Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,198   Posts: 1,531,445   Online: 778
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 48
  1. #11
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,235
    Thank you for the interesting comments. But...frobozz brings up a thought that I would greatly appreciated being expounded upon: the quality control issue.

    Is there anyone out there 'in the know' who can answer this question definitively? It is true that with still film there is no opportunity for compromise with quality control but, at least intuitively, it does seem to me that with 24 frames running per second and with the 'persistence of vision' coming into play here, that there would not be the same obsessive need for perfection in every frame with cine film. Or, instead, is the state of art of film manufacture so refined today that that simply is not an issue: that cine film really is as perfect as still film.

    I am not concerned with 'slow speed' (lasts longer at room temp!) or 'weird curves' (that could be downright fascinating). I am concerned with being able to develop this film in normal B&W developers and achieve very sharp, low grain images with adequate contrast.

    Gerand Koch: are you saying that type 2302 no longer exists and that only 5222 does? - David Lyga

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    654
    Images
    15
    Duncan,
    I know what You mean, but there are other companies in Europe, Russia, China, besides Kodak, Ilford and Fuji who offer great materials at reasonable prices.
    Dealing with 1000ft in the darkroom is fun and makes You take Your art seriously, instead of buying a prepackaged cartridge like a sissy from the store

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    654
    Images
    15
    David, at least for 5222, the quality has always been top grade, no defects.
    I distill my water with steam distiller and every aspect of the dark room process is running in tight tolerances over here.
    The only film I've come across and have no doubts had defects was Foma.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,769
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    Gerand Koch: are you saying that type 2302 no longer exists and that only 5222 does? - David Lyga
    I was speaking only about Kodak negative cine films.

    Eastman 2302 is designed for making prints from negative cine films. It is only blue sensitive and very slow, in fact Kodak does not even give an ISO speed for it. It is really not suitable for camera use.

    If you want a Kodak/Eastman cine film you have only one choice and it is 5222. You may still be able to find some Easman Plus-X 5231 but it is no longer being made by kodak. Quality control on Easman films is excellent. A plus is that the Estar base will not curl and negatives are completely flat in the enlarger carrier. They also have an antiscratch and antistatic layer above the emulsion.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Mundelein, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    992
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    Thank you for the interesting comments. But...frobozz brings up a thought that I would greatly appreciated being expounded upon: the quality control issue.

    Is there anyone out there 'in the know' who can answer this question definitively? It is true that with still film there is no opportunity for compromise with quality control but, at least intuitively, it does seem to me that with 24 frames running per second and with the 'persistence of vision' coming into play here, that there would not be the same obsessive need for perfection in every frame with cine film. Or, instead, is the state of art of film manufacture so refined today that that simply is not an issue: that cine film really is as perfect as still film.
    I hate to even bring it up, since I don't want to impugn Kodak's reputation... and I'll repeat that the only film I saw this on was SO-291, which is uniquely designed to be used for stuff where defects are inconsequential. But it's something to watch out for. IN my case it was easy to work around simply because the defects went on so glaringly and for so many feet. As I was cutting off one bulk loaded 35mm cart, I noticed the gouges in the base side. So I started just pulling film out of the bulk loader... it was 15 or 20 feet before they stopped. Then the film was smooth as silk again. I found one more area like that another cartridge or two farther along, and then never again. And so far no problems at all with the 2360 I bought new. (My understanding of how this stuff works is that SO-291 was an earlier version of the product, available by "Special Order" and then when they finally released as a fully stocked product in the catalog they gave it a proper model number, which was 5360/2360, because it's definitely the exact same stuff.) So its prototype nature might be yet another reason they wouldn't care so much about defects in it.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    Gerand Koch: are you saying that type 2302 no longer exists and that only 5222 does? - David Lyga
    I think he meant that 5222 is the last B&W camera negative that Kodak sells in 35mm. They still make 2302 but it's a print film.


    Duncan

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Mundelein, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    992
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    Eastman 2302 is designed for making prints from negative cine films. It is only blue sensitive and very slow, in fact Kodak does not even give an ISO speed for it. It is really not suitable for camera use.
    Well, one man's "not suitable for camera use" is another man's "look at the cool weird film I managed to make images on!" I'm of the opinion that anything 35mm wide and with sprocket holes is potentially suitable for camera use :-) At least until proven otherwise. As long as one is aware of the long list of differences between these and off-the shelf camera films, I think they can have their uses.

    Duncan

  7. #17
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    That's interesting.
    I think I read somewhere there can be problem with the perforation, as if cinema had a slightly different standard so that the holes of movies 35mm do not necessarily coincide with the holes of a 35mm film intended for a still camera.

    Was it just a bad dream?
    Buying movie film in bulk would certainly mean a great saving.

    Fabrizio
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,769
    Quote Originally Posted by frobozz View Post
    Well, one man's "not suitable for camera use" is another man's "look at the cool weird film I managed to make images on!" I'm of the opinion that anything 35mm wide and with sprocket holes is potentially suitable for camera use :-) At least until proven otherwise. As long as one is aware of the long list of differences between these and off-the shelf camera films, I think they can have their uses.

    Duncan
    Eastman 2302 is designed for contact printing cine negative film to obtain production prints. Therefore it doesn't even have to be orthochromatic in sensitivity. A very intense light source is used. I seem to remember that cine positive films have an estimated ISO speed of ~0.6, yes you read correctly less than ISO 1!!. You will be faced with VERY LONG exposures. I personally am not that masochistic. Remember the OP will be buying this film. If one got it for free it might be interesting to play with.
    Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 04-27-2012 at 04:14 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,769
    Cine films work very well in still cameras as far as the sprocket holes are concerned. Remember the Ur-Leica was designed to test cine films.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  10. #20
    Oxleyroad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Hawthorn Oz.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    772
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    That's interesting.
    I think I read somewhere there can be problem with the perforation, as if cinema had a slightly different standard so that the holes of movies 35mm do not necessarily coincide with the holes of a 35mm film intended for a still camera.

    Was it just a bad dream?
    Buying movie film in bulk would certainly mean a great saving.

    Fabrizio
    The shape of the perf hole is slightly different but no troubles in any of the cameras I use. There is another thread here on APUG using Orwo films which use the cine perf (the true designated name skips my mind) and this B&W negative film also reversal processes really well.

    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/8...4-films-7.html

    I too thought about using B&W print film but after reading the data sheets and seeing the print times under defined light I thought I would give it a miss.
    Cheers - Andy C
    ---------------------

    16mm Cine, 35mm, 120, 5x4 & 7x5.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin