Film base

[Aurum]

Originally Posted by ath

The firebrigade of Laxenburg / Austria investigating the possibilities to extinguish burning nitrofilm in 1965: http://video.google.de/videoplay?doc...arch&plindex=1

If anyone has any waste Nitrate base left I could do with some next time I need to light the Barbeque!

The Water fairies hit it with everything they had and it still stuck up two fingers at them

[Kino]

I actually have 100 feet of it in the freezer; unexposed Panchromatic Negative stock (Kodak motion picture -- forget type) from the 30's. Base plus fog is about .30!

[Emulsion]

Originally Posted by Kino

I am trying to think of a single type of film still available off the shelf that is acetate and cannot.

You can special order acetate from Kodak in motion picture emulsions, but you have to buy 100,000 feet minimum if there are no remaining stocks ...

I have used a bit of 35mm motion picture film. All of the film I have come across recently appears to be acetate. It is easily torn if required....essential in my experience loading a motion picture film magazine. My understanding is that acetate is also essential as it will tear not strip the $200K movie cameras gears.

Small quantities (100ft) of surplus 35mm film is available from many companies for minimal cost. These are re-cans or "short ends".
http://www.stockoptionscorp.com/
http://certifiedfilm.com/
http://www.releasing.net/rawstock/
And an article on same...not by me.
http://www.scottspears.net/shortendsarticle.htm

The Kodak motion picture products catalogue shows the films that are polyester or estar. Mostly print rather than neg film.
http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acro...eteCatalog.pdf

Hope this helps somemone.

Emulsion

[Simon R Galley]

Did not see the question for me : So sorry for the delay

We coat miniature and roll film on tri-acetate, sheet film on polyester :

We would never coat miniature or roll on polyester, due to the hightened
possibility of camera damage, polyester does not tear and therefore in our
opinion is not suitable for a camera film base, so we do not use it.

POLYESTER is OK for lots of other miniature applications such as aerial / surveillance
etc. etc. and its thinner so it has other advantages in certain applications

Regards Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

[Aurelien]

Dear Simon,

I agree with you concerning the 35mm format : if it can't tear, you can damage camera. But in 120, what is the problem?

[Kino]

Well, what do you know? I stand corrected!

As to camera damage, never saw it in 13 years of about 1 million feet of polyester a year through precision Oxberry and Mitchell camera movements in our optical printers and film recorder.

Only damage I ever saw as a direct result of polyester was a bent film processing rack on our continuous processing machine.

But, it never hurts to be safe, I guess...

[Photo Engineer]

I have seen camera damage as posted here and elsewhere.

Kodak follows the same guidelines as Ilford in film base use. The only place polyester is used is in space photography where weight and film length is of concern. Kodak coated on 2 mil (0.002") support or thinner to meet NASA specs.

PE

[Steve Smith]

Originally Posted by Photo Engineer

Kodak coated on 2 mil (0.002") support or thinner to meet NASA specs.

I bet that involved some challenges. Our printers complain if we quote a job on anything thinner than 0.004" polyester.


Steve.

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Originally Posted by Aurelien

I agree with you concerning the 35mm format : if it can't tear, you can damage camera. But in 120, what is the problem?

To avoid damage on motorized 120 backs?

[David A. Goldfarb]

Not just motorized backs. Some cameras (Pentacon 6, Mamiya 6, Bronica S and S2) are known for having film advance issues or potential for stripped gears.