major Film makers fuji, kodak, Ilford...how many rolls are they making a year?

fotch

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
4,774
Location
SE WI- USA
Format
Multi Format

Why do you think this is? Price?
 

cmo

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
1,321
Format
35mm RF
I do. I asked an indian producer, and he said they prefer the colors of certain Fuji films (don't ask me which).

No.

It's the economy, stupid.

In a country where the annual income is still below $1,000 and specialists earn $300-400 per month a low price is THE brownie point.

--
Taking a note:

Need to get some big rolls of Fuji motion picture film, have it cut down to 136/36, invent a good name "Bollywood Color 100" maybe? and earn a fortune.
--
 

cmo

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
1,321
Format
35mm RF
andrewkirkby said:
Wouldn't rem-jet backing prevent it being processed in normal processors? Cine processors have an alkaline prewash to remove the rem-jet and carnuba wax coating on the back of the (camera) film
Click to expand...

No problem. I will blame the customers

It seems that some precautions must be taken:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

So, it's probably better to process these films at home in C41 because some labs might not quite like Remjet sludge in their tanks. Officially these films are to be processed in a process named ECN-2, and there are movie labs in many countries, but their prices are not really compatible with amateur photographer budgets.

On the other hand, Fuji even has an ISO 500 Reala, interesting....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

srs5694

Member
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
2,718
Location
Woonsocket,
Format
35mm
andrewkirkby said:
Wouldn't rem-jet backing prevent it being processed in normal processors? Cine processors have an alkaline prewash to remove the rem-jet and carnuba wax coating on the back of the (camera) film
Click to expand...

I don't interpret any of the posts in this thread as advocating use of ECN-2 (motion picture) film for still photography; it's just that an awful lot of the stuff must be manufactured to satisfy the movie industry.

That said, some people do use it for still photography, either with C-41 or with ECN-2 processing. If you're interested in experimenting, (there was a url link here which no longer exists) has information, including a mix-it-yourself ECN-2 developer formula. As stated in that thread, results are likely to be low in contrast and color saturation compared to most C-41 films, and as you point out, you'll need to remove the rem-jet coating in some way.
 

cmo

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
1,321
Format
35mm RF
The results look like they need some finetuning. I think the automated processors in the labs don't get the color right because there is no barcode for the make of the film so they cannot adjust filtering for the orange (or whatever) masking.

Is there any film without rem-jet backing at all?
 

Worker 11811

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
1,719
Location
Pennsylvania
Format
Multi Format
srs5694 said:
I don't interpret any of the posts in this thread as advocating use of ECN-2 (motion picture) film for still photography; it's just that an awful lot of the stuff must be manufactured to satisfy the movie industry.
Click to expand...

That's what I meant when I said that. Kodak, Fuji, et. al. are still making a hell of a lot of film to satisfy the movie industry even when many people think the world has gone all digital.

Film in ALL of its incarnations will be around for quite a while.

andrewkirkby said:
"user error"
Click to expand...

Sirius Glass said:
Operator Assissted Failure => OAF as in the oaf did this to my film.
Click to expand...

"Error exists between keyboard and chair."
 

cmo

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
1,321
Format
35mm RF
Talking about the risks of nuclear technolgy, there is a special term, 'maximum credible accident', e.g. a core meltdown plus a releae of radioactive substances. There is a similar set expression in IT when it comes to people using computers... (I just can't translate that german term into english...)
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
I never came across this word before.

But one learns something new at Apug every day...
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,369
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format

Your computer? Your chair?

Interested readers want to know!
 

lxdude

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
7,094
Location
Redlands, So
Format
Multi Format

lxdude

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
7,094
Location
Redlands, So
Format
Multi Format
Yeah but without them you'll get pooped!
 

David Grenet

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
309
Location
Sydney, Aust
Format
Multi Format
andrewkirkby said:
Wouldn't rem-jet backing prevent it being processed in normal processors? Cine processors have an alkaline prewash to remove the rem-jet and carnuba wax coating on the back of the (camera) film
Click to expand...

As much as this thread has gone a bit OT I think, if you look at the Fuji datasheets carefully, you will find that the Fuji motion picture film lacks this backing and Fuji even say that the first bath of ECN-2 can be skipped.
 

mrred

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
1,251
Location
Montreal, Ca
Format
Multi Format
cmo said:
The results look like they need some finetuning. I think the automated processors in the labs don't get the color right because there is no barcode for the make of the film so they cannot adjust filtering for the orange (or whatever) masking.
Click to expand...

The orange mask is actually used to calibrate the colour. As far as I know, there is no reading of the barcode, or any other such marks.
 

cmacd123

Subscriber
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,314
Location
Stittsville, Ontario
Format
35mm
I did a lot of Playing with ECN2 films many years ago, and I also occasionally shoot my home movies on 16mm colour neg, and have them "workprinted" by a small lab in Toronto.

The movie Negative is lower in contrast and saturation than film intended to make still camera prints. The old traditional process had the Camera Negative printed to a master positive (lab film) then to several Printing Negatives, and finaly to the release print. Anyone who has copied slides knows that you tend to pick up contrast at each stage so they start with a lower contrast original to make it easier to control.

Most films these days use the Digital Intermediate process where the negative is scanned and a new negative is made to print from after the film is edited in the computer. Both Kodak and Fuji make a special stock for this.

Most of teh current NEGATIVE stocks have the rem-jet. both Fuji and Kodak. when agfa made negative stocks they also used it. In a motion Picture processor, (or a Kodachrome machine) it is removed as the first step. You can leave it for home processing although you have to filter any solution you want to re-use and be careful to not get it on the emulsion side of the film.

Current print stocks have gotten away from the rem-jet as that eliminates a wash step, and water is hard to come by in Southern California where many film labs are located. for the same reason soundtracks are now Cyan, and every theater had to switch to newer sound heads that use a red laser or LED light source. The newer Digital tracks are also cyan.

All Kodak film production is now under entertainment imaging _ which changed its name again last time I heard. (the the Cash Cow division?) this is why they can afford to do things like use Vision Technology in the Ektar film.

AGFA still makes 35mm Movie PRINT film and sells it in some markets, the last time this topic came up on Cinematography.com The Asian Market was mentioned. As the figures earlier in the thread attest, even a small market of Motion Picture prints is a lot of square feet. The Print stock is all Polyester.

Kodak does say on there web site refering to their scrap motion Picture print division "Several million pounds of film are destroyed and recycled annually." Most Theatre prints are scrapped soon after the film leaves the theatres.
 

David Grenet

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
309
Location
Sydney, Aust
Format
Multi Format

I stand corrected. Must have gotten confused with the print stocks.
 

Worker 11811

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
1,719
Location
Pennsylvania
Format
Multi Format

Ugh! I had to change out an entire 20-plex. You have to just about gut the sound head to do it.
It took my boss and I two days to complete the job.


cmacd123 said:
Most Theatre prints are scrapped soon after the film leaves the theatres.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately a large portion of theater prints are scrapped as soon as they ENTER the theater! Most megaplexes hire teenage monkeys to work for minimum wage, nowadays.
I've seen entire three-hour features dumped on the floor. That's 15,000 feet of film trashed in less than a second.

Here's a picture of a movie projector where the operator started the machine but didn't check to be sure it was right before he left. He just pressed the button and went downstairs to chat up the popcorn girl. (The guy in the picture is the theater technician who was called in to clean up the mess.)


The moral of this seemingly off-topic story?... An hour's worth of movie film is almost 1,000 rolls of film for my 35mm camera.
As much as I hate to see film get damaged for no good reason, I have to admit that clowns like that keep Kodak in business.
And, as long as they are in business I can keep shooting pictures on film. Right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…