Emulsion differences between bulk & cartridges?

I was reading the old Zone VI newsletters the other day (my dad has the complete collection, most interesting read!) and a statement from Picker piqued my attention: he claimed that bulk film was not the same as the film sold in 35mm cartridges, and that in fact it was cine film. This must have been from an 80s newsletter.

Now in my own experience I haven't really seen any differences between the 400TX I get in bulk and the one I get preloaded, and the cine tri-x that Kodak sells is one stop slower (200 ISO). So my question is: has Picker's claim ever been true, or was that just a misinformed remark? Are there any manufacturing constraints that would make bulk and preloaded to be different?

They sell bulk rolls of colour film to. Obviously if it was cine film it wouldn't be C-41. I can't see a reason why they would do that.

mhv said:

I was reading the old Zone VI newsletters the other day (my dad has the complete collection, most interesting read!) and a statement from Picker piqued my attention: he claimed that bulk film was not the same as the film sold in 35mm cartridges, and that in fact it was cine film. This must have been from an 80s newsletter.

Now in my own experience I haven't really seen any differences between the 400TX I get in bulk and the one I get preloaded, and the cine tri-x that Kodak sells is one stop slower (200 ISO). So my question is: has Picker's claim ever been true, or was that just a misinformed remark? Are there any manufacturing constraints that would make bulk and preloaded to be different?

Click to expand...

Almost certainly hopelessly misinformed. If the same film is sold as both bulk and cassettes, it will be the same film. Yes, 'short ends' of movie film are sold as bulk -- but rarely as bulk with the same name as cassette film.

De mortuis nil nisi bonum but Fred was inclined to flights of fancy like this.

Cheers,

R.

I am quite astounded by the number of myths and outright false statements about photography that are floating around.

This one is utterly false. Bulk film and film in 35mm cartridges are exactly the same. Among other things, it is against the law in the US to sell two products with the same label or name. There must be a distinguishing difference in the label to separate them if such a thing were to be done.

And, BTW, motion picture and still 35mm each have slightly different perfs, but they can be run through the same cameras. I forget, offhand, the difference, but the difference is slight.

Even if what was stated in the OP were to be done, such as a hypothetical "Plus X and Plus X Pro", it is my understanding that they must have some familial relationship and characteristics to carry the same family name and are on the market at the same time.

At one time, Kodak produced a product called T1920 and another T1970. They both were called Ektacolor paper, but took different processes. Their lifetime in the marketplace overlapped by about 1 year. In the package and on the package were clear indications in print that these were different products.

PE

It's been a long time, but IIRC the movie film had no frame numbers. That area was needed for audio, etc.

I can't say about the current film but bulk Tri X from that era was definitely different than the roll film. I don't know if it was movie film but the film base was darker.

The 35mm film comes off the slitting and perfing operation and is either chopped into 100 ft rolls or is left in huge bulk rolls for sending on to the casette spooling operation. Same roll, same film, different chopping and packaging.

Motion picture is slit the same, then perfed differently and is chopped into 100 ft, 1000 ft and etc.. rolls.

The motion picture and still films are not the same.

Camera still films get edge markings, and motion picture films do not.

PE

Elrod, that's curious, did that ever impact your results?

I guess we can call Picker's statement "balderdash" (one of my favorite English words), but then I'm curious as to when the film plants separated the emulsion for cine and the emulsion for still in 35mm.

If my history is right, the Leica had to use 35mm cine film hand-rolled on Leitz cassettes. Later in the 1930s (?) when Kodak came up with the Retina, they also came up with preloaded cassettes. At that specific point in time, were the emulsions different from cine ones? Did they just reuse the existing emulsions for rollfilm / sheet film?

Cine film's perforations are slightly rounded along two opposite sites, vs. flat on all four sides (with curved corners) for still camera film.

The only difference I've noted between bulk and individual-cassette still camera film is in edge markings. The frame numbering obviously can't match "real" frame numbers for bulk film, and some manufacturers (Foma, at least) leave off the frame numbers in their bulk films. That's not an emulsion difference, though.

One of the main differences between cine and still film is the fact that the support is different. Cine film usually has a clear support with remjet backing for the purposes of static reduction in high speed cameras and antihalation.

Still film has a carbon suspension in the film itself to prevent light piping (antihalation) and antistatic as well, but is intended for simpler processing.

The motion picture support must be completely transparent for projection purposes. This requires high magnification.

In addition, motion picture original films are usually built to give lower contrast negative images allowing for the duplication process.

They may have the same generic emulsion formula, but the coating formula and support are quite different.

PE

The cine film called Tri-X that Kodak makes is a reversal film and is only made in 16mm and not in 35mm. The only 35mm Kodak B&W negative cine films are Eastman 5231 (Plus-X) and Eastman 5222 (Double-X).

Ilford used to make two cine films which were identical to the still films FP4+ and HP5+ but they were discontinued about a year ago.

Photo Engineer said:

And, BTW, motion picture and still 35mm each have slightly different perfs, but they can be run through the same cameras. I forget, offhand, the difference, but the difference is slight.


PE

Click to expand...

There were slight differences in the perforation pitch, ie, the distance between the holes. 35mm movie camera stock have slightly oval holes, and their spacing is critical when it comes to running them in motion picture cameras. I have been told by a cameraman that the pitch differed a bit in the films made in different regions of the world. He showed me an Arriflex and a Mitchell with adjustment settings for the pitch variations.

Movie print (release positive) film have perforations which are rectangular and similar to the ones found in "still" film. The BW versions are often Blue-sensitive only and have rather slow speeds- think of BW photopaper but on a long strip of acetate.

Movie film would run in still cameras without problems. The Leica was designed around 35mm movie film, coming out first as a 'short end' tester for testing short movie film for exposure. However, running 35mm meant for 35mm still cameras would mean trouble. We tried to run about 5 metres of film cut from a still bulk roll and the camera chewed up the film after about 3 seconds. The film ran only that much (at 24 frames per second, about 1.5 feet/sec) before the camera's pull-down claws got confused and started grabbing the film in places outside the perforations.

The original Picker article was indeed confused. Bulk film bearing the name of a still camera stock will contain the same film. However some bulk film sold are really "shortends". Shortends are the film left in the movie camera magazine which cameramen don't usually use because they would run for just a few seconds. Or sometimes these are cut from surplus movie film stock.

Movie film don't have frame numbers, but they are printed with 'footage' numbers, as well as information about the film's stocks on the edges outside the perforations. In some BW stock, the footage can be read from undeveloped film. This allowed the camera operator to pull out a length from the magazine and read off from the raw stock directly. These footage numbers are critical for movie applications like editing or sound synch'ing.

The soundtrack area runs inside the perforation, next to the picture area. There is nothing special about this part, nor is it sensitised or coated differently. Often this area remains blank, to leave an area for the soundtrack to be printed on later.

Years ago, I got some Tri-X (it had an EI of 320) and Agfa which came in cans the same size as regular bulk still film. Unlike regular bulk film, these stocks were reeled in "daylight" spools which allowed the film can to be opened and handled in subdued light. The spools were flanged (I think they were labelled as #1 or #10 spools) with solid metal sides. These were meant to be used for small 35mm movie cameras (like the spring-wound Elmo used by newsreel cameras) which allowed daylight loading. The 30m length of film run for around 1 minute. This film, with their spool fit' daylight loaders perfectly. And the stocks also bore no frame numbers.

Jay

mhv said:

Elrod, that's curious, did that ever impact your results?

I guess we can call Picker's statement "balderdash" (one of my favorite English words), but then I'm curious as to when the film plants separated the emulsion for cine and the emulsion for still in 35mm.

If my history is right, the Leica had to use 35mm cine film hand-rolled on Leitz cassettes. Later in the 1930s (?) when Kodak came up with the Retina, they also came up with preloaded cassettes. At that specific point in time, were the emulsions different from cine ones? Did they just reuse the existing emulsions for rollfilm / sheet film?

Click to expand...

It did make a difference in zone I (.1 + film base + fog)and was nearly impossible to get a good solid black through an unexposed negative for a "proper proof".
I attended one of Fred Picker's workshops in 1980. One of the instructors,Tim Frazier if I remember corectly, was going to give a printing demonstration & asked the group for a negative. I gave him one of mine & he noticed that it was bulk film as soon as he looked at it.
I may still have example negatives from bulk and roll around somewhere. When I find them I'll gladly send them to someone with a densitomiter to verify what I (and Fred) said.

ElrodCod said:

I can't say about the current film but bulk Tri X from that era was definitely different than the roll film. I don't know if it was movie film but the film base was darker.

Click to expand...

The TX and PX reloads I used in 1982/83 (among the first films I used) looked every bit like the TX and PX which came in factory cassettes. They were frame numbered (one figure like "32" or "32A" spaced four perforations apart). They also bore the same edge codes. The only difference was the numbers- factory loaded film run only to 36A or so, but the bulk films were numbered 1...40. Obviously this sort of numbering was to make up for inconsistencies in drawing film lengths from a bulk loader.

The negatives' film base were not darker nor greyer than 'regular' TX.

You might have gotten movie film then. Tim Frazier was probably able to identify it easily because of the oval perforations. He wouldn't have been able to conclude as easily if the frames had rectangular perfs or frame numbers which ran like the numbers in still camera negatives. The movie film stock I've used (Double-X, ISO 250) did have a thicker film base. Its clear areas also looked more grey, but not much. The acetate base also was easier to tear.

Jay

I can't find the negatives but did come across some old contact sheets. One edge of the bulk film has Kodak Tri X Pan alternating with Kodak safety film in very fine print. The other edge is numbered from 1 to 44 (and repeats) with the number in a light field (would be dark on neg.).
The Roll film says Kodak Safety Film 5063 in bold print (no mention of Tri X) on one edge and numbered 1, 1a, 2, 2a, etc. with an arrow to the left of the number.
Perforations on both films are rectangular.

Fred was partially correct conerning some color films, A place called Dale Lab used to sell cassetts of movie film. Send it back for processing, you got prints, slides, and a "free" new roll. You had to send it back to Dale because the movie film had special backing that needed to be removed in a extra step.

Regular C41 and monochrome film in 100 foot rolls was exactly the same and still is.