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

[bblhed]

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.

This thread is about getting the film loaded and processed, and also says that one method of getting prints is to scan, not the only method. If this thread is moved to DPUG the information on getting the film processed might be lost.

Now this whole thing about getting Slides made from the negatives, I love slides, in fact that is what I shoot the most! Where can I get this film converted to slides? Beyond that, can they also convert regular C-41 negatives to slides? I would love to see a slide made from Portra.

 

[2F/2F]

This thread is about getting the film loaded and processed, and also says that one method of getting prints is to scan, not the only method. If this thread is moved to DPUG the information on getting the film processed might be lost.

I disagree that the statement regarding scanning states that "one method of getting prints is to scan, not the only method." The statement clearly positions scanning as the way to use these films, making this whole ECN-II thing primarily a hybrid process.

Getting the film loaded and processed is indeed what the thread is about...which is why the statement about scanning is so frustrating to me. The statement is brief, but it sets the stage for the entire process being discussed; it sets it as a hybrid stage, not an analog one; it makes it futile to me, in a way. So, IMO, either cut out the statement so it is not an issue, or move the discussion to a true hybrid stage: DPUG.

Unfortunately, they quit doing it a few years ago due to extremely low demand, but A and I lab here in L.A. used to sell pre-spooled short ends of all the MP films, and they would process them with the negative and print strip as standard procedure. The F64D and 500T were the particularly interesting emulsions to me. And yes, I scanned to print them! But if I ever wanted to talk about any aspect of it, I'd have gone to DPUG.

Anyhow, my initial statement was brief, and intended as a "just sayin'" type of comment. It did not warrant such an extreme response ("don't mention it again" and "go out of one's way to hunt down and destroy") simply due to one's personal annoyance with it.

 

[railwayman3]

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?

99.9% of this thread is about analogue movie film and the (very interesting) possibilities of using and processing it. I don't think that this would be of much interest or use to the average digital enthusiast.

And, yes, I freely admit that I scan and inkjet print all my own negs and slides (wash my mouth out...lol)...that's because, until our house move, my darkroom is in storage so I can only currently do the film processing, B&W, E6 and C41. Are you going to banish me to the dark side?

 

[holmburgers]

2F/2F, I understand what you're saying, but I would like to think that there's kind of a understanding between APUG'ers that a passing mention of hybrid technology can be tolerated, if it's not expounded upon beyond reason. I feel like I'm living in a police-state, but we're all adults here, and these aren't dirty words.

I'm not trying to shut you up, but I did request that we not discuss it anymore. You and I are the kind of posters that have to have the last word, and I don't want this thread to go off topic... that's why I said that.

So, can we please just leave it at this? I will post this thread on DPUG.

 

[2F/2F]

"99.9% of this thread is about analogue movie film and the (very interesting) possibilities of using and processing it. I don't think that this would be of much interest or use to the average digital enthusiast."

And, as the OP stated with the sentence in question, nor would it be of much interest or use to the average analog enthusiast. That is exactly the alarm bell that threw the stage for this discussion off kilter in my thinking.

I don't know if you are aware that DPUG, though poorly named IMHO, is home to analog, digital, and hybrid discussions, not just digital. Hybrid Photo dot com was incorporated into it. As such, given your statement above, and mine below it, this discussion is not only A-OK there, but is actually in a much better place there, for it's own sake.

I am not hunting anything down or destroying anything or banishing anyone, so please reconsider the accuracy of those statements. I simply mentioned my belief that this is off topic, and got a foul response that deserved a rebuttal.

 

[2F/2F]

2F/2F, I understand what you're saying, but I would like to think that there's kind of a understanding between APUG'ers that a passing mention of hybrid technology can be tolerated, if it's not expounded upon beyond reason. I feel like I'm living in a police-state, but we're all adults here, and these aren't dirty words.

I'm not trying to shut you up, but I did request that we not discuss it anymore. You and I are the kind of posters that have to have the last word, and I don't want this thread to go off topic... that's why I said that.

So, can we please just leave it at this? I will post this thread on DPUG.

Ok, Ok.......



I was interested in the topic, and did not want to start a debate. But I thought it at least needed a passing mention. So it bothered me that you responded the way I did. Thanks for saying that you can at least see my point.

 

[holmburgers]

http://www.dpug.org/forums/f24/35mm...meras-ecn-ii-processing-cinelab-reality-2487/

*case closed* :joyful:

 

[frobozz]

Unfortunately, they quit doing it a few years ago due to extremely low demand, but A and I lab here in L.A. used to sell pre-spooled short ends of all the MP films, and they would process them with the negative and print strip as standard procedure.

That's sort of the angle I see in a lot of these auctions of still-camera loads of the films: "Use the exact same film for your location and lighting tests, but do it more cheaply with stills instead of movie footage!" Like you say, there don't seem to be a lot of people taking them up on that concept. But clearly it's not outrageous to think about running 5 feet of film through their process, if a lab is so inclined to hassle with it.

Duncan

 

[holmburgers]

When I called in, the guy I spoke to said that they'll splice these short rolls together with leader and run them through the processor with other short rolls, presumably from stills.

He also touted the amazing range of 500T. He was at a foundry (or the like), and they had these large steel blocks heated up to incredible temperatures; he said there was detail in the ground as well as in the hottest center of the blocks, retaining the whole range of visual information. Furthermore, people with D90's (or whatever the kids are using these days) all had clipped highlights with no information in those highlights.

+1 for film!

 

[frobozz]

Bw cine negative film has no REM backing.

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

All true, and as near as I can tell nobody else is making B&W camera films in 35mm either. But there's still a lot of stuff out there hiding in people's refrigerators, so always worth keeping an eye open for that. And Kodak still makes a ton of B&W intermediate/process/print films that might prove interesting, I'm playing with some now.

In regards to the OP that parenthetically mentions not having asked Cinelab about processing B&W film: no need! With no REMJet backing, it processes just like any other B&W film at home.

Duncan

 

[railwayman3]

"99.9% of this thread is about analogue movie film and the (very interesting) possibilities of using and processing it. I don't think that this would be of much interest or use to the average digital enthusiast."

And, as the OP stated with the sentence in question, nor would it be of much interest or use to the average analog enthusiast. That is exactly the alarm bell that threw the stage for this discussion off kilter in my thinking.

I don't know if you are aware that DPUG, though poorly named IMHO, is home to analog, digital, and hybrid discussions, not just digital. Hybrid Photo dot com was incorporated into it. As such, given your statement above, and mine below it, this discussion is not only A-OK there, but is actually in a much better place there, for it's own sake.

I am not hunting anything down or destroying anything or banishing anyone, so please reconsider the accuracy of those statements. I simply mentioned my belief that this is off topic, and got a foul response that deserved a rebuttal.

Most of my friends who use digital have long since disposed of their analogue gear, or, particularly in the case of the younger ones, have never even used film. As such they really would have no interest in fiddling around with "old movie film" (which, we're told, is, itself, rapidly becoming obsolescent. ).

Movie film was never designed to produce paper prints, rather "transparent prints" for projection, so it is interesting to know if it can reasonably be used for analogue or scanned prints, and the relevent film processing needed. If, as the OP said, it is more suitable for scanning, that, to me, is all useful info, and I'm not going to criticise him for that digression from our sacred analogue beliefs.

 

[bblhed]

The hybrid workflow I am looking for with this film is the one that turns the negatives into slides I can project, is there a lab that will do that? And yes I am talking about optical transfer here, just like they do to make movies for projection, but I want to make slides for projection.

 

[2F/2F]

The hybrid workflow I am looking for with this film is the one that turns the negatives into slides I can project, is there a lab that will do that? And yes I am talking about optical transfer here, just like they do to make movies for projection, but I want to make slides for projection.

Any place I've dealt with that processes ECN-II can do this, and usually does as standard practice.

However, these "slides" ("prints," technically) are really designed just to be working versions of the "master" images held on the negative film. The greatest aspects of the MP films are in the original negatives. The fine grain, the wide exposure latitude, and the specialized emulsions.

 

[frobozz]

Also, nobody is going to "print" your negs onto release film on a frame by frame basis in terms of setting the exposure and color correction. They're going to set it in all likelihood by looking at the first frame, and running them all the same way. Note that this is not unlike normal slide film: if you botch your exposure, you get bad slides. But it's different than printing C-41, and it misses some of the other cool aspects of movie film, in that you can do lots of interesting things with the two points of exposure (neg and final print.)

I'm actually including a color chart on the second frame of all my rolls so far (first frame is a piece of paper with the name of what I *think* the film is that I'm shooting... in case any of my short ends turn out to not be as advertised! I can stop doing that once I verify them all...)

Duncan

 

[B&Wpositive]

Chris and Duncan:

Thanks for taking the initiative to get this going while I was busy.

All:

This thread is about shooting and more importantly, processing, of ECN-II camera film. Since apug.org is dedicated to shooting and processing film, there is no reason that the topic does not fit in here. What you do with the negs after shooting them, is a whole different game, and is not the subject of this thread.

We just wanted to find a lab willing to do this, and now that we have, we wanted to publicize it so that others can get in on the action. These happen to be the last tungsten-balanced films on the market. And they have the latest technology for image quality. If that doesn't sway a few members into trying the films out, I don't know what will.

Original thank you must go to Ektagraphic for giving me the idea to contact Cine Lab months ago.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Going back to the question of slides: in comparison with an E6 slide, in what respects would an ECN negative printed on release film differ?

Is it possible to get a quality job somewhere?

 

[Photo Engineer]

E6 films commonly attain a Dmax of about 3.0 and Neg-Pos print films attain a density of 4.0 or greater. This gives the neg-pos system a much greater latitude due to the density range. Color correction is also superior. Therefore, you get a better result with a neg-pos workflow!

PE

 

[holmburgers]

For one, release film I believe is not very archival, as it's only intended for a limited run of showings and doesn't have the longevity (or the need for it) of the "native" stock.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yes, but it has been improved. The C41 equivalent, 4111 (IIRC) was very good for stability. It has been discontinued.

PE

 

[B&Wpositive]

For one, release film I believe is not very archival, as it's only intended for a limited run of showings and doesn't have the longevity (or the need for it) of the "native" stock.

Just to clarify in case anyone was confused or mislead by the above post...

The film we've been experimenting with (e.g. Vision 500T, etc.) is camera film, not release film. It's as stable as anything if it's run through the right chemistry (which was the whole point of this thread).

Way to confuse people! Just kidding.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Chris and I were answering the question posed in post #42.

PE

 

[holmburgers]

Uhh...

What they said...

 

[JBrunner]

I've got maybe a thousand feet or more of various out of date short ends and at least one unused 400' roll of 35mm MP stock in the freezer. I have no intention of using it in a still camera. Free to whomever wants to pay the shipping. I'll look this weekend and see exactly what I have.

 

[holmburgers]

! _ !

I might be interested in some of that. I don't have a good way to respool it necessarily, but if I could figure out a way, I'd roll cartridges for anyone interested.

JB, you da man.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

E6 films commonly attain a Dmax of about 3.0 and Neg-Pos print films attain a density of 4.0 or greater. This gives the neg-pos system a much greater latitude due to the density range. Color correction is also superior. Therefore, you get a better result with a neg-pos workflow!

PE

I'm just wondering idly, but are 35mm projectors powerful enough to take advantage of that density range, or is it not a concern?

I'd love to have ECP slides.