35mm Motion Picture film in Still Cameras - ECN-II Processing at Cinelab, a reality

holmburgers · May 12, 2011

Some of you may have been following this thread, (there was a url link here which no longer exists), which migrated to a discussion about using color-negative motion-picture film. "Short ends" can be bought cheaply and rolled onto bulk 35mm cannisters

Using MP film opens up a huge arsenal of awesome films from both Kodak & Fuji, notably the venerable 500T (high-speed, tungsten balanced), in addition to the only option for 50 speed color negative stock.

Although these films aren't designed to be printed on RA-4 materials, they are excellent for scanning.

However, the problem has been processing, with some people resorting to C-41 with sub-optimal results.

The ideal solution is of course to get this film developed in the proper process, ECN-II. Cinelab in Massachusetts is now offering this service.

Cinelab
315 Pleasant St # 11
Fall River, MA 02721-3021
508-672-1204
http://www.cinelab.com/

Although it is not expressly mentioned on their website, it has been confirmed through phone conversations and people are doing it. We should encourage them to start advertising the service on their website, or hey, even here on APUG!

Pricing is not exact, or hasn't been standardized yet, but it should be $10 or less, plus shipping. Turnaround might be a couple weeks, give or take. The more they get though, the quicker it will become.

I'd recommend sending in your rolls with a short note including your phone #, email address, shipping address and any special instructions.

So PLEASE, spread the word and start rounding up all the short ends you can find. This is an awesome opportunity!

Here are some links to get your drooling over motion-picture film....

http://motion.kodak.com/us/en/motion/products/production/index.htm
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/motion_picture/products/#negative
http://www.twinlenslife.com/2010/02/films-future-is-far-brighter-than.html

(p.s. I have no idea bout b&w, or 65mm (IMAX), but it would be worth asking for sure.)

Mainecoonmaniac · May 12, 2011

That stuff is hard on your cameras. The film stock is really thick. Great for movie cameras, but hard on 35mm camera transport.

holmburgers · May 12, 2011

I noticed zero problems in my Canon EF.

Thanks for your encouraging comment

Photo Engineer · May 12, 2011

I've run ECN through 35mm cameras with no problem except for the image quality. ECN contrast is very low compared to any C41 film (0.5 vs 0.60 - 0.63 professional vs consumer). This makes prints appear very flat. You have to somehow jack up the contrast or get slides made from the negatives using ECP.

PE

perkeleellinen · May 12, 2011

My UK contact for ECNII processing has disappeared off the face of the earth. I shot all my movie film from the other thread and I've no one to process it now...

holmburgers · May 12, 2011

I think most people, myself at least, will probably be scanning it. If talking analog, you could theoretically boost the contrast with a reinforcing negative mask, no?

perkeleellinen; if you send it over the pond all at once, maybe it'll be cost effective? If they have qualms about international, I'd be more than happy to help.

Gerald C Koch · May 12, 2011

I have run hundreds of feet of MP film through still cameras without any problem. I actually prefer it as it lies flatter in the negative carrier. The only problem that I have encountered with color negative MP film is that it is designed to be printed on color positive stock whic does not have quite the same 3 response curves that color paper has. Usually this means a slight color cast in the shadows to avoid any cast in the hightlights.

Processing these color films films is easy if you mix your own chemicals. Consider them like C-41 films with an extra step to remove the REM jet backing.

With BW films you can increase contrast by developing longer. It's not so easy with color negative film since there are 3 separate layers. Increasing development time would have the greatest effect on the top color layer. But adjustments can be made to the developer.

MP film stock is not that much thicker than still film stock. However it is stiffer. The main difference is that only 30 exposures will fit in a cassette.

thegman · May 12, 2011

Sounds like excellent fun to try out those movie films. I've got no interest in bulk loading though, so if they could also provide a service in which they sold pre-made 135 canisters loaded with that film, I'd certainly buy some.

holmburgers · May 12, 2011

A member here (who may wish to disclose themselves... cough, cough.....) has generously offered and given this film out to a few of us. I suggested that he charge money for it, but his good will proved to be too strong.

I agree though, that'd be nice.

perkeleellinen · May 12, 2011

holmburgers said:
perkeleellinen; if you send it over the pond all at once, maybe it'll be cost effective? If they have qualms about international, I'd be more than happy to help.

Thanks for the kind offer. I'm going to hold on for a while in the hope that maybe some local difficulties have taken up my contact's time. He may re-emerge.

michaelbsc · May 12, 2011

Does the B&W film have the REM backing, too?

Gerald C Koch · May 12, 2011

michaelbsc said:
Does the B&W film have the REM backing, too?

Bw cine negative film has no REM backing.

Kodak only makes Eastman Double-X 5222 now having stopped production of Plus-X 5231.

michaelbsc · May 12, 2011

thegman said:
Sounds like excellent fun to try out those movie films. I've got no interest in bulk loading though, so if they could also provide a service in which they sold pre-made 135 canisters loaded with that film, I'd certainly buy some.

Isn't that the old Seattle Film Works model?

frobozz · May 12, 2011

Gerald C Koch said:
MP film stock is not that much thicker than still film stock. However it is stiffer. The main difference is that only 30 exposures will fit in a cassette.

I've not had any problems getting 36 (really more like 40!) exposures in standard reloadable cassettes.

Duncan

frobozz · May 12, 2011

holmburgers said:
A member here (who may wish to disclose themselves... cough, cough.....) has generously offered and given this film out to a few of us. I suggested that he charge money for it, but his good will proved to be too strong.

I agree though, that'd be nice.

I'm still willing to send a few free ones out, though what I'd really prefer is to have the time to shoot some myself I've shot a roll of 500T in daylight with an 85B filter and a roll of 50D while I was doing some B&W cine film tests, but I want to shoot some of the T films with tungsten light as a more appropriate test before sending them all off for processing.

What I'm really hoping to do, once we've got this process all sorted out, is SELL some of these many many thousands of feet of movie film I've scavenged during this escapade! I mean seriously. I need to gather some more cores and cans to ship in, but then I'd gladly cut off 100-foot-ish hunks of it to send to people to bulk load their own. I've got nearly every speed and color balance of Kodak movie film made in the last few years, and then some.

Duncan

michaelbsc · May 12, 2011

Let me ask another question. I know everyone is focused on the 35mm film. But someone was asking about 120 (62mm) long rolls in a thread recently.

Is the 65mm stuff perforated on the edges? If so, how wide are the perfs? Could you slice that down to "roll your own" 120 or 220? Or are the perfs so wide they'll get in the way?

frobozz · May 12, 2011

I've not played with 65mm film, but I have got a little bit of perfed 70mm (like would go in Hasselblad backs, etc.) and cutting it down to 120 size would leave little nibbles of perfs at the edges. They'd be outside of the imaging area, of course, like they are when using one of those 70mm backs, but they might be annoying. (I actually have a 70mm-to-120 slitter, but haven't used it yet.)

So I would guess 65mm movie film would have the perfs actually slightly into the imaging area, which would be even more annoying. But you're never going to find short ends of 65mm film, and you'd be *shocked* at the price for it new... and that's if it's even available new in single roll quantities. A lot of it has to be bought by the case. So that's going to hurt!

Duncan

2F/2F · May 12, 2011

holmburgers said:
Although these films aren't designed to be printed on RA-4 materials, they are excellent for scanning

Not to discourage you, but that seems to point to DPUG to me, since the information about this service is of no possible use to anyone except hybrid printers.

frobozz · May 12, 2011

Well, the other processing place I'm talking to is pretty keen on bundling in the service of "printing" them to release film, so then you'd have all your contrast and vibrance back where it's supposed to be.... then you could do what you will with the resulting slides.

Duncan

michaelbsc · May 12, 2011

frobozz said:
Well, the other processing place I'm talking to is pretty keen on bundling in the service of "printing" them to release film, so then you'd have all your contrast and vibrance back where it's supposed to be.... then you could do what you will with the resulting slides.

Duncan

Wow! Even more like Seattle Film Works!

For the record, I never had any problem with their product. I understand that by the end they were giving shoddy service, but that doesn't mean the concept wasn't valid.

In fact, when I checked the link Chris posted at the beginning that was one thing I was looking for, whether I could send them a roll of exposed film and get back a strip of negatives as well as a strip of positives.

Who would offer that with such short strips? And how would they expect you to deliver it? In respooled Tri-X canisters? Or just extract it yourself and send them the exposed strip?

frobozz · May 13, 2011

It's a place that was touting their willingness to do such short strips, on Flickr. They do sound concerned that if all they get is one-off 36-exposure rolls it would be too much hassle. Sending them lots of rolls at once would be better, and my offer to send them 100-exposure rolls from my Canon bulk back had them even more excited.

Sending them the film in cartridges would be no problem. When I expressed a desire to get the cartridges back I did get some pushback but hey, those reloadable carts aren't cheap and probably won't be made forever! So maybe using used carts from a minilab or something might be a better plan.

Still trying to find time to shoot a bunch of test rolls so we can go through this whole process and find out if it's viable... from both a technical/hassle standpoint, and a cost standpoint.

Duncan

frobozz · May 13, 2011

thegman said:
Sounds like excellent fun to try out those movie films. I've got no interest in bulk loading though, so if they could also provide a service in which they sold pre-made 135 canisters loaded with that film, I'd certainly buy some.

There's a guy selling exactly that on That Auction Site right now. 4 rolls for $30 plus shipping. That seems high to me relative to the cost of the actual raw film, but if it saves you having to deal with a bulk loader, etc. then maybe it's worth it. Sounds like this is film he had kicking around for a while, not an ongoing service he's providing, but it's not the first time I've seen someone selling similar stuff there.

Duncan

michaelbsc · May 13, 2011

Walgreens and CVS locally will give me as many cartridges as I can stand. Problem is that it is cut short enough that reloading just by taping the butt ends together is difficult at best.

When I cut my own film in my darkroom I usually leave a long enough tail that reloading that cartridge is simple.

holmburgers · May 13, 2011

2F/2F said:
Not to discourage you, but that seems to point to DPUG to me, since the information about this service is of no possible use to anyone except hybrid printers.

There's really no need to go out of one's way to hunt down and destroy any mention of hybrid technology. If that was the subject of the entire thread, then your concern would be totally justified, but to have no elasticity in being able to read 5 words menting the word "scan", which by the way is completely unique to film, is really frustrating.

You could create a mask to control contrast and you could make analog separations for alternative proceses. To say it is of no use to anyone but hybrid printers is false.

I've posted a thread that has the intent of increasing film shooting and processing; would you prefer we have the moderator's remove it?

Please don't mention it again.

frobozz, I think you could liquidate a lot film if you wanted to. I'd even send you some bulk cannisters.

2F/2F · May 13, 2011

The OP said the stuff is not designed for printing, but scans well. That firmly positions his intended method of printing this film, and the method he intends those interested in this process to use. One could do many things. But who will? And why, then, was only scanning mentioned in the OP?

What is so hard about putting the post where it belongs, on DPUG? Everything that is OK here is OK there, but not the other way around. It would also help DPUG to grow with new unique content.

I specifically tried to be polite about stating the obvious, yet you basically told me to shut my mouth and accused me of going out of my way to engage in a witch hunt, which is not true. I opened the thread because I was interested, not to seek and destroy digital-oriented content.

As for what I'd prefer the moderators to do, that is obvious. IMO, it should be moved to DPUG if it is going to be presented as written. If not, then the OP should remove his caveat in regards to the usefulness of this process. But it's their Website, not mine. And it is not like I am raising a stink about it and making demands. I just mentioned it. It would be fine to me if it was five words, or even a paragraph or two as an aside within the body of the thread, but within the OP, framing scanning as the pretty-much the way to use these films, I don't think it belongs. Why is it so hard to hear that I think this?

35mm Motion Picture film in Still Cameras - ECN-II Processing at Cinelab, a reality

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency