Motion Picture and Still Camera Film - Differences?

[jmolligo]

Hi:

I have a couple questions regarding Film for Still and Motion Picture Photography, and I thank you all for any and all clarification.

I recently read a post on a forum that is contrary to what I always believed to be true.
It was in reference to using (Seattle Film Works) motion picture film in a still camera.

It stated:

“Movie film is lower quality than photographic film and it is also non-archival. Your memories will fade very quickly if you don't keep your processed negatives in the freezer (which is what movie studios do)”

I always assumed that the emulsions coated on motion picture stock were basically the same as those used for still photography.

So-

What differences, if any, are there between emulsions for motion picture film and those for still?
For example how does Eastman Plus-X (5231/7231) differ with Plus-X (125PX) still camera film (the ASA speeds are different)?

Could any emulsion intended for still photography be used equally well (similar results) in motion picture photography - and vise versa?

Is motion picture film less archival than still camera film?

Thank you for all assistance you could give me on this - your knowledge is much appreciated

 

[wildbill]

no. bullshit.

 

[David William White]

second that.

 

[Ian Grant]

Don't mix the comments about Clour films with B&W. With B&W there's little or no difference, remember 35mm film (stills) photography began with people loading their own cassettes with motion picture stock.

In the 70's I used a lot of Ilford FP3/4 motion picture stock & some Kodak, the only difference was no frame numbers, archivally as long as processing - fixing/washing is done properly they will last just as long.

Colour films are entirely different, as they use a variation on C41 processing for the negative stock, and no colour films are technically archivally stable. PE (Ron Mowrey) would tell you more about Kodak's colour motion picture films.

Ian

 

[jmolligo]

Thanks for the responses, I appreciate it.

I really have to stop surfing things on the Internet; way too much vague and/or incorrect information (should be out taking photographs).

Also, thanks Ian - I assumed it would just be a matter of proper processing with B/W - and I did know a little about the variation in color chemistry (it would be worth a chat with Ron Mowrey for details, if possible).

 

[Ian Grant]

The major problem with colour motion picture films is they don't match RA-4 papers which was why the colours were poor when they were printed, a couple of companies used to repackage one of the films for still use in the UK in the 70's/80's. These days more could be done using a digital minilab and a profile for the film but as film's quite cheap especially 35mm Colour neg so it's just not worth it.

Ian

 

[fschifano]

I can tell you about Eastman 5222 (Double-X) from personal experience. It's not bad film, but the contrast curve is not as good a match with enlarging papers as is still camera film, nor should it be expected to be. It is designed to be printed onto positive release film for projection. Still, you can make some decent images with it. As far as archival stability is concerned, I can't see how it would be any different from any other non-chromogenic B&W film coated onto an acetate support. The image is composed of silver grains suspended in a gelatin matrix just like any other. If you process it correctly, it's good. If you don't, it's not. The attached image was shot on Eastman 5222 and developed in D-76 1+1 for 7 minutes at 75F. It's a lot more grainy than Tri-X. That doesn't matter with cine film.

 

[BetterSense]

I think the motion picture sprocket holes are different than still film sprocket holes. I think it will work fine still though.

 

[David William White]

The shape is a little different, but the holes are the same size and the same spacing, so no problem whatsoever. The contrast curves are dependent upon the development regime. As far as grain, I'm not convinced they are inherently grainier than Tri-X and Plus-X respectively, but I'd have to check side-by-side with a grain focuser just to be sure.

As far as the ISO goes, 5231 says 80 and Plus-X says 125, but I think those are Kodak's recommendations for optimum contrast for each context. I shoot both at 100 and if they are not identical, they are as close as I've ever needed.

P.S. Very cute kitten.

 

[fschifano]

Well, he's grown up into a big stinker of a cat now. He's still the only cat I know who will play fetch with you though.

 

[David William White]

Is Cine film grainy?

But now was that kitten print a full-frame or was it cropped & enlarged? I mean it all works well, great grain, but still seems grainier than I've experienced.

I don't have any scans handy of my 5222 film, but I will be dumping a lot of 5231 scans and prints here over, hopefully, the next year. Just to put anyone at ease about shooting cine stock, here is another I took yesterday on Eastman Plus-X, rated at 100 and developed in D-76 for 7 minutes @20C. Pretty juicy contrast, too. (Obviously not as cute as the kitten, though.)

 

[fschifano]

This scan is from an 8x10 print made from an Eastman 5222 negative at about 10x enlargement. The grain is really noticeable because there are large areas of continuous tone right in the middle of the tonal range where it is always most noticeable. The grain structure visible on the scan electronic version of the image is a little more pronounced than what is visible on the analog print, but that is no doubt due to the bit of sharpening applied to the image.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Color negative camera film is the highest quality film that you can get anywhere for both archival characteristics and for grain and sharpness. The largest R&D effort at Kodak and Fuji goes here as it represents more than 60% of analog product sales. It is low in contrast (about .55 compared to consumer camera film at .65) to allow the long tone scale desired for theater projection. The print film is correspondingly higher.

Print films for motion picture are also very fine grained and sharp. They are not as archivally stable. The reason is simple. They are intended for projection and wear out rapidly and are often replaced several times during a theater run. So, the print film is not comparable in image stability with current color papers, but that does not mean that it is very poor.

You cannot expect to use ECN in a 35mm camera, and then get RA prints on Endura or CA papers and expect good prints unless some sort of manipulation goes on due to the contrast mismatch.

PE

 

[JBrunner]

Keeping qualities of mp raw stock does not match still color neg in my experience, at least for the emulsions I was using when I was shooting a lot of it (45,48,97). I don't know why. The negs are as stable as any.

Fine as mp stock is, it is also suited to a special purpose. Rumors of poor quality most likely stem from folks who don't understand what they are dealing with and how it works. That said, personally I can't think of any good reason why one would shoot it in a still camera and bother with the difficulty and expense of processing it, and then dealing with special printing considerations, when so many great standard stocks for color neg are available off the shelf, but to each his own.

 

[nworth]

Coming back to black and white films, like PXN, the black and white motion picture films are every bit as stable and still camera films. The black and white motion picture films usually make excellent still camera films. They are usually quite similar to the still camera films with similar names. In addition to those, you also have the option of Kodak Double-X Negative film (EI 200), which many people swear by. A couple of years ago I looked carefully at all the available data on the then currently available Kodak films. I concluded that the motion picture films had somewhat finer grain and maybe slightly less sharpness than the similarly named still camera films. In the camera, the motion picture films behave slightly differently than the still camera films, but still in an entirely satisfactory way. I've used a bit of Plus-X Negative motion picture film as a still camera film, and I believe I prefer it slightly to Plus-X Pan.

 

[Ross Chambers]

I think the motion picture sprocket holes are different than still film sprocket holes. I think it will work fine still though.

Now that I DO know a little about: The difference between motion picture film negative and positive perforations was to allow the two films to maintain optimum contact when printed (and the majority of printing was done in contact).

The short sides of the neg perfs are arcs, the pos perfs are straight, with rounded corners.

How that translates to still film positive perfs I DON'T know.

More than anyone would ever want to know about physical aspects of 35mm motion picture film at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film

Regards - Ross

 

[Ray Rogers]

Color negative camera film is the highest quality film that you can get anywhere for both archival characteristics and for grain and sharpness. The largest R&D effort at Kodak and Fuji goes here as it represents more than 60% of analog product sales. It is low in contrast (about .55 compared to consumer camera film at .65) to allow the long tone scale desired for theater projection. The print film is correspondingly higher.

Sorry, What do you mean when you say "Color negative camera film"?

To me, I think "still film", but your subsequent comment that it's contrast differs from that of "consumer camera film" confuses me as
"consumer camera film" also sounds like it means "still film".

 

[georgegrosu]

Motion picture films and photo film are some photosensitive materials made for specific purposes. For they are some recommended processes.
The negative for motion picture films have negative perforation (BH - perforation step is 4.740 mm) and film positives and all the 35 mm camera films have positive perforation (KS - perforation step is 4.750 mm). Although the film negatives are they up to 0.01 mm perforation below the photo films, they can be used in ordinary cameras.
In terms of sensitometric characteristics of film (lower contrast ~ 0.55 - 0.60), by augmentation of controlled parameters (developer) to obtain a contrast comparable to that of photo film (γ ~ 0.65 - 0.70).
The negative for motion picture films are made to have a lower contrast because they are copied on positive b&w - for projection. Photo negatives are made for make the positive on paper - reflecting.
I processed compared strip of Plus X (5231) with Double X (5222) in Kodak D 96 developer. The Plus X film contrast decrease is less than Double X by lowering developer temperature.
George

 

[Photo Engineer]

Sorry, What do you mean when you say "Color negative camera film"?

To me, I think "still film", but your subsequent comment that it's contrast differs from that of "consumer camera film" confuses me as
"consumer camera film" also sounds like it means "still film".

In this context, color negative camera film refers to ECN "Eastman Color Negative" or the Fuji equivalent, which are used for motion pictures. This is as opposed to ECP "Eastman Color Print" which is used to make the positive prints we view in a theater.

PE

 

[jmolligo]

I asked for clarification and I got it - thanks for all the information, it is greatly appreciated and extremely interesting. I've been unemployed for almost a year, but once I (hopefully) get a livable income again, I'll have to donate/subscribe to this site --- I think it's the last place you can find to communicate with real photographers who have worked at their art (meaning that it's getting pretty "point, shoot, and click" out there).

 

[Ray Rogers]

"... color negative camera film refers to ECN "Eastman Color Negative"....

PE

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[wogster]

Well, he's grown up into a big stinker of a cat now. He's still the only cat I know who will play fetch with you though.

I had a cat, Theophilus that would play fetch, unfortunately he was murdered by a car, last April.... His photo is my avatar.

 

[Terrence Brennan]

Cats and motion picture films

I had a cat, Theophilus that would play fetch, unfortunately he was murdered by a car, last April.... His photo is my avatar.

That's a world class bummer.

My wife and I have cat; she is a long-haired calico, who adopted us on Mother's Day, 1997, when she brought us her latest litter of kittens. We brought her into the house, had her inspected and treated by the local vet for ear mites, rabies, et cetera AND had her spayed. Her name is Funny Face, as she has a half orange, half white face.

She is a great mouser, and just LOVES to share her catches with us (yuck!). Know what's worse than finding a dead mouse on the carpet, first thing in the morning? Finding HALF of a dead mouse!

Oh yeah, the topic was about motion picture films; I remember. I have rolls and rolls of 35mm GAF Versapan film, I exposed about 1971-2, and developed in D-76, which are just fine. The film had a nominal ASA rating of 80, but that didn't stop me from rating it between 100 and 1000, not me! This was before I knew anything about exposure (and some of my photographer friends will tell you that I haven't learned anything in the last 25-odd years; ignore them). Some of the negatives are a bit thin, but they haven't faded. There are no frame numbers, but you can add them yourself with a fine-tipped indelible marker.

When I was a broke student in the early 70s, I was able to use this film, gratis, and save my $$$ to buy paper and other supplies.

 

[Steve Smith]

If I may ask a slightly related question:

I understand the method of colour negative film being contact printed to a colour print film for theatre/cinema release. Is the same true for black and white?

I assume that is also shot in negative and contact printed. In which case is the print film also a film specific to this use or can a standard black and white negative film be used?

And this brings up another question, this time about about editing: Is the movie edited from positive film or negative? If positive, is it then printed to negative again to make a master for final printing to positive or is the editing done in negative?


Steve.

 

[BetterSense]

Nowadays, practically all editing is done digitally after scanning the film. At least that's my understanding. But traditionally, you would shoot negative film. Then you would send it to the lab and they would process it and print a positive. You would put the negative reels in the freezer and edit a workprint by chopping up the positive. After it was all edited to your satisfaction and screened, then you go back to the vault and edit the negatives together. That's the procedure outlined in my 1970's independent film textbook at least.