Motion picture film for stills (p30 & cinestill)

[1kgcoffee]

Just a note for anyone interested in using cinema film. Use ECN-2 chemistry, not C-41!!! ECN-2 uses CD-3 like E-6. C-41 uses CD-4. You'll end up with much better results using the correct chemistry. It's not just crossover, but contrast level and grain that changes. Developing in C-41 leaves you with a washed out image. CD-3 can be bought online and mixed at home, or you can use RA-4 developer which also contains CD-3.

 

[MattKing]

I bet KODAK VISION Color Print Film / 2383/3383 is pretty high contrast then to make up for the low contrast on the negative.

yep and specifically designed for projection.

Well....
The camera film is low in contrast because, among other things, the process of printing the film on to projection film causes an increase in contrast.
The more interesting question is how the contrast of the projection print film compares to the contrast of:
1) colour print paper; and
2) the colour print material designed for printing and then displaying via transmitted light (think large, back illuminated advertisements).
The latter two materials are of course matched to the characteristics of colour negative film designed for the C41 process.

And with all due respect to Cholenpot and Ko.Fe., to me the examples you have posted look like the results from colour film developed in the wrong chemicals.

 

[slackercrurster]

Hah...back in the 70's Freestyle sold repacked movie negative film for 35mm still use. I think it was about $1.50 - $2.50 per 100 feet. It was for the cheapskate...not for special effects! Plus-X 100 foot cans were about $7.

 

[Kino]

Well....
The camera film is low in contrast because, among other things, the process of printing the film on to projection film causes an increase in contrast.

Actually, the gamma of motion picture stock is identical to still photo aims; a 0.65 gamma for "normal" processing, 0.75 for a one-stop push and 0.85 for a two stop push (rare). It goes without saying, a one-stop "pull" is figured at 0.55 gamma...

The print stock is intentionally developed to a higher contrast/gamma for projection to offset the losses in enlargement of the image, loss of definition due to projection optics and atmospheric haze in the theater. Reflected images have different rules for contrast than transmitted images, like viewing from a print or a computer screen.

The positive stock used to make motion picture prints is tailored to fit the enhanced contrast range, not a byproduct of the printing process. Practically all release printing since the mid-1950's has been via direct contact printing; one of the least contrasty methods available.

Also, grain is less a concern with moving image stocks due to the rapidity of image placement on the screen, so you can get by with more grain on a motion picture stock than a still film stock, as the grain tends to dither-out upon projection. That's why motion picture stocks shot and printed tend to look more grainy than still film stocks.

 

[faberryman]

Hah...back in the 70's Freestyle sold repacked movie negative film for 35mm still use. I think it was about $1.50 - $2.50 per 100 feet. It was for the cheapskate...not for special effects! Plus-X 100 foot cans were about $7.

Used to be for the cheapskate, now not so much. For someone who wants a different film just to be different.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

There is enough difference to make films designed for ECN look terrible in C41.

My comments were mot intended for color film;

 

[Cholentpot]

Actually, the gamma of motion picture stock is identical to still photo aims; a 0.65 gamma for "normal" processing, 0.75 for a one-stop push and 0.85 for a two stop push (rare). It goes without saying, a one-stop "pull" is figured at 0.55 gamma...

The print stock is intentionally developed to a higher contrast/gamma for projection to offset the losses in enlargement of the image, loss of definition due to projection optics and atmospheric haze in the theater. Reflected images have different rules for contrast than transmitted images, like viewing from a print or a computer screen.

The positive stock used to make motion picture prints is tailored to fit the enhanced contrast range, not a byproduct of the printing process. Practically all release printing since the mid-1950's has been via direct contact printing; one of the least contrasty methods available.

Also, grain is less a concern with moving image stocks due to the rapidity of image placement on the screen, so you can get by with more grain on a motion picture stock than a still film stock, as the grain tends to dither-out upon projection. That's why motion picture stocks shot and printed tend to look more grainy than still film stocks.

That makes sense.

The stuff I've been using has been a mite bit grainy. Though I think that gives it more sensitivity if possible? I don't know...

 

[ericdan]

So what I’ve learned is that P30 and double X and the likes can be developed in standard B&W chemicals with no issues. Although of you want the movie look you probably need to process it like movie stock and print it on projection film.
For color motion Picture film you need to use CD3 developer which is not what C41 uses. OR you can just use C41 film!

 

[btaylor]

Developing in C-41 leaves you with a washed out image. CD-3 can be bought online and mixed at home, or you can use RA-4 developer which also contains CD-3.

How is this accomplished? I have 1000's of feet of Kodak MP film that sits in the fridge waiting for me to get off my butt and pony up the $ and effort for ECN II chemistry. I already use RA4 developer. Is there a secret sauce or technique I don't know about to process 5219 in RA4 developer? Inquiring minds want to know!
BTW, back in the 70's Freestyle sold all sorts of interesting films. They may have sold Kodak 5247, I know there was a shop (RGB Lab?) a few blocks down Sunset Blvd that did, I still have a couple of rolls. They ran it through ECN process, then contact printed to motion picture print film and mounted the "slides." The color was good, though not as punchy as Ektachrome. The tough part was when I wanted enlargements and took the negs to a custom lab. They would roll their eyes and grimace when they saw the edge markings. Prints looked okay though, I don't know what kind of crazy corrections they had to do.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

You could develop ECN2 film in BW chemicals as well. And print from it.

 

[ericdan]

just sell the MP film and buy some C41. Much easier and predictable results.
If you shoot 1000s of feet on motion picture film and it doesn't work out you'll lose a lot of potentially good photos.

 

[Kino]

That makes sense.

The stuff I've been using has been a mite bit grainy. Though I think that gives it more sensitivity if possible? I don't know...

As a general rule, yes.

 

[Ted Baker]

Well....
The camera film is low in contrast because, among other things, the process of printing the film on to projection film causes an increase in contrast.
The more interesting question is how the contrast of the projection print film compares to the contrast of:
1) colour print paper; and
2) the colour print material designed for printing and then displaying via transmitted light (think large, back illuminated advertisements).
The latter two materials are of course matched to the characteristics of colour negative film designed for the C41 process.

The whole end to end process is design to be projected AND VIEWED in a cinema. This takes into consideration the complete adaptation the eye makes in that viewing environment. This allows among other things for whites to be actually be less bright, allowing more room for specular highlights. The negative is designed to match the print stock and the viewing environment, or the print stock is designed for the negative and viewing environment. The point being Its a complete system which includes a specified viewing illuminant. Even the dyes in the print stock are capable of greater saturation as the viewing environment is more tightly controlled. RA-4 prints should look OK using many different types of illumination.

 

[btaylor]

just sell the MP film and buy some C41. Much easier and predictable results.
If you shoot 1000s of feet on motion picture film and it doesn't work out you'll lose a lot of potentially good photos.

I get it, don’t commit thousands of photos to a process I haven’t tested. Yea that’s a really good idea.

 

[btaylor]

I’m.not referring to RA4 prints. I was referring g to a comment 1kgcoffee made about RA4 developer containing CD3.
I suppose I can run 5219 through RA4 developer and see what happens. Lomography!

 

[ericdan]

I get it, don’t commit thousands of photos to a process I haven’t tested. Yea that’s a really good idea.

Exactly. You have bluemoon camera up in Oregon. They produce amazing prints from C41.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

B&W cine films like 5222 can be developed in any B&W developer; I use HC-110; As far as any 'look' is concerned this has been discussed in several threads; any perceived look has less to do with the film and its processing than other factors such as lighting, makeup, costumes etc;

 

[1kgcoffee]

How is this accomplished? I have 1000's of feet of Kodak MP film that sits in the fridge waiting for me to get off my butt and pony up the $ and effort for ECN II chemistry. I already use RA4 developer. Is there a secret sauce or technique I don't know about to process 5219 in RA4 developer? Inquiring minds want to know!
BTW, back in the 70's Freestyle sold all sorts of interesting films. They may have sold Kodak 5247, I know there was a shop (RGB Lab?) a few blocks down Sunset Blvd that did, I still have a couple of rolls. They ran it through ECN process, then contact printed to motion picture print film and mounted the "slides." The color was good, though not as punchy as Ektachrome. The tough part was when I wanted enlargements and took the negs to a custom lab. They would roll their eyes and grimace when they saw the edge markings. Prints looked okay though, I don't know what kind of crazy corrections they had to do.

This is all information I've hoovered up from photrio, something that I am thinking about trying. I can't remember the exact thread, but I believe it's 1:1 for 3 minutes at 106*. I could be wrong though! I copied pasted the homebrew formula for ECN developer on my laptop. When I get a chance will repost it here. Here is one thread where someone develops 5219 in RA-4. Here is one thread where someone develops 5219 in RA-4.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/developing-film-in-ektacolor-ra-chemistry.43932/

Those of us who print RA-4 might actually prefer to use cinema film as the contrast is lower and might be a better match for the high contrast papers that are currently designed for digital.