• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Motion Picture and Still Camera Film - Differences?

These days there are two basic methods (used in combination at times) for movie editing. The first method is to make a video transfer that includes time references based on keycode/sound timecode. This transfer is then edited electronically, and at the end of editing something called an EDL (edit decision list) is output. The EDL contains time and transition information. Negatives are then conformed to match the EDL and a print is struck. In the other method, which is becoming more prevalent and is very prevalent in films that have a lot of special effects, the negative is transfered at the highest possible resolution and editing and special effects are then undertaken directly, and upon conclusion a print is output using (loosely )the motion picture equivalent of a Lamda.

There are a whole bunch of details and steps I have left out, but that is the gist of it. The Cohen bros film "Oh Brother Where Art Thou?" was one of the first films to be entirely graded and edited in the second manner, and the second manner is rapidly becoming the standard for the industry at present, particularly as costs decrease.
 
As far as I know, black and white master negatives are still printed by contact to make a master positive. But not many black and white films are made now.

I have seen one modern motion picture camera that made a 35mm film negative and a digital record simultaneously, with appropriate timing information.
 
Eastman (Kodak) has been making essentially the same 35mm B&W "print film" for movies since 1941. It was originally 1302 (Nitrate base), then 5302 (Acetate base), and is also available as 7302 (polyester base). Both 5302 and 7302 are still available. Probably the only longer-lived film product is Plus-X (1938).

While not many B&W films are still made, new release prints still do get struck for them periodically, so there's a steady market for 5302 and 7302.

As for the comments on using ECN as still camera film, when that first started in the 1970's using Eastman 5247, that really was a horribly unstable film. All sorts of color fade problems. Movies of that era that weren't archived by making B&W separation prints from the negatives are in sorry shape indeed. (Of course, some amateur archivists at the movie companies then threw out two of the three B&W separation prints, since why do you need three, when one would do?)

Also, ECN films were never designed for long shelf life, they never lingered at room temperature, and were processed within 24 hours of exposure. That's not the way amateurs would use them in still cameras.

That said, the R&D goes into ECN films first, and them (maybe) dribbles down to the consumer films.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am still very fuzzy... Perhaps someone can explain...

What is the reason that movie film is made to a slightly lower contrast?

First, the Negs were to be contacted on to print film... and
The print film was viewed by projection...
but what was the relationship between D-max and contrast of the neg and the print films?
Why was it necessary to start with a lower contrast emmulsion in the frst place?

What neg and print films were considered a standard matched "pair"

Are there data sheets for them still available?
 
ECN (Vision) film and ECP are a matched pair. Data sheets can be found on the Kodak web site.

The contrast is lower to allow both a longer tone scale (See the print film curve which goes to a density of about 4.0 or more) and also to allow for all of the printing needed for SFX which can require as many as 12 steps or more.

Overall curve shape was designed in conjunction with experts from Hollywood including those from Lucas (ILM) and from Paramount. There were others, but I remember those in particular, as they showed us their problems with Star Wars and Star Trek SFX.

PE
 
Photo Engineer said:
The contrast is lower to allow both a longer tone scale (See the print film curve which goes to a density of about 4.0 or more) and also to allow for all of the printing needed for SFX which can require as many as 12 steps or more.
PE
Click to expand...

Thanks...

What I find curious is that since contrast can be changed by altering either developer chemistry, development parameters (time, temperature) or by using an emlsion having a different grain size variation... why not just use a different chemistry or development parameters?

Why was a different emulsion necessary... if other means to alter contrast existed?

Put another way, Do you think the reason motion picture film and still film diverged was (at least in part) due to the fact that different teams were working on them? Do you think a suitable single emulsion could have been used for both ends?
 
nworth said:
As far as I know, black and white master negatives are still printed by contact to make a master positive. But not many black and white films are made now.
Click to expand...

But when they were, was the positive made from the same film stock or was there a specific black and white print film?


Steve.
 

With color films in general, a set development time is used, so that contrast is invariant. In addition, color negative films are coupler limited so in that sense they are contrast invariant (well, not really, but the contrast range is very narrow if you try to go up, but then that is another story).

Still film and MP film did not diverge due to different teams, they diverged due to the different print materials. Why waste silver, coupler and tonality on a reflection print material which is self limiting in tonal range due to the reflection cutoff limit?

And, who said they used different emulsions?

PE
 
Photo Engineer said:
And, who said they used different emulsions?
PE
Click to expand...

Nobody, yet...

Are you suggesting they are the same, and that the differences you noted are not due to the emulsion characteristics per se?

You did mentioned that a less stable emulsion was used... for - I think you said - the print film (?)
Was there a particular component in that emulsion/product that was responsible for the lowered stabilty?

What was the main cause of that unstabilty?
(that is, what kind of unstabilty do you mean?)
 
Ray;

In the post you mention, I said that DYE stability was not optimum in the print film due to the short expected life time of the color projection print. The couplers with high stability and the ancillary addenda they require are very expensive, so why waste them on a transient product.

The emulsions in some cases were identical though.

And, since ECN was intended for use in studios for the most part, or under carefully controlled conditions, the raw stock keeping was not the same as say Kodacolor Gold which was often kept in the glove compartment of cars. I think that a Hollywood director or producer might fire a cameraman who didn't baby his raw stock. So the films differed in some respects with regard to addenda type and/or quantity.

I never said a less stable emulsion was used other than the paragraph above which explains less than optimum raw stock if not kept well.

PE
 

I guess you mean the idea of Hanson and Groet where dye formation is limited by the amount of coupler present allowing more silver to be used for increased speed and better granularity due to the smaller dye clouds, etc...

So, increased development is less effective than in B/W in increasing the contrast due to the use of limited coupler?
 

OK, Gotcha!
Thanks for the clear answer.

I try hard not mix up "emulsion" and "film" but sometimes I may goof;
here somehow I got the idea someone said the emulsion was less stable.

What is the life expectancy of print film anyway?
 
Life expectancy of a print film is the life of the run in a theater. This includes the heavy wear and tear on the film which is worse than the dye fade.

If you include dye fade and no theater run, print film will last about 10 years or more.

It does last longer in practice if well stored, but by the end of a run it sometimes is in pretty bad shape.

PE
 
Also, exposure of the print films is sometimes pulled or pushed. For instance, many night shots are shot in daylight, and then printed dark ("day for night").
 

I missed this earlier.

Yes, I do mean their work, and Nick Groet taught me a lot. I worked in his division directly under him when he was Assistant Director for Color Neg film and paper. Their work was applied to ECN and all color negative films over the years.

You might look up Zwick and Kofron as well.

PE
 
The other carch for folks wanting to use MP film for still use is that the colour negative films all have the same sort of REMJET backing as Kodachrome. The rirst step in the ECN2 process revoves it cleanly, but it can cause all sorts of grief in attempting to process in a small tank.

Ron: are you impling that The Vison stocks are close enough to the other stocks that C-41 (modified to deal with the rem-jet) would produce acceptable results. The ECN2 formulas are published but use some "special" ingredients that are only sold by the 45 Gallon Drum.
 

I hope that you didn't get that from my posts.

No, you cannot process Vision films in C41. A main objection is the color developing agent.

What chemicals are only sold by the 45 gallon drum?

PE
 

Yes, I will.

The legacy created by Photographic Engineers outlive the products they design...
Despite the wanton abandonment of symbolic flagship products by Kodak,
the acheivments of Kodak Researchers WILL be remembered.
 
Photo Engineer said:
I hope that you didn't get that from my posts.

No, you cannot process Vision films in C41. A main objection is the color developing agent.

What chemicals are only sold by the 45 gallon drum?

PE
Click to expand...
I was thinking about the Anti-Fog #9 but can't recall if it is in ECN2 or an earlier processs.
 
Ah, I have forgotten what Antifog #9 is. If it is "common" for an organic chemical, then it is probably available on the market through organic chemistry dealers in smaller quantities such as 25 grams.

PE
 

Camera films (both for motion picture and still use) are films intended for originally capturing a scene.

Print, or better second stage, films (both for motion picture and still use) are films intended to make a copy (by any means) from a camera film. This may be an intermediate, a duplicate, a cine-release, or a slide.


Amongst other issues camera films are typically designed for speed, whereas that does not matter much for the second stage films.
 
John Shriver said:
Also, exposure of the print films is sometimes pulled or pushed. For instance, many night shots are shot in daylight, and then printed dark ("day for night").
Click to expand...

I always thought they used a filter for that, on the original shooting camera. Changing the print exposure during the printing stage, probably fine if your making one print, but what if your doing 10,000 prints for a world wide theatrical release?
 
You never use the original camera film for making the final print. The negative for printing is on intermediate negative film (with all of the SFX) and they make many copies of that intermediate so that they can make the 10,000 release prints.

PE
 
wogster said:
I always thought they used a filter for that, on the original shooting camera. Changing the print exposure during the printing stage, probably fine if your making one print, but what if your doing 10,000 prints for a world wide theatrical release?
Click to expand...

They also shoot night sceens at night, as well.

I remember the first time I saw Hollywood shooting a night shot near my home in LA. I was shooting stills by available light myself and their lights really seemed like overkill. They were shooting a cop/detective weekly called "Baretta" IIRC, and I was very much surprised at the intensity of the lights they were using, so I asked one of the technicians if they were trying to simulate daylight! He politely explained that the bright light was needed to keep the shadow values from blocking up. A concept I was certainly aware of, but THAT MUCH? I was shooting available light after all, so why they needed so much extra light remained a mystery to me for quite a long time.

Then, about 3 years ago, I was able to see an asian crew filming some night sceens in a quaint costal village in Vietnam. The lighting there seemed to be much more reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register