using cine film as still film

Kodak makes B&W cine print film type 2302. Their link is http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/QA_MotionPictureCatalog_March9_2009.pdf

Has anyone used it? In the very long 2000 ft roll it sells for $252.21. That is about $13 per 100 ft. Are there any drawbacks to this? No rem jet backing I presume? Normal sprocket holes? No surprises? Speed?

Are there other cine films we should know about? Will their positive films process as positives in D-76 (some of their former positive films developed out to negatives in normal B&W developers)

This might be a very good solution to the problem of high film prices. It has not 'caught on' yet but maybe there are caveats we should know about.

ALSO: they make 'color vision' without rem jet backing. How does this do in normal C-41? - David Lyga

I use orwo N74. Not bad either

At one time Kodak used to make several cine BW films sadly there is only one now Eastman 5222 (Double-X). This is the only one that I would use for negatives. Other films not intended for negatives may not have the proper characteristic curve. I shoot this film at an EI of 400 and develop it in HC-110 1+49 for 8.5 min at 21 C with excellent results.

Cine print film is primarilly intended to make prints for projection, from the camera negative.....a bit like a paper emulsion coated on a film base. It would be very slow if used in a camera, and would then produce a negative, not a positive image (unlike a reversal film, which when processed by reversal chemicals will give a positive ready for projection).

Cine negative can be loaded into cassettes for still camera use (as with the Orwo N74 mentioned by Schlapp). I can remember my Dad talking about buying 25ft tins of cheap FP3, HP3, etc., in the 1950's and 60's, which (going by the perfs and edge markings on his negs which I still have) were surplus ends of cine film.

David Lyga said:

Kodak makes B&W cine print film type 2302. Their link is http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/QA_MotionPictureCatalog_March9_2009.pdf

Has anyone used it? In the very long 2000 ft roll it sells for $252.21. That is about $13 per 100 ft. Are there any drawbacks to this? No rem jet backing I presume? Normal sprocket holes? No surprises? Speed?

Are there other cine films we should know about? Will their positive films process as positives in D-76 (some of their former positive films developed out to negatives in normal B&W developers)

This might be a very good solution to the problem of high film prices. It has not 'caught on' yet but maybe there are caveats we should know about.

ALSO: they make 'color vision' without rem jet backing. How does this do in normal C-41? - David Lyga

Click to expand...

You've got an older price list. The latest one I have seen is from Feb 15, 2012 and is here:

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/QA_MotionPictureCatalog_February15_2012.pdf

and shows that film as $305.17. Still a good price.

I've been playing with a lot of cine non-camera films (intermediate, print, etc.) as still films and I think there is some definite promise there but there are lots of caveats. Slow speed is the big one, but that might be OK with some people. Weird response curves is another one. Some of them are orthochromatic, which again might actually be fine for some people. And all of them, since they aren't intended to be used and developed the way we do it, require a lot of experimentation to find the right speed to expose them at, and the right development time. Someday I'm going to finish all my experiments and post results. Sometime this weekend I'll post a list here of the specific films I have been testing, in case anyone else has experience with those types and can chime in here. Here is one I recently posted info on:

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

I think the idea of using color print films as camera negative films is a hopeless cause. They are intended to be the "paper" to the camera film's negative and as such the response curves are just completely wrong for shooting negatives on. Don't let me stop you from experimenting if you pick up some cheap, I just personally think that while you can make some decent images out of the wrong curves of black and white print film, it's a whole different ballgame of trying to do that with color materials. Maybe you could end up with interesting weird-color prints a la HIE, but more likely it's just going to be a muddled mess.

Duncan

David,
I use B&W 35mm cine film, decades ago it was ORWO, now is mostly Polypan F - Polyester base, silver rich emulsions, vintage look.
No anti-halation backing on the ones I've used/use but I dont care about anti-halation backing.
I would take that any day, instead of the packed triacetate films that he "big" companies sell for >3 US$ for cartridge.
They screwed themselves, big time.

G

I thought I had posted about my tests with 2360 (aka 5360 or SO-291 or Direct MP film) but it took me a while to find them... in the 35mm camera forum for some reason!

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

And here is a picture I took of SO-291 film for another thread about film translucency - it's very red!



Duncan

Oh yeah, other caveats:

- sometimes no anti-halation backing, as georg16nik mentioned

- dealing with 400/1000/2000 foot rolls can be a handful. I have rewinds and split reels and spare cores/cans/bags, but it can be done on a flat table with a nail and your outstretched arms to measure 36 exposures if you're careful. (You do not want the film to come sliding off the core en masse!)

- I get the impression that quality control on the lab films is not quite as strict - after all if one frame has a tiny defect you'll never see it as the movie spins by at 24fps, whereas that could ruin your Pulitzer-prize-winning photo if it's used as still film. Or maybe it's just the SO-291, since that is the only one I've seen problems on. That is supposed to be used for quickie work print copies, for instance if you want to screen a copy for the people doing the music for the film. I had a couple of sections with huge dozens-of-feet-long scratches down the film that I certainly didn't put there! Maybe they use up their base stock with defects on throwaway products like SO-291, I don't know...

- A lot of these are on Estar base - always remember your scissors when dealing with it, because there will be no possibility of tearing it!

Duncan

Duncan,
the polyester base is BIG plus, bacteriologically safe, no vinegar syndrom, archival superior in all regards.
A lot of my photo buddies in Europe turned to cine film, long long time ago and never looked back and I am not talking about folks who dont have budgets for their hobby.
A few miles of cine film in the deep freeze and no bother with TriX, 4X, Tmax, Dmax or whatever monkey films names nowadays kids are crying will not exist soon.

>3 US$ for a roll of film having a just under a pinch of silver and lots of dyes and on triacetate junk - are u seriously kidding me?

G

georg16nik said:

Duncan,
the polyester base is BIG plus, bacteriologically safe, no vinegar syndrom, archival superior in all regards.
A lot of my photo buddies in Europe turned to cine film, long long time ago and never looked back and I am not talking about folks who dont have budgets for their hobby.
A few miles of cine film in the deep freeze and no bother with TriX, 4X, Tmax, Dmax or whatever monkey films names nowadays kids are crying will not exist soon.

>3 US$ for a roll of film having a just under a pinch of silver and lots of dyes and on triacetate junk - are u seriously kidding me?

G

Click to expand...

I'm certainly convinced of all of those advantages, which is why I have been playing around with it so much. (Not enough hours in a day though...) But unlike Tri-X you can't just pop it in your camera and shoot and develop and print some pictures, thus all my somewhat rigorous testing.

Sadly, my testing is going slower than Kodak's march towards obsoleting all of these films. By the time I figure out which ones I really want to concentrate on, odds are they won't be for sale any more :-( But I have at least 1000 feet each of most of them, so that should last me a while!

For instance I bought the 2360MP direct from Kodak for full price... and now I see they don't sell it any more. Sigh.

Duncan

Thank you for the interesting comments. But...frobozz brings up a thought that I would greatly appreciated being expounded upon: the quality control issue.

Is there anyone out there 'in the know' who can answer this question definitively? It is true that with still film there is no opportunity for compromise with quality control but, at least intuitively, it does seem to me that with 24 frames running per second and with the 'persistence of vision' coming into play here, that there would not be the same obsessive need for perfection in every frame with cine film. Or, instead, is the state of art of film manufacture so refined today that that simply is not an issue: that cine film really is as perfect as still film.

I am not concerned with 'slow speed' (lasts longer at room temp!) or 'weird curves' (that could be downright fascinating). I am concerned with being able to develop this film in normal B&W developers and achieve very sharp, low grain images with adequate contrast.

Gerand Koch: are you saying that type 2302 no longer exists and that only 5222 does? - David Lyga

Duncan,
I know what You mean, but there are other companies in Europe, Russia, China, besides Kodak, Ilford and Fuji who offer great materials at reasonable prices.
Dealing with 1000ft in the darkroom is fun and makes You take Your art seriously, instead of buying a prepackaged cartridge like a sissy from the store

David, at least for 5222, the quality has always been top grade, no defects.
I distill my water with steam distiller and every aspect of the dark room process is running in tight tolerances over here.
The only film I've come across and have no doubts had defects was Foma.

David Lyga said:

Gerand Koch: are you saying that type 2302 no longer exists and that only 5222 does? - David Lyga

Click to expand...

I was speaking only about Kodak negative cine films.

Eastman 2302 is designed for making prints from negative cine films. It is only blue sensitive and very slow, in fact Kodak does not even give an ISO speed for it. It is really not suitable for camera use.

If you want a Kodak/Eastman cine film you have only one choice and it is 5222. You may still be able to find some Easman Plus-X 5231 but it is no longer being made by kodak. Quality control on Easman films is excellent. A plus is that the Estar base will not curl and negatives are completely flat in the enlarger carrier. They also have an antiscratch and antistatic layer above the emulsion.

David Lyga said:

Thank you for the interesting comments. But...frobozz brings up a thought that I would greatly appreciated being expounded upon: the quality control issue.

Is there anyone out there 'in the know' who can answer this question definitively? It is true that with still film there is no opportunity for compromise with quality control but, at least intuitively, it does seem to me that with 24 frames running per second and with the 'persistence of vision' coming into play here, that there would not be the same obsessive need for perfection in every frame with cine film. Or, instead, is the state of art of film manufacture so refined today that that simply is not an issue: that cine film really is as perfect as still film.

Click to expand...

I hate to even bring it up, since I don't want to impugn Kodak's reputation... and I'll repeat that the only film I saw this on was SO-291, which is uniquely designed to be used for stuff where defects are inconsequential. But it's something to watch out for. IN my case it was easy to work around simply because the defects went on so glaringly and for so many feet. As I was cutting off one bulk loaded 35mm cart, I noticed the gouges in the base side. So I started just pulling film out of the bulk loader... it was 15 or 20 feet before they stopped. Then the film was smooth as silk again. I found one more area like that another cartridge or two farther along, and then never again. And so far no problems at all with the 2360 I bought new. (My understanding of how this stuff works is that SO-291 was an earlier version of the product, available by "Special Order" and then when they finally released as a fully stocked product in the catalog they gave it a proper model number, which was 5360/2360, because it's definitely the exact same stuff.) So its prototype nature might be yet another reason they wouldn't care so much about defects in it.

David Lyga said:

Gerand Koch: are you saying that type 2302 no longer exists and that only 5222 does? - David Lyga

Click to expand...

I think he meant that 5222 is the last B&W camera negative that Kodak sells in 35mm. They still make 2302 but it's a print film.


Duncan

Gerald C Koch said:

Eastman 2302 is designed for making prints from negative cine films. It is only blue sensitive and very slow, in fact Kodak does not even give an ISO speed for it. It is really not suitable for camera use.

Click to expand...

Well, one man's "not suitable for camera use" is another man's "look at the cool weird film I managed to make images on!" I'm of the opinion that anything 35mm wide and with sprocket holes is potentially suitable for camera use At least until proven otherwise. As long as one is aware of the long list of differences between these and off-the shelf camera films, I think they can have their uses.

Duncan

That's interesting.
I think I read somewhere there can be problem with the perforation, as if cinema had a slightly different standard so that the holes of movies 35mm do not necessarily coincide with the holes of a 35mm film intended for a still camera.

Was it just a bad dream?
Buying movie film in bulk would certainly mean a great saving.

Fabrizio

frobozz said:

Well, one man's "not suitable for camera use" is another man's "look at the cool weird film I managed to make images on!" I'm of the opinion that anything 35mm wide and with sprocket holes is potentially suitable for camera use At least until proven otherwise. As long as one is aware of the long list of differences between these and off-the shelf camera films, I think they can have their uses.

Duncan

Click to expand...

Eastman 2302 is designed for contact printing cine negative film to obtain production prints. Therefore it doesn't even have to be orthochromatic in sensitivity. A very intense light source is used. I seem to remember that cine positive films have an estimated ISO speed of ~0.6, yes you read correctly less than ISO 1!!. You will be faced with VERY LONG exposures. I personally am not that masochistic. Remember the OP will be buying this film. If one got it for free it might be interesting to play with.

Cine films work very well in still cameras as far as the sprocket holes are concerned. Remember the Ur-Leica was designed to test cine films.

Diapositivo said:

That's interesting.
I think I read somewhere there can be problem with the perforation, as if cinema had a slightly different standard so that the holes of movies 35mm do not necessarily coincide with the holes of a 35mm film intended for a still camera.

Was it just a bad dream?
Buying movie film in bulk would certainly mean a great saving.

Fabrizio

Click to expand...

The shape of the perf hole is slightly different but no troubles in any of the cameras I use. There is another thread here on APUG using Orwo films which use the cine perf (the true designated name skips my mind) and this B&W negative film also reversal processes really well.

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

I too thought about using B&W print film but after reading the data sheets and seeing the print times under defined light I thought I would give it a miss.

Remember a company called Seattle Film Works that sold film that gave you slides and prints? I've been told that it's movie film. My cousin told me that some companies bought leftover ends of movie film and repackaged it as 35mm film. Don't know if it's true, but I've been told that movie film stock is on a thicker base and can be hard on 35mm cameras. Can APUGers verify that?

Yes, Seattle Filmworks used to offer processing of color film that would give you both slides and prints. When I first started using them in the late 80's they did indeed offer cine film (I believe it was 5247 and 5294), and later expanded their offerings to include some other varieties of cine film as well as C-41 films.

The slides weren't bad either. Not as good IMHO as real slide films, but not bad.

Several rolls of cine film went through my Pentax ME Super with no problem.

I have shot quite a bit of 5222 over the course of the last 8 or so years. One problem I have found with it, and this could be a good thing depending on your perspective, is it is quite flat. It is difficult to get a lot of contrast out of the film. For scanning it is great but for printing in the darkroom not so much. If it is developed in a staining developer like Pyrocat it is nearly impossible to blow out a highlight. The range of the film can absorb almost anything in this case. Again, it is either a good or bad thing depending on your perspective.

As far as quality goes, I have never seen a defect in the emulsion of 5222.

I think most o fteh posint have been touched on.

1) 2302/5302 is a slow print film, think contact paper emulsion on film base.
2) Movie negative uses BH1866 Perfs, while still film and print film uses KS 1870 perfs, the 4 tens of a thou difference does not bother any still camera I have tried them in.
3) that SO film, did it have a name? I can think of a couple of SO numbers that are sold as leaders for testing processing machines, and are in effect rejected stock. if anything Motion picture use requires the tightest quality control as images less than half frame camera sizw are projected on a 40 foot screen.
4) movie colour negative almost always has a rem-jet backing, which has a special step in the movie process to remove.
5)35mm movie film cranks through the Camera at 90 feet a minute. so if at the end of a shot there is only a couple of hundred feet left in the camera it is sold as a "Short end" to low budget productions. You can find that sort of stuff on e-bay look for "35mm vison" or "35mm eterna" but the remjet will make it hard to process.
6) several films including seatle film works used to repackage movie ends and do the slides and prints deals. they had a semi-captive audience as a roll of movie film will kill all the chemicals in a mini lab as the rem jet slowly dissolves.

M. Lointain said:

I have shot quite a bit of 5222 over the course of the last 8 or so years. One problem I have found with it, and this could be a good thing depending on your perspective, is it is quite flat. It is difficult to get a lot of contrast out of the film. For scanning it is great but for printing in the darkroom not so much. If it is developed in a staining developer like Pyrocat it is nearly impossible to blow out a highlight. The range of the film can absorb almost anything in this case. Again, it is either a good or bad thing depending on your perspective.

As far as quality goes, I have never seen a defect in the emulsion of 5222.

Click to expand...

I don't know if this is the source of the low contrast problem. There are many that erroniously believe that films like 5222 must be developed in a special low contrast developer like Kodak D-96. This is not true. Using HC-110 or Rodinal I haven't had any problem with low contrast. This film is rated at ISO 250 for cine exposure in daylight. BUT this is because cine negative is intended to be printed on a high contrast positive stock. I rate this film at an EI of 400 and it produces beautiful snappy prints. BTW, I have processed hundreds of rolls of 5222.

It's SOP to underexpose a film and develop it longer to get better contrast. Film speeds are suggestions for the film's intended purpose. If you use a film for a different purpose you may have to make adjustments.