Tungsten Slide Films

[frobozz]

A closer read of those articles tells how they convinced Technicolor to process the stuff: they were shooting it in a 250 exposure back on their Nikon camera. So that results in about 33 feet of film. Still pretty negligible by movie film processing standards, but at least it's a lot more than 5 feet! I've got a couple of FN-100 backs for my F-1N's (about 15 feet) and I even have an original F-1 and a 250 back for it, so if I have to go that route to make processing easier, I can do so. Still hoping cinelab can do it for us though.

Duncan

[holmburgers]

Perhaps it would take a pooling of orders for them to agree to it. Like, let's say we send them x amount of rolls at once, or wait till they accumulate.

[B&Wpositive]

Perhaps it would take a pooling of orders for them to agree to it. Like, let's say we send them x amount of rolls at once, or wait till they accumulate.

The guy I spoke with back a while ago mentioned something about staples versus a special splicing tape I think. Not sure if it was staples versus tape, but the point is he said that they had some of the better splicing stuff at their New York location or something, and he would try to get that.

[frobozz]

Just a note to the folks I sent film to: I rolled them as "generous 36 exposures" since by using a bulk loader in the daylight, the spool end also gets lightstruck. So shoot 36 exposures and they'll all be good, but don't run the roll until the film physically stops at 38 or 39 or whatever, because you're likely to lose the last image or two.

Duncan

[michaelbsc]

Let me ask what may be a stupid question.

Wasn't one of the complaints about the "new digital" RA4 paper that it was too high contrast, and isn't one of the complaints about ECN-II film that it's too low contrast?

If both of those are correct, assuming I'm not suffering from a senior moment, how do the two fit together? Well? Or do they miss the mark?

[holmburgers]

Duncan,

Got the rolls and one is in my camera as we speak. Thanks a lot, can't wait to see the results.

Michaelbsc, that's a very interesting/promising proposition indeed.

[2F/2F]

Let me ask what may be a stupid question.

Wasn't one of the complaints about the "new digital" RA4 paper that it was too high contrast, and isn't one of the complaints about ECN-II film that it's too low contrast?

If both of those are correct, assuming I'm not suffering from a senior moment, how do the two fit together? Well? Or do they miss the mark?

Might be promising. There are also things you can do to the RA-4 developer to increase contrast, so between the two of them, one might be able to get decent optical prints from MP negative film. I am not sure what the orange mask situation on MP film is, though. I have shot some 500T, but it was always scanned, not printed.

[holmburgers]

If there's no orange mask, perhaps some orange filters could be made from unexposed but processed negative film. As far as I know, it's just a constant orange dye with equal density throughout the neg.

Another advantage of MP film is that you could make slides from your negs by shooting the negs macro. I've always wanted to do this, but the orange mask poses a PITA.

Side note... why does motion picture film use 250 and 500 speed designations? I'm curious why their conventions would be different than still film.

[cmacd123]

Always amazed when I see a fresh discussion of Movie Film. I am almost tempted to do an FAQ on my web space.

1) 35mm Movie film comes with Bell and Howell perfs, BH1866 vs KS 1370 for "normal film" Not a big deal for still cameras. A bit of a problem if using still Film in a movie camera.

2) All this film uses Process ECN-II - All of the curent film has a "REM-JET" back which will destroy c-41 Chemistry. (black gunk everywhere) So it eaither has to be done at home or by a movie lab.

3) all has a orange mask, and can be printed on colour paper. All has lower contrast than still film.

4 Most movie labs don't have a still splicer. They can get away with overlapping 6 inches of film at each end. Only a few folks have he sort of splicer that a still lab uses (heat seal paper) since the processers often run at 100FT/ Minute or better, they need a good splice.

5) to get slides it must be printed on 2383 or the equivalent product from Agfa or Fuji. The movie printers can't change filtration fast enough to allow for anything other than all 5 feet being printed at one flter seting (called Timing for historic reasons in the movie biz)

6 ECN negative has always had fairly good stability, the print stock used to be iffy as the major customers destroy prints after 6 months.

[Photo Engineer]

If there's no orange mask, perhaps some orange filters could be made from unexposed but processed negative film. As far as I know, it's just a constant orange dye with equal density throughout the neg.

Another advantage of MP film is that you could make slides from your negs by shooting the negs macro. I've always wanted to do this, but the orange mask poses a PITA.

Side note... why does motion picture film use 250 and 500 speed designations? I'm curious why their conventions would be different than still film.

Interesting misconceptions here. Sorry.

The orange color is a mask is NOT a constant orange dye. It is a POSITIVE orange image superimposed over the NEGATIVE original negative color image, and which has the ability to perform contrast and color masking at the same time.

PE