.jhtml

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5202.shtml

Ed Nyankori · March 3, 2005

Thanks all, in the end I advised him only to use the film to test movement and visual inspection for scratches. This board is awesome thank you all for your input.

Laurent Andrieux · March 3, 2005

I think that doing a sensitometric curve is interesting, anyhow. you could post the results here and people could then tell you what they think... Doesn't cost much.

You could then do exposure tests and print a few meters to see what it looks like... Wouldn't cost much either...

"Movement test" ? What would that be ? Fixity register pin tests or just a visual comparison to the "normal" data ?

Dominic Case · March 4, 2005

2. It's in the labs interest to deem a film unusable because they can reclaim the silver from it and sell that back. Free money for them.

Nonsense!

The stock is the customers property. The only way the lab is going to get the silver is if they process the film. The only way you are going to give the film to the lab to process is if you want it processed - ie you have exposed it, expecting a good result. If the lab condemns the stock, no-one gets anything.

A lab will quote the dmin readings. If they are OK, they will say so. If they are substantially above aim, they will advise as such. But unless the stock is really stuffed the lab can't give it a pass or fail - because they don't know (a) how you intend to expose the stock or (B) what your tolerances are. Increased d-min usually reduces the exposrfe range of the stock - but that may not be a problem if you give full exposures on low-contrast scenes. Grain often increases - but if you overexpose, or if you don't mind a little grain, that's nbot a problem. However, if the lab passes somenting and you then expose shots that don't work, the lab will get all the blame.

Best thing is to do a dip test but if the results are borderline, shoot a test as well.

Still, if you choose to disregard the advice that the lab gives you, please take some advivce from me: find a lab that you DO believe in.

Rik Andino · March 5, 2005

Best thing is to do a dip test but if the results are borderline, shoot a test as well.

Still, if you choose to disregard the advice that the lab gives you, please take some advivce from me: find a lab that you DO believe in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So my intial advice was correct :)

I felt uneasy for a moment--because that's what I usually do with old film...

But I never done a clip test for film older than 2 years and un properly stored...

But it's good to know I was on the right track...

Everyone needs a boost of confidence now & then :)

John Pytlak RIP · March 5, 2005

For totally useless old film or old silver-image B&W processed films, it is usually not cost effective for a lab to process the film just to reclaim the silver. However, some companies are in the business of reclaiming silver from old films:

http://www.fpchollywood.com/fscsalvage.html