Nitrate Film Festival at Eastman House

A film festival showing NITRATE FILMS will start on Thursday, April 30, '15 at the Dryden Theater at the George Eastman House Photography Museum in Rochester, NY. At 8pm a rare 1937 Technicolor dye transfer print will be projected of Janet Gaynor in "A Star Is Born." My sources tell me that this print might be the actual print which the producer David O. Selznick kept for his personal collection. Selznick donated all his collection to Eastman House. This may be the last time to see a vintage print of this film made in the same year in which the film premiered. The color values would then reflect the original intent of the film makers.

After this showing the festival will announce which other nitrate films will be shown as the festival continues on May 1, 2 and 3. All 35 mm movies were made on nitrate film for the first fifty years of cinema and many purists feel that both black and white and color films looked best on this material. However it is very flammable and if stored poorly it will deteriorate over time. This festival might be the last chance to see nitrate examples of some classic movies. Here is the link:

http://eastmanhouse.org/nitratepictureshow/The_Nitrate_Picture_Show.php

Wow.

"Who wants to hear actors talk anyway?" --Jack L. Warner.
"It would have been more logical if silent films had arisen out of sound films, rather than the other way around." -- Mary Pickford.
"Bo, boop be do," Betty Boop.

falotico said:

All 35 mm movies were made on nitrate film for the first fifty years of cinema and many purists feel that both black and white and color films looked best on this material.

Click to expand...

The invention of the celluloid sheet film dates from 1887, patent to Hannibal Goodwin. The last batches of nitrate base ciné film were made in 1954, so the span is 67 years. If we take 1893 as the first year of cinematic experiences (Démény, Dickson), it’s 61 years.

Photographic quality has nothing to do with the base material. Who spreads such nonsense?

Europan said:

Photographic quality has nothing to do with the base material. Who spreads such nonsense?

Click to expand...

People who have made a career out of fetishizing their speciality?

Preserving old film is valuable work. Eastman House is a national treasure and more power to them. But come on, the 'aura' of old film? Someone needs to re-read his Benjamin and recognize that ascribing 'aura' to works of mechanical reproduction is chasing unicorns.

Europan said:

Photographic quality has nothing to do with the base material. Who spreads such nonsense?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if there were subtle differences in light transmission and color between different base materials ?

Even the few modern B&W films made for reversal processing are on a clear base, while negative films can have a grey or colored base to assist anti-halation.

Just sayin' .

By all means then you two recreate the look of an old film with modern materials. Good luck with that.

I wish I was in Rochester for this. I think it would be absolutely amazing to see films the way they were seen when they were made. What an unique opportunity.

There is an enlarged sample transparency on view at the entrance to the museum as you exit the cafe.

It is quite elegant in many ways.

PE

Since the newest of the nitrate prints is over 50 years old, I've always wondered if the difference people claim to see is simply the result of the slow deterioration of the film base.

I thought "nitrate" was the premium payment you got for working unsociable hours

It's not entirely true that photographic quality has nothing to do with the base material, because the base material is a limiting factor on the emulsion. Simon Galley, for instance, has told me more than once that Delta 400 can't be coated on Ilford's sheet film base without being reformulated, I gather because it doesn't coat evenly.

But more importantly, "the nitrate era" comprises a certain historical period, which favored certain lighting styles, emulsion technologies, processing methods, cinematic techniques, and other factors, and the opportunity to see high-quality original prints from that era that haven't deteriorated too much or suffered any change in contrast or quality by being copied or digitized is something worth supporting.

Nitrate films are different from other films, IMHO. I think the index of refraction is slightly different for nitrocellulose based films than for celluloid and mylar. But more importantly, I understand that the emulsion would bind directly with the nitrate base, while with celluloid and other plastics required an adhesive material, typically an acrylic polymer of some kind. So celluloid films incorporated an extra layer while nitrate ones did not.

Obviously any film that was first shown on nitrate and is now on celluloid is another generation removed from the original release print. This leads to a suffering of quality. Even if you are working from the original camera neg, films up until 1940 were dipped-developed. Beginning in the 1940s they were spray developed with a corresponding loss in latitude. The camera neg designed for dip developing might not generate the same result for other forms of development. I know that a nitrate print of "Counselor At Law" with John Barrymore had a much clearer and richer sound tract than a subsequent celluloid print had. The whole argument must recognize that a film gets the most attention to specific details when it is first released. Prints made years after the first release often pay no attention to the director's original intent--if they know it at all! Sometimes day-for-night scenes are not printed to look like night, so cars are driving around in the daytime with their headlights on.

As far as color is concerned there is no comparison between the original release print and subsequent copies. Technicolor had five different dyes it mixed for the magenta. These were balanced carefully for effect. Today, effectively, we have only one dye for magenta and the optical lab often has no idea what the original print looked like when they generate a new print.

David A. Goldfarb said:

It's not entirely true that photographic quality has nothing to do with the base material, because the base material is a limiting factor on the emulsion. Simon Galley, for instance, has told me more than once that Delta 400 can't be coated on Ilford's sheet film base without being reformulated, I gather because it doesn't coat evenly.
.

Click to expand...

But you could make a pano back for 120 film?

Xmas said:

But you could make a pano back for 120 film?

Click to expand...

I have one, but it would be even better if it were available in 4x5" and 8x10" and larger.

About 450 people attended the Nitrate Film Festival May 1-3 at the Dryden Theater at George Eastman House in Rochester, NY. The theater only seats 500 so in one sense the crowd was the right size. But the festival's organizers did not announce the titles of the films until May 1. They opened every session by apologizing for keeping the identity of the films secret and giving lame explanations for the omission. My favorite was that they did not want people to come to the film festival for the wrong reasons. Imagine going to a Nitrate Film Festival for the wrong reason!

When you see the names of the films you'll realize that they could easily have attracted about three times the number of people if they had advertised earlier. The one film they did announce was the first one: "A Star is Born" 1937 with Janet Gaynor. This was the print owned by the producer himself, David O. Selznick, and was produced by Technicolor using imbibition dye-transfer in 1946.

On May 1, one of the best surviving nitrate prints of "Casablanca" 1942 with Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman. Next on the bill Hitchcock's early "The Man Who Knew Too Much" 1934, although the print was from 1943.

On May 2, "Samson and Delilah" 1949 Technicolor dye-transfer release print. Then a French film about Nazi sympathizers fleeing to South America on a German submarine, "Les Maudits" 1948 print. Next, a real highlight for me, Selznick's personal copy of the 1937 comedy "Nothing Sacred"--a Technicolor release print from the same year. This is the earliest example of full-color Technicolor dye-transfer I have ever actually seen projected on a screen. Then "Portrait of Jenny" 1948 with Joseph Cotton; then "Black Narcissus" 1948 release print--perhaps the finest Technicolor dye-transfer print I have ever seen.

On May 3, "Leave Her to Heaven" 1945 Technicolor dye-transfer; and then a surprise film which they did not announce until the credits came up, "The Fallen Idol" 1948 with Ralph Richardson. All in all a wonderful festival and they probably will have to turn people away next year.

If you were in Rochester for this, why not contact me?

PE

I ran into Mark Osterman at Eastman House and I asked him specifically about you. The impression I got from him was that you were unavailable, but I will take your invitation to heart! I plan to be in New York during the summer and if you are at Rochester then I will travel there to learn something about EK and photo materials from one of the experts. As my Mom says, I'll treat you to a drink if you have any money.

Nitrate or celluloïd base has a higher modulus of elasticity than acetate bases have. Comparing equal thicknesses, the nitrate base film is thus stiffer, so to speak. Its index of optical refraction, 1.48, differs only little from that of cellulose acetate, propionate, butyrate, and or mixtures of them. PETP has a typical index of 1.64.

The gelatines settle at around 1.52. Thicker gelatine layers lead to a little more optical acutance (not photographical), a little.

The main difference in their appearance on a cinema screen is — the light. The carbon-arc light got lost in about the same period of time as the industry changed over to safety film, in the 1950s. The first commercial use of Xenon arc bulbs was in 1954 in a German theatre.

Projections with high-intensity carbon arc light and with Xenon enclosed arc light look unlike. The subject penetrates even optics because it was found that the image of the Xenon arc heated up cemented elements of projection lenses to a degree that damages occurred. This led to new designs of lenses. Single free standing elements got preferred back after more than 100 years of optics research. That was only possible with modern multicoating of lens surfaces. Individual elopers due to a projectionist who disassembled a lens for cleaning, I happen to have experienced such things, Petzval type and triplet lenses before WWII and in general of longer focal lengths produced soft-sharp pictures. Xenon light lenses since the 1960s rather produce hard-unsharp pictures. Contrast increased and overall resolution decreased.

On the production side the use of light, the entire lighting concept was also different from what New Cinema, cinéma vérité, la nouvelle vague and other fashions brought. The Ladykillers, the last three-strip Technicolor film, was still lit pre-war style. Lots of light in 1955 and carbon arcs.

To round off my little incomplete survey I must note that only contact positives from original camera negatives are comparable. I saw a fresh print made in 1989 from a 1924 silent in that year. Paris qui dort by Clair, it was mesmerising. The film was shot with, of course, non-coated Tessar-type lenses in Debrie and Eclair cameras, processed most probably by the rack-and-tank method, printed at the time with undertensioned incandescent lamps on Matipo printers or the like. We don’t have the positive stocks of the twenties or thirties any more. On the other hand they haven’t changed so much since 70 years. To celebrate the 200 years jubilee of the French Revolution a number of cinema classics were reprinted and shown internationally.

The light from the glowing limestone is the least known very ingredient of early cinema. The Lumière showed their films with low-intensity carbon arcs. Travelling showmen used limelight. Pictures are still another experience when projected with that light.

falotico said:

I ran into Mark Osterman at Eastman House and I asked him specifically about you. The impression I got from him was that you were unavailable, but I will take your invitation to heart! I plan to be in New York during the summer and if you are at Rochester then I will travel there to learn something about EK and photo materials from one of the experts. As my Mom says, I'll treat you to a drink if you have any money.

Click to expand...

I go to GEH about once a month or more often as Mark's schedule and Nick's schedule allow. But I am alive and well and can go there most any time for lunch. Usually the three of us go downstairs and work. I am there for any workshop that I am directly involved in and I participate in preplanning.

PE

I will try to work out the schedules and perhaps take one of the workshops you are involved with or that you teach. Looking forward to it, probably this summer.

I look forward to seeing you there.

PE

I often read The Verge and found out that they published a long feature about the Nitrate Film festival. Quite surprised, as this site is very tech oriented, bus they do occasionally write about other fields.
Interesting. I am from the other side of the pond and it gives an insight. Nowadays it's hard to see even 35mm projected as it seems to bee all but gone in the theaters.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/17/8792169/nitrate-picture-show-film-conservation-festival

A dirty little secret which is known to many of the devoted film junkies is that nitrate has been shown at private screenings forever. There is a black market to film prints--especially 35mm--because, strictly speaking, these cannot be owned by a private film collector. The release prints were merely leased to the local movie-houses and never returned. By law the studio still owns them.

So collectors always showed their films in "underground" events. A great deal of films have been preserved this way. Recently the lost second reel of Laurel and Hardy's "The Battle of the Century" has been found in a collection. Only three movie houses in the US are licensed to show nitrate. But undoubtedly it is projected at private screenings.

In California since the 1920's many homes were constructed with built-in private cinemas.