Emulsion 7231 16mm

[EASmithV]

I have about 600 feet of Plus-X Negative film in 16mm. I was wondering how this was usually used. Did they develop it as a negative movie, and reverse in the telecine transfer, or did they make contact movies from it? Did people often choose to simply reversal process it?

 

[Fredrik Sandstrom]

I have about 600 feet of Plus-X Negative film in 16mm. I was wondering how this was usually used. Did they develop it as a negative movie, and reverse in the telecine transfer, or did they make contact movies from it? Did people often choose to simply reversal process it?

Why the past tense? 7231 is a current product that Kodak still sells. And yes, it is used for telecine, for contact printing 16mm films, and for blowing up to 35mm. I don't imagine it's used for reversal processing, as there is Plus-X reversal film (7265) for this purpose.

 

[ic-racer]

Back "in the day" the negative was cut up into A & B rolls that contained back leader alternating with the scenes. These rolls were sequentially run through a printing machine, which printed onto negative film again. That gave you your positive movie "print" for viewing. Also, back in the day, they could use different emulsions for 'in camera' and for making the final prints for viewing.

If thats super 16 (single perf.) it is also good film for 16mm still cameras.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Back "in the day" the negative was cut up into A & B rolls that contained back leader alternating with the scenes. These rolls were sequentially run through a printing machine, which printed onto negative film again. That gave you your positive movie "print" for viewing. Also, back in the day, they could use different emulsions for 'in camera' and for making the final prints for viewing.

If thats super 16 (single perf.) it is also good film for 16mm still cameras.

Yes, film was cut into "A" and "B" rolls if dissolves or effects were needed, but it was NEVER PRINTED onto more NEGATIVE film. It was continuous contact printed onto Fine Grain Release Positive, a film designed to make projection film prints from negatives. This film was blue sensitive only, so it would be handled in relatively bright safelight. You could think of it as a single-grade b/w photo paper, only on a film base.

 

[wogster]

Yes, film was cut into "A" and "B" rolls if dissolves or effects were needed, but it was NEVER PRINTED onto more NEGATIVE film. It was continuous contact printed onto Fine Grain Release Positive, a film designed to make projection film prints from negatives. This film was blue sensitive only, so it would be handled in relatively bright safelight. You could think of it as a single-grade b/w photo paper, only on a film base.

Aren't motion pictures still done that way, but with colour film?

 

[Ektagraphic]

That must have cost you two arms and two legs!

 

[ic-racer]

Yes, film was cut into "A" and "B" rolls if dissolves or effects were needed, but it was NEVER PRINTED onto more NEGATIVE film. It was continuous contact printed onto Fine Grain Release Positive, a film designed to make projection film prints from negatives. This film was blue sensitive only, so it would be handled in relatively bright safelight. You could think of it as a single-grade b/w photo paper, only on a film base.

1) A and B rolls are used to hide the splice which overlaps onto the black leader.

2) Negative + Negative = Positive, remember

3) Also, the popular "optical printer" is not a contact printer.

 

[cmacd123]

7231 is current stock, it is rated at ASA 80 when procesed as motion picture film, but the standrd motion picture development is a tad bit softer than recomened for still film, so it is probaly closer to still plus-x than the data sheet curves would indicate when proceesed in D-76 rather than the recomended developer. I keep getting tempted to get a roll of 5231 (the 35mm equivelent) to play withbut I dont want another 400 ft of film in my freezer.

Kodak does have a data sheet on line
http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/products/bw/h15231.pdf

the film is used as a negative and printed or scanned as the case may be.

as per cost the current motion picture catalog shows they want about 78 dollars for a 400 ft roll direct from Kodak. Plus shipping but you can buy them one at a time.

the print film (on estar base type 3302) is about 140 dollars for 1000 ft, but comes two rolls to a package so you have to buy two rolls minimum. Ironically the colour print film is 104 dollars for 2000 ft, but you have to buy 6.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

1) A and B rolls are used to hide the splice which overlaps onto the black leader.

2) Negative + Negative = Positive, remember

3) Also, the popular "optical printer" is not a contact printer.

1. Yes, A&B rolls are used to hide the splice.

2. Negative + Negative does equal positive, but the Positive film stock was not a "camera" negative film stock, it was/is a stock designed for release prints and has a curve and exposure characteristics for CONTACT printing release prints from a composite negative. In the broadest general terms ALL film is negative film unless processed reversal. (With a few rare exceptions)

3. The popular "optical printer" was used for "effects" such as dissolves, and fades and titles and reductions from 35mm to 16mm, etc. it was/is not a production printer, which was/is a CONTACT printer.

Todays theatrical releases are still printed (color or b/w) on high speed CONTACT printers from a composite internegative.

 

[ic-racer]

Yes, film was cut into "A" and "B" rolls if dissolves or effects were needed, but it was NEVER PRINTED onto more NEGATIVE film.

Well what is it? NEVER or ALWAYS??

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Well what is it? NEVER or ALWAYS??

Yes, it was never Printed onto more camera negative film, it was printed onto Positive release stock...which is "negative" working in that the tones are reversed from the negative, thus making a positive.

 

[EASmithV]

Wait, I'm confused... What is the difference between camera film and release film?

 

[Fredrik Sandstrom]

Wait, I'm confused... What is the difference between camera film and release film?

Release film has a clear base, to show whites as brilliantly as possible on screen, while camera film usually has a mask. Also, release film is extremely fine grained and slow (I think Eastman 7302 is around ISO 3) and optimized for the task at hand. Printing onto camera stock is of course possible but yields inferior results.

 

[EASmithV]

That must have cost you two arms and two legs!

No, Actually I got it for free. Along with two 100 foot spools of ektachrome and about 800 feet in 100 ft spools of Kodachrome II.

 

[EASmithV]

Because this is camera negative film, will it still have the remjet layer?

 

[cmacd123]

Because this is camera negative film, will it still have the remjet layer?

Most of not all of the COLOUR negative stocks use the rem-jet black coating on the back of the film. The Black and white camera stocks just use the grey base method the same as B&W still film.

 

[fschifano]

Eastman 16 mm cine films here: http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motio...m_Products/BW_Negative_and_Reversal/index.htm

Eastman Fine Grain Positive Release Film here: http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motio..._Film_Products/Post_Production_Films/7302.htm

Read all about it.