Kodak Portra 800 and ColorPlus 200 now on polyester base

[Kino]

I would be worried about light piping and slightly increased halation

Halation should not be an issue outside of extreme exposures.

In my experience, the same applies to light piping. I have been timing (determining exposures) for motion picture film copying for over 20 years on Estar stock and the only problem that does occur is when I have to blast the full 50 point exposure of a 1200 watt quartz halogen lamp onto an image in 4 perf 35mm frame in Academy aperture. This stands a real danger of piping light laterally into the soundtrack area and causing "motorboating" on the sound track from the clear areas in the frameline.

If you follow the standard wisdom of only loading your camera in the shade or dim light, I don't anticipate it being a problem.

Anyway, we shall see, right?

 

[real_liiva]

Halation should not be an issue outside of extreme exposures.

In my experience, the same applies to light piping. I have been timing (determining exposures) for motion picture film copying for over 20 years on Estar stock and the only problem that does occur is when I have to blast the full 50 point exposure of a 1200 watt quartz halogen lamp onto an image in 4 perf 35mm frame in Academy aperture. This stands a real danger of piping light laterally into the soundtrack area and causing "motorboating" on the sound track from the clear areas in the frameline.

If you follow the standard wisdom of only loading your camera in the shade or dim light, I don't anticipate it being a problem.

Anyway, we shall see, right?

In my experience with aerocolor, sometimes the first frame or two can have some light piping fog and along the sprocket holes there can be light piping marks all the way down the film. Also, while it is recommended to load in shade, an acetate film like vision3 250d can absolutely tank direct sun loading as i found out this summer. Exposed leader still ended right where i expected it to with 0 light piping. Something like aerocolor might get severely fogged from that

 

[Brad Deputy]

I've used the new Colorplus and MAX 400 in polyester, about 4 rolls so far. No light piping behavior noticed.

I bulk load Adox HR-50 (polyester), and no problems either, but I have noticed a subtle shading around the first 2-3 rows of sprocket holes in the first shot. It doesn't extend into the image area (that I can notice, anyway).

 

[brbo]

Just noticed that Kodak Pro Image 100 is now on Estar base too.

For Kodak colour films that means that TAC base is only used for Ektachrome 100, Ektar 100 and Portra 160/400 in 135 format.

 

[Brad Deputy]

Just noticed that Kodak Pro Image 100 is now on Estar base too.

I wish they'd shift their B&W films to Estar, with the more-transparent base (at least, in my observations).

I've heard arguments over acetate vs. polyester and base fog, but when you put any of the films together (B&W only), the differences are stark. I don't know if they intentionally add more fog to TMAX to keep the contrast under control, or maybe that's a limitation of the emulsion?

Any of the Aviphot film bases make TMAX appear murky, when compared side to side (and I hypo-clear and rinse all of the pink out!).

 

[Brad Deputy]

Left-to-Right: TMAX 400, Kentmere 400, ADOX HR-50

 

[Lachlan Young]

I don't know if they intentionally add more fog to TMAX to keep the contrast under control, or maybe that's a limitation of the emulsion

Not a limitation of the emulsion, but a limitation of understanding about the material.

 

[cmacd123]

Most Black and white films are made on A GREY acetate base. this acts are part (or in some cases ALL) af the Anti-halo system.

Typically one of the other methods is to use an Anti-Halo dye, eithers directly under the emusion (typically called out as "AHU") or on teh back of the film. the Dye is designed to become colour less, or dissolve during processing. The T-max I have used seems to have an AHU dye as well as a grey base. In my days doing Microfilming all of the film I recall seeing for that purpose was made with AHU technology..


Many colur negative films use a silver AHU layer, which is cleared when the film goes through the Bleach. That has also been used in some B&W reversal films, and those cannot be develped as a negative, again the silver layer is cleared by the bleach step.

Kodak's Ultimate Anti-Halo solution is the REM-Jet used in the ECN, ECN-2 and Kodachrome process. But that requires that the process have special steps to remove the rem jet without contaminating the Image.

120 film quite often uses the dye on base method, and that is why some 120 films turn the developer Bright Green or Purple. I recall that EFKE 35mm film also had the dye on the base.

rest assured that NO one delibratly fogs film for Anti-halo purposes, for one thing the fog would only apper after development when the Anti-Halo effect was no longer needed.

 

[cmacd123]

OH and their is no reason why a ESTAR base cannot have a grey dye.

 

[Brad Deputy]

This is good info, thank you.

How much farther will Kodak go to migrate to Estar?

 

[cmacd123]

This is good info, thank you.

How much farther will Kodak go to migrate to Estar?

depends on the accountants and user push back. the movie folks tend to want acetate for Camera Negatives, I am not sure how much cenemt splicing is still done in editing, Poly can only be spliced ultrasonicaly. although all the other stages have migrated to Poly. Without the silver AHU leyer that you can do in C-41, the B&W users will want a light piping soultion I would expect. Light piping is not an issue with 120 and several makers use Poly for that.

 

[halfaman]

depends on the accountants and user push back. the movie folks tend to want acetate for Camera Negatives, I am not sure how much cenemt splicing is still done in editing, Poly can only be spliced ultrasonicaly. although all the other stages have migrated to Poly. Without the silver AHU leyer that you can do in C-41, the B&W users will want a light piping soultion I would expect. Light piping is not an issue with 120 and several makers use Poly for that.

AFAIK camera negatives are not edited, they are sacred for the production and stored carefully untouched (mandatory for insurance). It is the great variety of intermediate negatives and positives which are edited. Intermediate film is produced by Kodak in triacetate base with rem-jet (5254, 5242), or in ESTAR base with a polymeric protective layer and a develop surviving back lubricant (2254, 2242). The ESTAR type is used in digital film recorders. Print film is ESTAR only (2383/3283).

What I recall is that triacetate is prefered for camera because in case of jamming the film is always the weakest part and breaks, polyester seems to be far more resistant and there is a chance of creating a break in the very expensive and complex camera transport mechanism.

 

[cmacd123]

AFAIK camera negatives are not edited, they are sacred for the production and stored carefully untouched (mandatory for insurance).

the tradition was to edit a work print, and then "corform" the Original Netative to match. many times this was specalized work credited in the end credits as "Negative Cutter" For many years the champ of that specalty was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo_Henry who cut the negative for shows like "Jaws".

for shows using digital intermediate - cutting the negative can sometimes be bypased. Although that can backfire. more than once, a show that was edited digitaly for SD TV, has resulted in the need to go back and cut the original negative so the digital work could be done for the current standard of 4K. 35mm Negative is ample for a 4K scan.

 

[cmacd123]

the internet Movie database shows Ms. Henry as worked in editorial for 474 productions. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0377948/

 

[Kino]

35mm Negative is ample for a 4K scan.

No doubt. We installed a 10K Director from Lasergraphics Director last year and it's stupid over-kill for archival footage.

This has devolved into an ego game of "numbers"; bragging rights to resolution, which makes no sense.

When you get above 4K, you are essentially storing very expensive noise.

Now some wags are hawking a "Multi-Spectral" Scanner that scans in all wavelengths of light, including infrared. All the fan boys are salivating over this idiotic machine that takes 400MB and 2 minutes per frame to work it's "Magic".

That's 6.3 terabytes per 1000 feet of film, which is 10 minutes running time at 24fps.

Glad I am retiring...

 

[cmacd123]

Now some wags are hawking a "Multi-Spectral" Scanner that scans in all wavelengths of light, including infrared.

well the still film Scanners do use the IR channel to locate dust. But if someone is paying for a 10K scan I would expect that any dust should have been flushed away long ago. the scanning software should be able to crunch down a multi spectral file like that to find the peak absorption frequency for each layer and base what they save from that I would think.

I can recall asking David Mullen ASC on Cinematography.com why the standard a decade or so ago was set to digitalize at 2K, (he was posting about his work on the committee) and he said that they decided that the 4th generation Movie prints of the day were not much higher resolution than 2K. the spec sheet for EXR 50D film at the time showed many more lines per mm than 2K.

Which brings to mind the story of when they were restoring "the Wizard of oZ" and were surprised that the Wire rigs for the flying monkeys were on the original negative. the technicolr matrix did not pick up that detail so the folks in the 1930s did not have to do anything with it.