Low con Super 8 reversal

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I think an interesting option for Kodak to consider with Super 8 is to introduce a new E-6 film, but create an alternate low contrast E-6 process (just like the altered VNF-1 with the LC color developer) which would give the option of developing the film to an ECO-like contrast. This would then enable people to get better results in Super 8 telecine, while retaining the option of processing Super 8 to a full projection contrast image.

 

Frankly this route makes better sense with Super 8 than having the color negative stocks available (save maybe for the 500 asa). I'd rather see a fuller slate of Super 8 E-6 reversal stocks with the option of going low con in processing than having the color negative vision stocks in S8. Colorists shouldn't have such a problem readjusting to it, and it's easier to have one Super 8 E-6 machine with two options, versus an E-6 Super 8 machine and an ECN-2 Super 8 machine, with two entirely different mixes that must be maintained for each (although many labs that process S8 also do ECN-2 for 16/35, though not all) Another advantage, if anyone wants to blow up from Super 8 optically to whatever format, they forgo the cost of the interpositive.

 

- G.

Edited March 29, 2005 by GeorgeSelinsky

[Sam Wells]

I've been asking for low con E-6 16mm stock for ten years !

 

-Sam

[Sam Wells]

p.s. as was JP Beauviala, who also suggested there be an Estar version for the A-minma; it would give you ~ 8 mins per mag.

 

-Sam

[Marty Hamrick]

I have often said that a new version of ECO was needed in 16mm and super 8.It did exist in double super 8,but it wasn't the answer to super 8 printing problems as it tended to be a bit grainy,or so that's what I heard,I never used it.

If someone would come out with a low contrast color reversal in 16mm and super 8 I think it would generate more interest in the format among the younger generation of experimental and independent filmmakers who want to use super 8 and do their own transfers via the Workprinter.It needs to be faster than the old ECO though.I remember learning to light with the stuff..ASA 25 for tungsten was pretty hateful to work with.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

ASA 25 for tungsten was pretty hateful to work with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, I frankly have no idea how the heck you light a space larger than a bedroom with that kind of light. Everyone and everything would be melting, and forget about plugging in. Well, I guess there was a time when color film was ASA 8 and they still hadn't invented quartz halogen bulbs.

 

- G.

Edited April 3, 2005 by GeorgeSelinsky

[David Mullen ASC]

It would make more sense for Kodak (or someone else) to develop a low-cost Super-8 scanner to convert it easily to a digital format, and then just cut the prices on Super-8 negative rather than spend the R&D inventing new Super-8 color reversal stocks AND processes to go with it.

[John Pytlak RIP]

A totally new low contrast reversal film would require MILLIONS of dollars in R&D. IMHO, the business case just isn't there. Labs may want to experiment in offering E-6 process modifications to modify the "look" or reduce contrast of existing films, but building new low contrast reversal films from the ground up is just not in the cards. Sorry.

[John Pytlak RIP]

It would make more sense for Kodak (or someone else) to develop a low-cost Super-8 scanner to convert it easily to a digital format.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Kodak DID develop a low cost Super-8 scanner: the Kodak Supermatic Videoplayer VP-1, introduced in August 1973. It was sold during the 1970's to allow the use of Super-8 as television newsfilm.

[Nate Downes]

but could the VP1 handle negative filmstocks? Conversely, are there any places to find a VP1 anymore?

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Labs may want to experiment in offering E-6 process modifications to modify the "look" or reduce contrast of existing films, but building new low contrast reversal films from the ground up is just not in the cards.  Sorry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, that's exactly what I meant, developing a low contrast E-6 process like VNF-1's LC variant. I guess that's up to the labs then...

 

- G.

[John Pytlak RIP]

but could the VP1 handle negative filmstocks?  Conversely, are there any places to find a VP1 anymore?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Kodak SUPERMATIC Videoplayer VP1 was a flying spot scanner used for projection contrast films. It originally sold for a few thousand dollars. Check e-Bay and other online auction sites.

[Marty Hamrick]

It would make more sense for Kodak (or someone else) to develop a low-cost Super-8 scanner to convert it easily to a digital format, and then just cut the prices on Super-8 negative rather than spend the R&D inventing new Super-8 color reversal stocks AND processes to go with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That would make really good sense there,David.Maybe something like a digital optical printer.Each frame scanned and stored.Someone mentioned this before,such exists now doesn't it,but only in labs as it's very expensive right?Something like a digital version of the old J/K optical printers.I'm surprised no one has built a low budget prototype,that's kind of like what the Workprinter reminds me of.

[Marty Hamrick]

Kodak DID develop a low cost Super-8 scanner: the Kodak Supermatic Videoplayer VP-1, introduced in August 1973.  It was sold during the 1970's to allow the use of Super-8 as television newsfilm.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I remember the VP-1.Weren't there two models,the VP-1 and the VPX?

[Marty Hamrick]

Yeah, I frankly have no idea how the heck you light a space larger than a bedroom with that kind of light. Everyone and everything would be melting, and forget about plugging in. Well, I guess there was a time when color film was ASA 8 and they still hadn't invented quartz halogen bulbs.

 

- G.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Back in the ASA 8 days they used a lot of carbon arc lights.Actually back when we shot alot of ECO,if there was a lighting issue such as what you describe,the faster Ektachromes like 7242or 7240 or 50 were used.Often we flashed it at the lab to lower contrast.

[Marty Hamrick]

No, that's exactly what I meant, developing a low contrast E-6 process like VNF-1's LC variant. I guess that's up to the labs then...

 

- G.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That's interesting.What part of the process would be modified for that?I remember flashing the stock to reduce contrast.

[Patrick Neary]

would just overexposing and then pull-processing get you close?

[John Pytlak RIP]

Flashing would be the normal technique for reducing contrast. But I could envision experimenting with the color developer time/temperature. Changing the MQ (First) Developer time in a reversal process usually is used for "Push" processing, with a resultant change in speed and some change in upper scale contrast and shoulder density.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

That's interesting.What part of the process would be modified for that?I remember flashing the stock to reduce contrast.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There was for VNF-1 an LC first developer, it had two differing ingredients from the stock DR-100 formula called DR-101: 2.1 g of Sodium Bromide and 0.019 g of Potassium Iodide versus the stock 1.3 g and 0.013 g respectively.

 

There was also an LC color developer DR-151, it had 4.3 g of Citrazianic acid versus 1.5 g, plus an additional ingredient - 2 g of Sodium Thiocyanate.

 

The first developer for the LC process ran 1 degree cooler and needed a replenishment rate of 850 mL versus the normal 1700 mL per 100 ft 16mm. THe color developer, according to my chart here, runs at the same rate as the normal process.

 

- G.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Thanks. I was not directly involved in working with the VNF-1 process:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...h2412/h2412.pdf

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...h2413/h2413.pdf

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...h2414/h2414.pdf

[Sean McHenry]

I am searching for info, or even a pic online of the VP1. A friend of mine has one that stopped working some time back. I am going to see if I can breathe life back into it. I haven't even seen one.

 

How would one stand up to the work printer?

 

Thanks,

 

Sean McHenry

[Brant Collins]

I am searching for info, or even a pic online of the VP1. A friend of mine has one that stopped working some time back. I am going to see if I can breathe life back into it. I haven't even seen one.

 

How would one stand up to the work printer?

 

Thanks,

 

Sean McHenry

 

Please keep us informed if you get it to work. I would like to know how good the quality of transfer is

[Clive Tobin]

I remember the VP-1.Weren't there two models,the VP-1 and the VPX?

 

Yes, the VP-X just had external sync instead of internal, suitable for feeding into a TV studio video switcher. They were flying spot scanners (like a baby Rank) with photomultiplier tubes, and could run super-8 sound film at 18 or 24 FPS without flicker (when new).

 

Both used the jump-scan "hopping-patch" principle like the first generation Rank Cintel as this was before the days of digital frame stores. So there was a constant fiddling with the "quiver" knob to try to stop the picture from shaking up and down. Any change in perforating pitch, processing stretch, drybox shrinkage, film stiffness, film thickness, slippage of the drive belt, or alignment between Mars and Jupiter would get the picture to shaking up and down, which was hard to tell from camera shake, and would drive you buggy trying to adjust it out. In practice, I remember having to tweak it after almost every splice between rolls.

 

As the phosphor faceplate of the tube aged, beyond the correction range of the fourth video gain correcting photocell, the picture would start to get a nasty hard random flicker as well. This could only be cured by replacing the flying spot tube itself, and they did not last long (no, I can't quote hours) and spares have not been available for probably 25 years.

 

The machine was quite an achievement for its time, developed by Sylvania Electric so I heard, likely at very high expen$e and most likely sold below cost by Kodak, but failed in its aim of preventing TV stations from switching over to video newsgathering.

 

I would be very cautious about buying one on Ebay.

Edited March 9, 2006 by clivetobin

[Dan Monceaux]

I would be very cautious about buying one on Ebay.

 

Hi Clive... I've read some glowing reviews of the VP-1, and yours is the only cautionary tale I've read so far. I'm negotiating with someone who has one in 'apparent' working order... he has not tested it with film it seems. What would you think is a fair $ value to place on this potentially risky investment? I've seen pics, and it's in beautiful cosmetic condition, and may not have seen much use.

 

Also, do you recall if the machines were NTSC only, or are you able to get PAL scans out of 'em?

[Clive Tobin]

Hi Clive... I've read some glowing reviews of the VP-1, and yours is the only cautionary tale I've read so far. I'm negotiating with someone who has one in 'apparent' working order... he has not tested it with film it seems. What would you think is a fair $ value to place on this potentially risky investment? I've seen pics, and it's in beautiful cosmetic condition, and may not have seen much use.

 

Also, do you recall if the machines were NTSC only, or are you able to get PAL scans out of 'em?

 

I've never heard of a PAL version and I don't know if there was one. I think Nordmende made a similar machine for PAL.

 

I personally wouldn't buy one unless the seller certifies that it puts out a sharp and flickerless picture. They worked generally very well with excellent color when new, but the image went downhill rapidly as the flying spot tube went bad, and these are no longer available as spares. If I had one I would save it for running only 18 fps super-8 sound film where audio pitch is critical, and use something like our TVT-8 video transfer machine for silent film where being a few percent off generally won't hurt anything as silent cameras are further off than that.

 

As I mentioned before they had no exposure correction adjustment, and you could go buggy trying to tune out the jitter or vertical quiver. By now all the belts are likely bad and I don't know if they can still be had. Resolution is only rated in the VHS 240 line neighborhood with no S-video output, perhaps not up to current expectations.

[Filip Plesha]

I think an interesting option for Kodak to consider with Super 8 is to introduce a new E-6 film, but create an alternate low contrast E-6 process (just like the altered VNF-1 with the LC color developer) which would give the option of developing the film to an ECO-like contrast. This would then enable people to get better results in Super 8 telecine, while retaining the option of processing Super 8 to a full projection contrast image.

 

Frankly this route makes better sense with Super 8 than having the color negative stocks available (save maybe for the 500 asa). I'd rather see a fuller slate of Super 8 E-6 reversal stocks with the option of going low con in processing than having the color negative vision stocks in S8. Colorists shouldn't have such a problem readjusting to it, and it's easier to have one Super 8 E-6 machine with two options, versus an E-6 Super 8 machine and an ECN-2 Super 8 machine, with two entirely different mixes that must be maintained for each (although many labs that process S8 also do ECN-2 for 16/35, though not all) Another advantage, if anyone wants to blow up from Super 8 optically to whatever format, they forgo the cost of the interpositive.

 

- G.

 

 

I don't get are you all complicating this with new processes, special stocks etc.

There are low con E6 stocks out there, it's just that they don't cut them to super8.

Fuji makes Astia, and Kodak makes EPN. And if that is not low con enough, you can flash a bit or pull

Edited May 30, 2006 by Filip Plesha