using cine film as still film
Kodak makes B&W cine print film type 2302. Their link is http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploa...arch9_2009.pdf
Has anyone used it? In the very long 2000 ft roll it sells for $252.21. That is about $13 per 100 ft. Are there any drawbacks to this? No rem jet backing I presume? Normal sprocket holes? No surprises? Speed?
Are there other cine films we should know about? Will their positive films process as positives in D-76 (some of their former positive films developed out to negatives in normal B&W developers)
This might be a very good solution to the problem of high film prices. It has not 'caught on' yet but maybe there are caveats we should know about.
ALSO: they make 'color vision' without rem jet backing. How does this do in normal C-41? - David Lyga
I use orwo N74. Not bad either
At one time Kodak used to make several cine BW films sadly there is only one now Eastman 5222 (Double-X). This is the only one that I would use for negatives. Other films not intended for negatives may not have the proper characteristic curve. I shoot this film at an EI of 400 and develop it in HC-110 1+49 for 8.5 min at 21 C with excellent results.
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
Cine print film is primarilly intended to make prints for projection, from the camera negative.....a bit like a paper emulsion coated on a film base. It would be very slow if used in a camera, and would then produce a negative, not a positive image (unlike a reversal film, which when processed by reversal chemicals will give a positive ready for projection).
Cine negative can be loaded into cassettes for still camera use (as with the Orwo N74 mentioned by Schlapp). I can remember my Dad talking about buying 25ft tins of cheap FP3, HP3, etc., in the 1950's and 60's, which (going by the perfs and edge markings on his negs which I still have) were surplus ends of cine film.
You've got an older price list. The latest one I have seen is from Feb 15, 2012 and is here:
Originally Posted by David Lyga
and shows that film as $305.17. Still a good price.
I've been playing with a lot of cine non-camera films (intermediate, print, etc.) as still films and I think there is some definite promise there but there are lots of caveats. Slow speed is the big one, but that might be OK with some people. Weird response curves is another one. Some of them are orthochromatic, which again might actually be fine for some people. And all of them, since they aren't intended to be used and developed the way we do it, require a lot of experimentation to find the right speed to expose them at, and the right development time. Someday I'm going to finish all my experiments and post results. Sometime this weekend I'll post a list here of the specific films I have been testing, in case anyone else has experience with those types and can chime in here. Here is one I recently posted info on:
I think the idea of using color print films as camera negative films is a hopeless cause. They are intended to be the "paper" to the camera film's negative and as such the response curves are just completely wrong for shooting negatives on. Don't let me stop you from experimenting if you pick up some cheap, I just personally think that while you can make some decent images out of the wrong curves of black and white print film, it's a whole different ballgame of trying to do that with color materials. Maybe you could end up with interesting weird-color prints a la HIE, but more likely it's just going to be a muddled mess.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I use B&W 35mm cine film, decades ago it was ORWO, now is mostly Polypan F - Polyester base, silver rich emulsions, vintage look.
No anti-halation backing on the ones I've used/use but I dont care about anti-halation backing.
I would take that any day, instead of the packed triacetate films that he "big" companies sell for >3 US$ for cartridge.
They screwed themselves, big time.
I thought I had posted about my tests with 2360 (aka 5360 or SO-291 or Direct MP film) but it took me a while to find them... in the 35mm camera forum for some reason!
And here is a picture I took of SO-291 film for another thread about film translucency - it's very red!
Oh yeah, other caveats:
- sometimes no anti-halation backing, as georg16nik mentioned
- dealing with 400/1000/2000 foot rolls can be a handful. I have rewinds and split reels and spare cores/cans/bags, but it can be done on a flat table with a nail and your outstretched arms to measure 36 exposures if you're careful. (You do not want the film to come sliding off the core en masse!)
- I get the impression that quality control on the lab films is not quite as strict - after all if one frame has a tiny defect you'll never see it as the movie spins by at 24fps, whereas that could ruin your Pulitzer-prize-winning photo if it's used as still film. Or maybe it's just the SO-291, since that is the only one I've seen problems on. That is supposed to be used for quickie work print copies, for instance if you want to screen a copy for the people doing the music for the film. I had a couple of sections with huge dozens-of-feet-long scratches down the film that I certainly didn't put there! Maybe they use up their base stock with defects on throwaway products like SO-291, I don't know...
- A lot of these are on Estar base - always remember your scissors when dealing with it, because there will be no possibility of tearing it!
the polyester base is BIG plus, bacteriologically safe, no vinegar syndrom, archival superior in all regards.
A lot of my photo buddies in Europe turned to cine film, long long time ago and never looked back and I am not talking about folks who dont have budgets for their hobby.
A few miles of cine film in the deep freeze and no bother with TriX, 4X, Tmax, Dmax or whatever monkey films names nowadays kids are crying will not exist soon.
>3 US$ for a roll of film having a just under a pinch of silver and lots of dyes and on triacetate junk - are u seriously kidding me?
I'm certainly convinced of all of those advantages, which is why I have been playing around with it so much. (Not enough hours in a day though...) But unlike Tri-X you can't just pop it in your camera and shoot and develop and print some pictures, thus all my somewhat rigorous testing.
Originally Posted by georg16nik
Sadly, my testing is going slower than Kodak's march towards obsoleting all of these films. By the time I figure out which ones I really want to concentrate on, odds are they won't be for sale any more :-( But I have at least 1000 feet each of most of them, so that should last me a while!
For instance I bought the 2360MP direct from Kodak for full price... and now I see they don't sell it any more. Sigh.