orwo. have you used any?

[Dirk DeJonghe]

The 2994 short perforation pitch is used for negatives that will be printed on a contact printer, the print stock being 3000. Since the printing sprocket wheel on the printer has a circumference of one foot, the difference in pitch will compensate for the thickness of the film layers, the print stock being the outer layer; the great majority of professional films have always been short pitch (16+35mm).

Most cameras will run fine with 3000 pitch, maybe make more noise (XTR/SR types). Most of the Kodachrome reversal films shot on Bolexes was 3000 pitch.

Film on triacetate will shrink due to aging. That is the reason some manufacturers prefer to supply polyester stock for little used lab films. Even if the emulsion keeps for many years (low speed lab stocks) the acetate base will shrink and make the product worthless.

 

Short of lubricating the unexposed film, which should be done at the factory, you could try to polish and wax the film pressure plate in the camera.

[Marc Roessler]

Indeed the roll I tested says "ORWO UN54"...

 

I just compared the processed UN54 with the processed 7222. My UN54 definately has longer pitch than the 7222, visible even with a 15 cm long piece of film.

 

Some quick calculation how are we are off and whether this could be explained by short pitch vs. long pitch:

2994 has 7.605 mm pitch, 3000 7.620mm. One perf hole has a height of 1.720 mm. This means that, aligning 2994 and 3000 at one perf, alignment will be off exactly one perf hole size (i.e. it will just "close" when aligning the films) after 115 perfs:

(1.720 / (7.620 - 7.605)) = 114,666

 

The UN54 vs. 7222 is out of alignment for one perf after about 40 perfs!! There's definitely something fishy going on.

 

Greetings,

Marc

[Onno Petersen]

I was just about to buy some UN 54 rolls for my LTR (beautifull stock and much cheaper then 7266 here in Europe) when I stumbled over this thread. Out of alignment after 40 perfs is crazy of course.

Do the people who have used it have emulsion numbers, master roll, slit numbers etc? Maybe we can make some comparison.

I have a freezer full of UN 32, 15 years old, camera sounds good when running it. I'm testing it today. Camera is CLA'd one year ago and has shot abt 2000ft since. CLA was done by Edwin Schouten (ETKON) in Amsterdam, I'll ask him about his experiences as well as Ludwig Draser from Andec in Berlin.

[Richard Tuohy]

Don't be put off by this thread. It comes down to testing in your own camera.

Having lined up a lot of strips of film for the purposes of 'flat printing' (ie contact printing under glass with a torch) the different alignment of perforations is quite amazing. I doubt there is a systematic error in the pitch of ORWO film. Yes, the problems being reported are realy happening to forum members. But I don't believe Orwo are systematically using the wrong perforator and perforating long instead of short pitch on their camera films. If something systematic is going on, it is more likely to be the kind of problem that Simon has mentioned above. Something to do with the base, or lubrication or friction of these particular stocks.

[steve waschka]

well... im glad theyre making film. unlike the big houses on a downswing i imagine orwo is going to enjoy an upswing. mostly because of displaced fuji buyers. and maybe some kodak buyers whos film prices appear to have spiked. which is why i went looking. if the film as a canvas itself is good. the rest can be fixed i imagine. hopefully if there are real issues they are listening and addressing. ill order some and post back what i find at some point. but i have bolexs and an arri bl16 so im not sure im going to see an issue in either case. BUT for the main reason i need to ditch my bl (lack of lens selection) people have to shoot aatons and sr's. so its gotta work in these machines. or its useless. and they can't just put their head in the sand. because if i have to think too long about it... ill just pay for the kodak. cause i dont want kodak out of the business motion business like fuji. not that that will happen. but id hate to think i contributed to it if it did.

[Marc Roessler]

Unfortunately, with the UN54 I got there is no emulsion number, master roll number, slit number etc printed anywhere on the film or the can (it was UN54 re-spooled to a 100' dayligh reel, so no original can). I'm in contact with the company (quite well known in the business..) who sold it to me, in order to find out what's going on.

 

Oh nice.. Edwin Schouten is a very nice guy. Onno, please send him greetings from me :)

 

I'm going to collect some samples of UN54. If anyone has some that either ran flawlessly in the "more critical" (LTR, XTR, SR) cameras or made trouble, I'd be happy if you could mail short strips of the film to me along with any info you might have (where and when purchased, picture of the can, roll/emulsion number, camera used, climatic conditions of storage and during exposure etc...)

 

For everyone who had issues with the UN54: does your stock have keykode numbers/foot numbers?

 

Greetings,

Marc

[Robert Lewis]

Mark.

 

As indicated in an earlier posting, I have been in communication directly with Filmotec who have, I feel, been most helpful.

 

I have earlier given information about the edge markings in the two rolls of UN54 with which I have some experience. The one carried complete edge markings commencing with the current standard marking system showing it was OU02 (ORWO UN54). The second carried little information except that it was ORWO UN54.

 

Filmotec informed me that the film marked OU02 is standard factory produced UN54 and have further informed me that it is produced to their standard perforation pitch of 2996. The film marked only ORWO UN54 was part of a special run and the perforation pitch of that was 3000. I was also informed that this was sold only in Germany and France.

 

My experience of using the roll marked ORWO UN54 in an Arriflex SRII, which I found to be perforated at a pitch of 3000, was that it seemed to be just a little noisier when going through the camera. It didn't jam. I didn't notice anything unusual when I used the roll marked OU02.

 

I appreciate that Filmotec have indicated that they produce their standard 16mm stock with a perforation pitch of 2996 rather than 2994, but I believe that this is such a tiny difference that it should cause no difficulty at all.

 

I am therefore satisfied with the information provided by Filmotec to the point that I have now ordered some further stock.

 

I hope this is helpful.

[Brian Pritchard]

Hello Bob

Nice to talk to you the other day. I notice that in the data sheet on the Orwo website they say the standard pitch for 16mm is 0.2994 and not 0.2996. Perhaps there was a slip of the tongue when they said the slightly longer pitch?

 

Brian

[Brian Pritchard]

I also meant to mention that the Orwo rep in the UK is Tom Samuels - 01923 35 11 99. I have known Tom for many years and always found him most helpful.

 

For those interested in the technical aspects of film perforations I have a page on my website:

http://www.brianpritchard.com/Unsteadiness_in_16mm.htm

This is an article by Leslie Wheeler from November 1958 and has a very good description of film perforating.

Brian

[Robert Lewis]

Hello Brian,

 

It was good to talk with you also.

 

I know Tom, and you are right when you say he is most helpful and, indeed, as are you. It is always a great pleasure to talk with both of you.

 

The information that Filmotec perforate their 16mm film at the pitch of .2996 came directly from the Company in an email, and at first I thought it might be a typographical error. However I did go back to them on the point, and they confirmed the pitch is .2996. Tom also told me in a conversation with him that that was Filmotec's standard. So I think that the information is pretty sound.

 

That having been said, it seems to me that the difference between .2994 and .2996 is so tiny that it is within what one might say is an acceptable tolerance....what is it 2 ten-thousandths of an inch? I find it difficult to believe that with a material such as film it is possible to be certain that all 16mm filmstocks are accurate to the fourth decimal point. Certainly, my experience with using film perforated at the pitch of .3000 was limited to a feeling that it was going through the camera a little more noisier than filmstock said to be perforated at the rate of .2994. I do find it difficult to imagine that two ten-thousandths of an inch is going to result in even that. However, we shall see.

 

All of this, I believe, demonstrates that one can talk about these things with Filmotec and that they are open to dialogue. This, I believe is to their credit.

 

Finally, I have tried to ascertain what level of tolerance in perforation pitch Aaton and Arriflex allowed for in their respective camera specifications, but I have not been successful in finding this information. It would be intersting to know whether either of them did actually allow a tolerance or whether they designed to an intolerant standard..

[Dirk DeJonghe]

Just keep in mind that film shrinks when aging. The manufacturer may aim for slightly longer pitch so that it will remain useable over a longer period.

[Robert Lewis]

Indeed Dirk!

[Onno Petersen]

I finally talked to Edwin Schouten this afternoon, the cameratech from ETKON here in Amsterdam. (Marc I have to give you his regards!)

He told me it is a well known problem and has to do with the fact that ORWO is firmer and also somewhat rougher physically than Kodak and Fuji stock. He said all the old LTR's have this problem, and it is because of a modified pressure plate in the newer magazines that those newer Aatons can handle it better. The newer ones have a smoother top which reduces friction by a large amount. See picture for the newer version in one of my magazines.

Aatons don't use a registration pin (like Arri's do), and the film keeps on moving a tiny tiny little bit when the transportation pin retracts, which is normal and the camera is adjusted to that. With the use of the stiffer and rougher ORWO stock and the older pressure plates this movement is less, which makes the transportation pin hitting the film instead of entering the perforation. Film skips a frame but the sprockets advance the film > you loose your loop.

In the ARRI's the registration pin immediately stops the film, so roughness doesn't matter. Bolexes, Krasnogorsk etc are probably much less precise and will handle anything you feed them.

Of course the camera can be adjusted to handle this stiffer and rougher stock perfectly well, but it has to be adjusted again if you want to use Kodak/Fuji.

By the way, I tested last weekend with 15 yr old UN 32 in my LTR, no problem at all. The 15 yr old Svema jammed, but it was visibly shrunken. I'll run it through a Bolex rex 5 just to see what happens one of the coming days.

Film doesn't shrink that easily if you store it well, I'm a filmscanner in my daytime job and have scanned thousands of archival prints in the last years. You probably see fading in your camerastock way before the shrinking will become a problem.

 

I'm curious if these pressure plate designs will solve the problem for the others?

 

Onno

Edited June 7, 2013 by Onno Petersen

[Guest Witold Grabiec]

Hi Guys,

Just signed up mostly to monitor and learn as I am no film maker at this point, although have a nice 16mm camera which I hope to put it to use one day. Currently I'm putting UN54 to photographic use looking for something different for a change.

 

But on this topic (keep in mind I'm a novice, so this may be of no difference), according to ORWO own website they produce 16mm film in following versions:

 

FROM Filmotec.com

16 mm (ISO 69) in the following versions:

• 1-0 RA-7620 (1 RA-3000)
• 1-2 R-7620 (2 R-3000)
• 1-0 RA-7605 (1 RA-2994)

 

Wouldn't this mean that they CAN do perforations with a 2994 pitch? I know someone has received factory direct info about actual pitch being 2996, but that would condradict their own words, no? Even, if the difference can be seen as within manufacturing tolerance. My own problem with accepting a product that is claimed to be pitched at 2996 as "close enough" to 2994 is, that it would indicate a manufacturing standard deliberatly OFF mark before it even started.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Witold Grabiec

[Bill DiPietra]

Wow...this is unreal.

 

I just bought two 100' rolls of 16mm UN54 and will be testing it on my ARRI S/B in a few days. I will post results after it is processed. As for the image, I've seen some stuff posted on the net here and there and it doesn't look like it can hold a candle to 7231, but I will reserve judgment until I see it projected.

[Marc Roessler]

Hi Bill,

 

also check this thread, some info there:

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=58576&page=2&do=findComment&comment=392347

 

Such a pity there's so much chaos and misinformation with this film stock.. don't rely on anybody, just test, test, test.. otherwise on the day of shooting you'll be f.. f.. f.. <_< (I'm speaking from experience..)

 

Kind regards,

Marc

[Robert Houllahan]

We just developed a film which shot about 10,000ft. of S16 Orwo which was shot on SR-2's (If I remember correctly) we did a 2K pin reg data scan on it all and there were no signs of stability issues with the stock. It was all UN74 and looked great to me.

 

I think the issues with Aaton and Arri cameras with Orwo stock may have been from early batches. I plan on ordering some UN54 and UN74 this month to try out in my Aaton LTR-54 and will report back any issues I find. I had problems with UN54 in my LTR-54 when it had fist been available but we have seen a fair amount come through Cinelab for process and transfer/scan in the last year without registration issues.

 

-Rob-

[Robert Lewis]

In my posting dated 3 June 2013, I reported that in an exchange of emails with Filmotec I had been informed that the standard perforation pitch of 16mm UN54 filmstock is .2996. I said that I had sought to establish that ".2996" was correct and was not a typographical error, and had been assured that it was correct.

 

I have today received a further email from Filmotec stating that on checking emails from last year (2013) it has been found that a mistake had, in fact been made, and that the perforation pitch should have been expressed as ".2994".

 

I have to say that when I did my comparisons (referred to in earlier postings) I had concluded that the stock supplied directly from Filmotec was perforated at a pitch of .2994 (the same as Kodak Eastman 7222 stock), but felt that I could not do other than accept the statement made by Filmotec that it was perforated at a pitch of ".2996".

 

So there we have it. The standard perforation pitch of 16mm ORWO UN54 is .2994.

 

Now we can get on with buying and shooting UN54 comforted by the knowledge that it is perforated at a pitch of ".2994".

[Peter Ferguson]

Hi Robert Lewis,

My understanding and conversations with ORWO North America here in the US and FilmoTec in Germany is that the issues with the Arri SR2 or Aaton cameras and ORWO film has been resolved. You need to use new ORWO film.

 

Both groups told me it was a problem with the dimentions of the “free channel” in both cameras. They included this in an email.

 

The perforation was always short pitch 2994. And sent data sheets...

 

Please have a look into our data sheets:

http://www.filmotec.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/V-I-TI-UN54-e.pdf

http://www.filmotec.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/V-I-TI-N74plus-e.pdf

 

& here for more info...

http://www.orwona.com/film-specifications/

 

Thought I would share b/c so far ORWO has been super helpful to me.

 

good luck

 

 

[Robert Lewis]

Peter ....

 

I am not sure that it is correct to say that "The perforation pitch was always short pitch 2994". I think it is now clear that Filmotec produced some 16mm UN54 stock which was perforated at .3000 pitch. That much is clear because (a) Filmotec themselves said so and also said that they had sold some of it to a retailer in Germany and by that means it had got into the supply chain, and (b) 16mm UN54 stock is still offered for sale in Germany which is perforated at .3000 pitch.

 

It might well be correct to say that the Company's standard pitch was and is .2994, the same as Kodak Eastman 7222 and other 16mm stocks, but any confusion there is about the actual pitch was, I think, inadvertently brought about by Filmotec stating in an email some seven months ago that their standard pitch is .2996. That, as I said in my last posting was corrected in an email yesterday, when it was said that a review of emails had revealed that a mistake had been made when it was stated that the pitch is .2996.

 

I actually found myself using shooting some 16mm UN54 perforated at both .2994 and .3000.The can in which stock perforated at .3000 pitch didn't actually state the pitch, but I didn't have a difficulty with either. At the time, though, I did think that the stock which had been perforated at pitch .3000 was a little noisier than normal as it passed through my Aaton and Arriflex SRII cameras. It certainly didn't cause any jam. However, some on this Forum have reported camera jamming. Whether that is related to pitch or to some other issue, I know not.

 

Hopefully all is now well, and all we have to do is to make sure that when purchasing stock we buy stock which is pitched at .2994, as you say.

 

Best regards.

[Onno Petersen]

The 1 RA-3000 I ordered in Germany last year did indeed jam in my LTR after a couple of meters. Of course it can be adjusted for the stock but I switched to Kodak 7266 which runs fine. So yes, a test is necessary.

[Robert Lewis]

Apologies to all.....I am not sure how the 'Smiley' got into my posting above. It should have been a '(b)'.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Robert Lewis

[Charles MacDonald]

Presumably the .3000 pitch film was eitehr produced in error, by using the perforating dies used for Positive film, or more likly made to a customer order, (High Speed cameras tend to use .3000 for example) .... The fact that it has been reported that the film was just marked UN54 rather than the "Keycode" style edge numbering fits with the special order theory.

 

Stock purchased through the official channels SHOULD be the right pitch for normal movie cameras. It is nice that there is a choice, and also a 400 speed film.

 

I am still hoping for a Quality 50 ISO B&W stock to emerge form somewhere.