Dream on.
Kodachrome or E6 were never cheaper.
These posts are a litany of what people would like.
Life is more like the pied piper.
... and not only the film is expensive but the processing as well.
I think that if Ferrania brings out an E6 film that has the same price as color negative emulsions, or the same price as a premium B&W film like Delta 100, that will be enough to be the catalyst to make amateurs and artists switch en masse. I would!! Right now, a roll of Provia 100F 120, processed, costs me $25.86 USD!
If Ferrania can make a maskless negative film, that would be great, makes it much easier to scan, especially if RA4 becomes obsolete. All our photolabs print digitally now, so dont see much sense in the orange mask these days.
My scanner is the cheapest available but has no problems with masked c41.
Dream on.
Kodachrome or E6 were never cheaper.
These posts are a litany of what people would like.
Life is more like the pied piper.
Its not so much an issue of scanning, but rather having to correct the colour and remove the mask once scanned.
The scanner software I use strips out the mask automatically but leaves a white balance button option.
Most c41 is ok with default settings and no white balance!
Not tried a cross processed E6 yet.
Don't have photoshop or similar.
When I scan I say neg or positive and make a straight gilee print for proof no correction for E6 or c41 though the Kchrome25s from 40 years ago look best.
The mask reduces dye errors a bit but colours are never real.
ok, thats good if it can, but i understand that the mask can vary between films etc.
I havnt got a scanner yet, but ive been reading lots of tutorials on changing the colour balance by tweaking the yellow and cyan percentages in photoshop etc.
Dream on.
Kodachrome or E6 were never cheaper.
These posts are a litany of what people would like.
Life is more like the pied piper.
Wow - I guess I'm luck in Japan where it costs about $7 a roll to process (sleeve, no mounts).
You could also use kodak vision motion picture film, since its a negative print for cinema use in a projector.
Again, it can be processed in C41 just like cinestill film is.
In fact Cinestill would be the best people to approach about doing this, as they can remove the remjet backing etc.
Yes your right, the orange mask is just another layer in the emulsion.
If Ferrania can make a maskless negative film, that would be great, makes it much easier to scan, especially if RA4 becomes obsolete. All our photolabs print digitally now, so dont see much sense in the orange mask these days.
I know that Ferrania are saving the acetate plant, but for future use, its well known that Cellulose Triacetate breaks down (e.g vinegar syndrome) this is something that is of concern for the archival properties of any film. Only let down with polyester base is that you can get light piping if you load the film in bright light.
$9.50 CDN sleeved, no mounts here.
Actually, if you read the Current data sheet for 2383/3383 you will note that it no longer uses REMJET as removing it took an extra wash step, and with one of the two major labs (at the time) being in LA where Water is hard to get dropping the wash step was needed. (The other lab since closed was north of Montreal)
You would have to do some testing to see if C-41 would cut it as the process is the very similar ECP2. Note if you read the Kodak technical details that applicateing the sound track was also phased out - again to skip a wash step. That only required every theatre to change out the sound reader in every projector.
http://www.motion.kodak.com/motion/...ns_acrobat_en_motion_products_lab_h12383t.pdf
There is an ANti-halo dye in the emulsion of 2383/3383 that is decolorized in processing, the trick would be if the dye would also decolorize in your C-41 process, the data sheet hints that part of that magic happens in the bleach step, and the bleach steps of teh small c-41 kits are not always the same as ECP2 or ECN2.
The Mask is NOT a LAYER, it is part of the system that allows correct colour reproduction. Ron the PE has explained this many times. Basically there is a coupler which absorbs yellow in a layer where the desired dye adsorbs yellow as well as the colour it is supposed to adsorb. another layer has a red dye where the main colour layer also adsorbs red. n both cases the Yellow and red mars are destroyed in proportion to the creation of the image dye. thus thorough the image, the red and yellow adsorption are strictly based on the nature of the desired image. The orange mask thus is easily dialled out when scanning. if it was not there there would be strange colour casts that could not be corrected easily. it at all.
There are many properties that Poly film has that need to be considered, it takes on a core set for example, thus the complaints about "curly Film" It will not yield if there is a break, which caused expensive damage at Illford when they were using it and had a mishap. It cannot be spliced with film cement, which is a problem with some motion picture use. The light pipe effect can happen with any level of lighting.
When did this supposed changeover happen?
I had vision film from about a year ago that was just made and it still had RemJet backing.
The referenced emulsion is the projection print material (ECP), not the camera exposure material (ECN).
Actually, if you read the Current data sheet for 2383/3383 you will note that it no longer uses REMJET as removing it took an extra wash step, and with one of the two major labs (at the time) being in LA where Water is hard to get dropping the wash step was needed. (The other lab since closed was north of Montreal)
You would have to do some testing to see if C-41 would cut it as the process is the very similar ECP2. Note if you read the Kodak technical details that applicateing the sound track was also phased out - again to skip a wash step. That only required every theatre to change out the sound reader in every projector.
http://www.motion.kodak.com/motion/...ns_acrobat_en_motion_products_lab_h12383t.pdf
There is an ANti-halo dye in the emulsion of 2383/3383 that is decolorized in processing, the trick would be if the dye would also decolorize in your C-41 process, the data sheet hints that part of that magic happens in the bleach step, and the bleach steps of teh small c-41 kits are not always the same as ECP2 or ECN2.
The Mask is NOT a LAYER, it is part of the system that allows correct colour reproduction. Ron the PE has explained this many times. Basically there is a coupler which absorbs yellow in a layer where the desired dye adsorbs yellow as well as the colour it is supposed to adsorb. another layer has a red dye where the main colour layer also adsorbs red. n both cases the Yellow and red mars are destroyed in proportion to the creation of the image dye. thus thorough the image, the red and yellow adsorption are strictly based on the nature of the desired image. The orange mask thus is easily dialled out when scanning. if it was not there there would be strange colour casts that could not be corrected easily. it at all.
Interesting about that, I intially thought it was the colour of the film base itself, but anyway there are maskless C41 films out there such as AGFA aviphot, CN200 which has excellent results without the mask, so shows it can be done.
In fact, i think this film would be the best film for making slides from C41 negatives.
The mask masks dye imperfections some people have perfect hearing pitch. Some people have very good colour appreciation, brides always could detect colour problems.
The tri pack film is approximate at best...
Yes negative film and negative stock like ECN and ECP is best route to projection. Latest starwars on ECN.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens
Unfortunately ECP isn't available in 8x10 sheets....
masked C41 135 shoots will print good on unmasked C41 135 some people will have 1:1 slide dup set ups from past, you would also need an unmask filter and some white balance and cut time in both colour developers to control contrast.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?