Cine E6 versus normal?

[Nick Zentena]

"Traditional dip-and-dunk E6 machines will absolutely not work for long-roll E6 motion picture films."

That's from Kodak's webpage

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/reversal/accreditation.shtml

Does this matter for still use?

When I go by the shop next week I think I'll pick up some short ends mainly to cross process. [assuming it's in stock] But I'm curious how big of an issue using Kodak 100D for still would be.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I don't think this matters for still use. I think the reason you can't use a dip and dunk machine for cine E-6 film is a mechanical one--it's not designed to handle long rolls. A machine that develops cine film has to be able to output dry film at the end that can be spooled onto a roll. If you cut a 36 exp. roll for still use from a long roll of E100D, I believe you can process it like any E-6 still film.

My impression is that the reperfed Super-8 and 16mm Velvia 50D that you can get from some independent suppliers, for instance, is the same Velvia 50 that was sold as still film (yes, it's discontinued, but a few companies have bought the remaining 35mm stock and are selling it as cine film).

 

[Nick Zentena]

Sounds good. Thanks. Hopefully they'll have some in stock. Maybe some of the Plus X to.

 

[Kino]

Unless you can get a price break by buying short ends of the 5285 Ektachrome 100D, I don't think it is very practical to purchase it from Kodak for respooling. Current prices on a 400 ft core load is $475.73. If you can get 18 x 36 exposure rolls from 100 feet of bulk loaded film, that equals 72 x 36 exposure rolls at $6.60 a roll; NOT a great savings I would think. The 1000 ft. roll clocks in at $1,189.33 and offers no change in price despite the higher volume. HOWEVER, if you could find some recanns from one of those film brokerage places online, you might be able to bring the price down to a good point, but its not exactly a heavily used stock, so I bet that would be rare... Man what a buzz-kill... Can't take me anywhere...

 

[Nick Zentena]

No it's not from Kodak. I'm going to be downtown anyways so I figure I'll stop by Stock Options. Worse case it'll be a short detour.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Plus-X cine stock might be a lower contrast film than Plus-X still film. I don't think they are the same.

 

[Nick Zentena]

I vaguely remember somebody saying it was like an older film? Or was that one of the other cine b&w films?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

You're probably thinking of Double-X, which some people think is like Super-XX, but it is completely different. The only thing they have in common is that they are around ISO 200. It's still a kind of interesting film--sort of low contrast, very grainy.

 

[Kino]

No it's not from Kodak. I'm going to be downtown anyways so I figure I'll stop by Stock Options. Worse case it'll be a short detour.

Cool! Can you let me know how it works out?

 

[Helen B]

Worse case it'll be a short detour.

Best case it will be a recan detour.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Just so I don't come to a short end -)

 

[Nick Zentena]

They had no E6 films in stock. From the sound of it it's very much hit or miss with mostly miss.

They only had full cans of B&W in stock.

So I picked up some KODAK VISION2 50D 5201. It's ECN but I've been wanting to figure this stuff out just in case. The price was right at 20cents a foot.

 

[Helen B]

As Kino mentioned, there is very little 35 mm reversal stock used in movies. Let us know what you think of the 5201. Will you process it yourself or send it to a lab?

Best,
Helen

 

[Gerald Koch]

The two Kodak B&W cine films, 5231 and 5222 are intended to be printed on contrasty positive stock. The ISO speeds and developing times are designed for this purpose. When exposed at 125 and 400 respectively and developed to a normal CI they are excellent for still camera use. Rather then being grainy, their RMS granularity values (extremely fine and very fine) are comparable to still films of the same ISO speeds. Compare the values to Plus-X and Tri-X.

 

[Nick Zentena]

As Kino mentioned, there is very little 35 mm reversal stock used in movies. Let us know what you think of the 5201. Will you process it yourself or send it to a lab?

Best,
Helen

I'm going to do it myself. Still haven't decided on the best route.

Do you know how big the spool hole is on the can? I got 200 feet so I assume that makes it a 400 foot reel. I'm going to rig something up for loading into 35mm cans. No way 200 feet will fit one of my bulk loaders.

 

[Gerald Koch]

So I picked up some KODAK VISION2 50D 5201. It's ECN but I've been wanting to figure this stuff out just in case. The price was right at 20cents a foot.

In the past the problem with using color negative cine stock has been that these films are designed to be printed on color positive stock. This positive stock has a different response than color paper making it impossible to get a really good match with all three color layers. This results in a slight color cast to either the highlights or the shadows of the print. You decide which is less noticeable, I usually choose the shadows.

The removal of the Rem-Jet backing can also prove to be a problem.

 

[Nick Zentena]

I figure to use it for more artistic photos. So perfect colour fidelity shouldn't be an issue.

I'm going to spend some time at the Kodak website pouring over the formulas they have posted. I'm not sure which way I'll do this yet.

 

[Helen B]

There were some formulae in PT a while back, and I could fish them out if you are interested. I think that a lot of people use plain old C-41, either one-shot or filtered between films, when colour fidelity isn't an issue.

It should be on a 'U' core, which is also the standard 2 inches outside diameter core used for bulk still fim as far as I know.

Best,
Helen

 

[Nick Zentena]

Kodak has these formulas on thier website.
http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acr...g/h247/h2407.pdf#search="kodak ecn-2 formula"


I'm mostly worried about the prebath. Not sure how easy it would be to get the Kodak AF-2000 that the developer calls for.

 

[Kino]

I'm going to do it myself. Still haven't decided on the best route.

Do you know how big the spool hole is on the can? I got 200 feet so I assume that makes it a 400 foot reel. I'm going to rig something up for loading into 35mm cans. No way 200 feet will fit one of my bulk loaders.

Your loads will undoubtedly be on 2 inch film cores, not reels and certainly not daylight spools, so work entirely in total darkness!

The spindle hole of the core is approx. 1 inch in diameter with a keyway slot designed to positively index the core to the magazine or hand rewind drive.

Examples of cores

Unless you own a set of film rewinds for motion picture work and have a tightwind or a split reel (a reel that unscrews for the core to fit in between) you will have to rig up a way to unspool the film from the core.

A tightwind...

I would suggest you go back and buy a few cores from the supply house, get some cheap cotton gloves and rewind the stuff by hand in a changing bag. When the film reaches a height of about 3/4 of an inch from the surface of the 2 inch core, you have about 100 feet of film. Be sure to get 2 inch cores because 3 inch stock cores (for lab loads) wont allow you to use more than about 50 feet of film in the bulk loader (depending upon loader).

Of course, if you have a simple bulk load core like factory bulk loads come on, you can use that as well and get more into the loader....

I'll shut up now...

 

[Nick Zentena]

I was figuring on using basically the same setup I use for colour roll paper. Basically a dowel in the hole on a stand. I'll pull it out to the end of the table and attach it to a 35mm film canister. Go back to the film and cut it off. Spool it up. Just need to get a dowel that's small enough to fit the film. For paper I use a broom handle-)