Im just curious how they developed all that film?
how did they develop 35mm movie film? what kind of reels or tanks?
-
A
- Thread starter GaryFlorida
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Pentacon Six, Kiev 60 or equivalent camera body
- Started by blee1996
-
Want to Buy Body Caps and/or Lens Adapters to Olympus Pen F (FT, FV) Camera
- Started by loccdor
-
For Sale Vintage Bolex H16 Catalog
- Started by davela
-
For Sale Reflecta 35mm Plastic Slide Frames - 100 Count - New
- Started by davela
-
For Sale Gordy Camera Wrist Strap
- Started by davela
Forum statistics
They used a really big machine that had many tanks of chemicals. The film was pulled thru the machine on a track with the film attached to a leader on a belt. I'm sure others will respond with more specifics.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
what he said ... "roller transport" like a mini lab does but on a big scale
Was there a remjet layer to deal with?
Pretty much like this: http://youtu.be/YnPYVqaY3Kw
OP
OP
so home development is out of the question?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
what kind of film is it ?
lomo sells a 8mm ( i think ) home development tank
there used to be thing that looked like an upside down umbrella
that the film was wound on and it was dipped/dunked in chemistry ..
then there is this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/Product_Resources/darkroom/rollerProcessors.jsp
lomo sells a 8mm ( i think ) home development tank
there used to be thing that looked like an upside down umbrella
that the film was wound on and it was dipped/dunked in chemistry ..
then there is this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/Product_Resources/darkroom/rollerProcessors.jsp
No. Not out of the question. But it all comes down to what level of quality are you after. If you want archival perfect colour then unless you pay the $$$ for the right developing setup you'll fall short. But if you are like me then a simple working print made from my home developed ECN2 will more than suffice so the splodges of remjet, the scratches etc all make up the over all effect that I seek.
What exactly are you wanting to do? Cause "home development" and "all that 35mm movie film" don't really go together. Back in the 50's-60's there were tanks that could develop a 100 ft roll of 16mm movie film on a big reel but they were very awkward to use, most people found it easier to send it to a lab that processed movie film. There might have been a tank and reel for 100 ft 35mm but IMO it would be a big hassle to use. Please be more specific about what you are wanting to do.
OP, I'm a few miles north of you in Sarasota.
As some are probably tired of me saying, I grew up in my father's darkroom, a pro in the 1950's. There is a reason I bring this up again, please continue.
In my sales work I had reason to visit the Technicolor Lab in LA back in the 1980's. Taking me deep into the bowels, so to speak, my jaw dropped, at least figuratively if not literally, as I was escorted through the premises. Now, just think how when a release was made to thousands of theaters all over the world, it took billions? of feet of "print" film made from the "interneg" master made from the original film from the camera.
There was film flying everywhere on overhead rollers; obviously post fixer. Thousands? of feet per second going to one place or another on many rollers. Not silent. One place was where the poor souls in a darkened cabinet watching four "prints" at a time slipping past their view looking for gross errors, hour after hour. They deserved their union wages.
Then, silver recovery. My father had these weird things, some kind of resin? soaked fabric on a wooden core sitting in his fixer to absorb the silver. I remember him cashing them in from time to time. Well, at Technicolor there was a bank active cells that looked like car batteries all over the floor of a large room. The electricity hummed. A long way from my father's darkroom.
As to your second question, no, home development of 16mm movies is not out of the question. I've delved into this deeply in the last few months. I have family 16mm films from 1927 through 1948. I finally got a projector, fixed it, a few months ago. I then stumbled across a 1950's B&H camera in an antique store, so, of course, visions of grandeur. Well, lots and lots of research later, here are some bottom line facts:
1: There is no more "double perforation" 16mm film available newer that perhaps the 1970's. This matters because that's what the old cameras require. Mine uses a magazine of military origins that holds only 2 minutes. I have bought a few of these old magazines with Super XX film. Not shot or developed because:
2: The big problem is developing it. The chemistry is easy. Plenty of old B&W reversal formulas out there. The problem is physical, not chemical. There were some big Bakelite tanks made, the Morse G3, you crank the film from one reel to the other, back and forth. There also a single reel that would be familiar to any still photo plastic tank developer, often under the Lomo brand. Both are selling in the $120-160 range.
3: There have been attempts to develop in a bucket, or even a hose. I only see problems.
4: The only 16mm film sold buy Kodak is single perf (for sound), I think a Tri-X type emulsion. Interestingly, this film is used by some high end artsy type creatives in a "Super 16" format camera. It is then digitally processed into a sort of "faux" 35mm film with great results. Even at $50K a shoot, cheaper than shooting color 35mm and then desaturating it!
Remjet backing is easy to deal with on an amateur basis. The movie film ECN-2 processing is close to C-41, but I think the color developer is CD3. Anyway, yes, you can remove the remjet after processing in your tank. I 've done it.
You might be aware that there was a huge industry of using 35mm movie films being sold into the amateur still photography market. Seattle Filmworks was a major player, as was Dale in ta ta! Hollywood, Florida. I used Intercolor, a lab for a number of years when I lived in SoCal. The "come on" for this industry was shoot one film for both slides and prints, and generally, they would give your "free" film with each processing order.
Processing movie film into slides was easy and effective. I'm not saying anything here about grain or other issues that purists might critique and get the vapors from, but basically all they did was use "print" movie film, or maybe Vericolor 5022. That product was intended to make slides from C-41 negs. However, trying to put the low contrast ECN-2 negs onto RA-4 or whatever was used back then only resulted in low contrast prints. They sucked.
For an all-too-few number of years, ca. 1991-1996, I used RGB Labs in LA, both in person and later, via mail. They would take your ordinary C-41 color neg film, process, and use that 5022 film to output to slides. It was great! This service and similar ones took away that huge bugaboo of color neg films to not having a consistent color base, unlike shooting straight to non-custom prints. And unlike traditional slides, a lot of exposure errors were easily corrected in the "printing."
I apologize for going off on my history tangent. A lot of good memories. And still, I hope, a film developing future.
As some are probably tired of me saying, I grew up in my father's darkroom, a pro in the 1950's. There is a reason I bring this up again, please continue.
In my sales work I had reason to visit the Technicolor Lab in LA back in the 1980's. Taking me deep into the bowels, so to speak, my jaw dropped, at least figuratively if not literally, as I was escorted through the premises. Now, just think how when a release was made to thousands of theaters all over the world, it took billions? of feet of "print" film made from the "interneg" master made from the original film from the camera.
There was film flying everywhere on overhead rollers; obviously post fixer. Thousands? of feet per second going to one place or another on many rollers. Not silent. One place was where the poor souls in a darkened cabinet watching four "prints" at a time slipping past their view looking for gross errors, hour after hour. They deserved their union wages.
Then, silver recovery. My father had these weird things, some kind of resin? soaked fabric on a wooden core sitting in his fixer to absorb the silver. I remember him cashing them in from time to time. Well, at Technicolor there was a bank active cells that looked like car batteries all over the floor of a large room. The electricity hummed. A long way from my father's darkroom.
As to your second question, no, home development of 16mm movies is not out of the question. I've delved into this deeply in the last few months. I have family 16mm films from 1927 through 1948. I finally got a projector, fixed it, a few months ago. I then stumbled across a 1950's B&H camera in an antique store, so, of course, visions of grandeur. Well, lots and lots of research later, here are some bottom line facts:
1: There is no more "double perforation" 16mm film available newer that perhaps the 1970's. This matters because that's what the old cameras require. Mine uses a magazine of military origins that holds only 2 minutes. I have bought a few of these old magazines with Super XX film. Not shot or developed because:
2: The big problem is developing it. The chemistry is easy. Plenty of old B&W reversal formulas out there. The problem is physical, not chemical. There were some big Bakelite tanks made, the Morse G3, you crank the film from one reel to the other, back and forth. There also a single reel that would be familiar to any still photo plastic tank developer, often under the Lomo brand. Both are selling in the $120-160 range.
3: There have been attempts to develop in a bucket, or even a hose. I only see problems.
4: The only 16mm film sold buy Kodak is single perf (for sound), I think a Tri-X type emulsion. Interestingly, this film is used by some high end artsy type creatives in a "Super 16" format camera. It is then digitally processed into a sort of "faux" 35mm film with great results. Even at $50K a shoot, cheaper than shooting color 35mm and then desaturating it!
Remjet backing is easy to deal with on an amateur basis. The movie film ECN-2 processing is close to C-41, but I think the color developer is CD3. Anyway, yes, you can remove the remjet after processing in your tank. I 've done it.
You might be aware that there was a huge industry of using 35mm movie films being sold into the amateur still photography market. Seattle Filmworks was a major player, as was Dale in ta ta! Hollywood, Florida. I used Intercolor, a lab for a number of years when I lived in SoCal. The "come on" for this industry was shoot one film for both slides and prints, and generally, they would give your "free" film with each processing order.
Processing movie film into slides was easy and effective. I'm not saying anything here about grain or other issues that purists might critique and get the vapors from, but basically all they did was use "print" movie film, or maybe Vericolor 5022. That product was intended to make slides from C-41 negs. However, trying to put the low contrast ECN-2 negs onto RA-4 or whatever was used back then only resulted in low contrast prints. They sucked.
For an all-too-few number of years, ca. 1991-1996, I used RGB Labs in LA, both in person and later, via mail. They would take your ordinary C-41 color neg film, process, and use that 5022 film to output to slides. It was great! This service and similar ones took away that huge bugaboo of color neg films to not having a consistent color base, unlike shooting straight to non-custom prints. And unlike traditional slides, a lot of exposure errors were easily corrected in the "printing."
I apologize for going off on my history tangent. A lot of good memories. And still, I hope, a film developing future.
No fixing? Hmmm.....
Yeah, remjet is removed before in processing as intended. But for home use, that's pretty tough. After fixing is just fine.
Correction to the above point. There is currently double perf B&W reversal film made. Foma. I purchased 20x 100' rolls last year of fresh stock. It is not stocked here in USA, but it is in Europe and Scandinavia. I use it in my 1924 Kodak Cine B which always draws a crowd when I bring it out to film special events.
Well, must have had my chauvinistic American blinders on. I hate it when I'm not global.
Good to know. What speed is it and where do you get it processed if you aren't doing it yourself?
Your Cine B is what my grandfather no doubt used for those 1927 family reels. Does it use a cartridge/magazine? If so, how many feet? Do I recall seeing that during the evolution of the Cine line, there were ones that held a full 100 feet?
I'm astounded at the number of cameras made from WWII and on for a number of years that used the 2 minute gunnery magazine. What a waste of material and time constraint. There is a guy in Colorado who will put your new film in for $10 each. Per Youtube (what else?) it's doable at home, but I think a real headbanger if trying to use a changing bag.
Speed is EI 100. I have pushed one stop with little effort. I process myself in one of those large Bakelite LOMO tanks. 100' at a time. The camera takes 100' daylight spools so obviously loading and unloading a piece of cake.
Agfa E-6 and Orwo b&w reversal films are also available in 16mmDP.
Fixing can be done in daylight part of processor.
There was.
Depends.
In the 1980s, I maintained a few hundred bank cameras that used 100ft rolls of B&W film. If not for the expense, I would have insisted my company buy me one. However, they were content to pay me for my time in developing cut lengths on standard reels.
Darko,
Much larger lines are still in action, at least for the prints part.
Film processing, once a 24/7 business has mostly been reduced to periodic processing, though still on the large lines.
Much larger lines are still in action, at least for the prints part.
Film processing, once a 24/7 business has mostly been reduced to periodic processing, though still on the large lines.
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP
I dont really want to do anything. I was thinking about 35mm film and how it had its origins in motion pictures. Then i remembered that 35mm black and white can be bought in bulk spools. Then I thought there are a lot of old 35mm movie cameras around, how hard would it be to develop a really long spool of it. I could make a b&w movie. That would be fun. Then I would have to develop it as a positive. Anyway just wondering how it could be developed at home if there were special tanks and reels for it. Now I understand that it was a commericial service that was not typically done at home and films were spliced together.
35mm movie cameras are like a semi-truck (lorry!) compared to even high end 16mm cameras as pickup trucks. They are huge and heavy, and the film is expensive. Because of a rough doubling of both width and length per frame, think everything 4X over 16mm.
And, as you've discovered, processing was strictly via industry labs. BTW, the 16mm format was, um, developed to bring movies to the masses. I read that the original Kodak Cine camera, complete with tripod, cost as much as a cheap car back then (1924.)
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |