My order from Reflx lab made it from China to the US this afternoon. Hopefully it doesn't have to sit around in LA for too long before they get moving towards me again.
Do you have any idea why doesn't B&W use remjet? I am not super familiar with ECN2 film in general because I can't find anywhere near me that develops it so I've stayed away.The thing that does need to be kept in mind is that Remjet was the cheapest-per-foot 'good enough' solution, rather than the best solution. B&W cine doesn't use remjet, which has presented problems with some 2-perf movements, as the pressure plates are essentially untreated/ unpainted metal.
I would not be surprised if it had (in part) to do with micro-scratches showing up in scans etc from the physical removal process.
what exactly is stopping anyone from ordering a 400' roll directly from Kodak?
The fact that they'll (1) redirect you to one of their distributors if you're just looking to purchase a single roll, and (2) that both EK and their distributors will ask you to fill in a form stating the working title of your cinematic production, who the production company is, who directs it etc. They may then check those references to see if your story adds up.
Give it a try, see what happens. I don't think you'll get very far.
FWIW, I've recently become aware of some background information indicating that the motivation behind EK's the decision to switch to Estar base for the motion picture films included, among other things, , {edited for accuracy} ...the significantly lower cost of the EK manufactured Estar base.
FWIW, I've recently become aware of some background information indicating that the motivation behind EK's the decision to switch to Estar base for the motion picture films included
3) Higher costs for German supplied products because of US tariffs.
When did they switch to Estar for motion picture films? I don't remember remjet backed Vision3 films ever being available on Estar base. Even the latest AHU Vision3 film is still on acetate base.
Oops - you are correct - I conflated two pieces of information.
The relegation of remjet was due to the {edited for accuracy}
And separately, the move to Estar on as many film stocks as possible (still and other stocks, including intermediate materials) is due to the relative costs.
And both changes were at least partially made at the same time.
I read that ESTAR is too strong and it can stress too much the movie camera transport mechanism in case of jam. Acetate breaks easier and it is preferable as a film base.
FWIW, the reason that the acetate base on film has exploded in cost is primarily related to how dependent its manufacture is on European petrochemical supply costs.
That doesn't seem right. There are no petrochemicals in cellulose acetate. Petrochemical supply costs would much more affect polyester.
Courtesy of AI, with nods to what I've previously understood:
"While the primary component of cellulose triacetate film base is plant-derived cellulose, the manufacturing process involves petrochemicals, including acetic anhydride, acetic acid, and sulfuric acid (a petrochemically produced catalyst), as well as organic solvents like dichloromethane and methanol.... These chemicals are used to modify the cellulose into a soluble form for casting into the film's base layer."
Apparently the German manufacturers were hit hard by the huge disruptions to petrochemical supplies resulting from the political situation in the world - of which no more will be mentioned.
I've never noticed any of this while shooting acetate- and polyester-based color film side by side. Some of these differences will likely also depend on other factors than the acetate/PET difference such as the presence of antistatic coatings etc.Cellulose acetate is more natural and traditional, has better core set properties that allow it to more consistently flatten with wet processing, is lower static and attacts less dust, and has more appropriate strength and handling for a film base
Regardless, if the acetate base is source from Europe, it's very likely it involves higher total cost to EK for multiple reasons, including high energy costs in Europe. It's also quite conceivable that the cost of raw feedstock (cellulose) is higher in Europe since we import much of our cellulose from...the Americas.It has been my understanding for quite a while that the production process makes heavy use of petrochemicals.
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?