If you would reformulated c41 you would first get a standard to both (Motion Film/color Film) you could use the same soup but there wouldn't be a standard in both at last. Because you would need a special layer exklusive with motion picture Film.
Indeed they would come to compromis between to lower costs.At one time, long ago, the motion picture film and photographic film were entirely different departments at Kodak, probably due to the different markets. If all this were to be done again today, I wouldn't be surprised if both MP and still film would be designed to use the same process.
halfaman: Well... printfilm also exist as C41 and E6. (Called duplicating film.) Yes, those films have other contrast characteristics than films exposed in cameras, but obviously they don't necessarily need a different process.
I think you are assuming that photo printing and a movie printing follow the same process, but they don't.
Photographs are printed directly in paper, while movies are print into film again (a "print film"). Also movies are usually printed from an internegative, not from the original camera negative.
So different print processes and final substrates using the same film and chemistry? It doesn't sound optimal at all. By the way, printing chemistry is also different. RA-4 for paper and ECP-2 for print film.
I would interpret the original question as "if we use C-41 film&process, are we missing something compared to ECN-2?". My impression from what I have read here and elsewhere, is that the movie industry was not willing to change their development equipment, and that Vision 3 movie film was therefore formulated to work with that preexisting equipment and ECN-2 process. There appear to be no specific advantages of ECN-2 over C-41 as far as still film photographers are concerned, to the contrary: CD-4 contained in C-41 CD is less prone to triggering allergies than CD-3. Both processes appear to create optimal results with their respective materials.Then there are the speed, grain and sharpness issues to be considered. Maybe the scope is too broad for this forum??
For sure (as you might know) a movie labs workflow is most different to labs costumers let their holiday shots develope.During my university I did spend some time in movie labs. As far as I understand ECN2 process formulas were always available for labs to mix its own from raw chemicals. In '90s and 2000 Kodak start offering them as premixed concentrate kits as simplified option for smaller volume processing (but no home use) . Maybe from today perspective ECN 2 and C41 can be shared, but with amount of already existing infrastructure & knowledge I don't think it will ever happen
I would interpret the original question as "if we use C-41 film&process, are we missing something compared to ECN-2?". My impression from what I have read here and elsewhere, is that the movie industry was not willing to change their development equipment, and that Vision 3 movie film was therefore formulated to work with that preexisting equipment and ECN-2 process. There appear to be no specific advantages of ECN-2 over C-41 as far as still film photographers are concerned, to the contrary: CD-4 contained in C-41 CD is less prone to triggering allergies than CD-3. Both processes appear to create optimal results with their respective materials.
No! I want to know more about it, it is interesting.
Pulling out the stops would include Calculus, General Chemistry and Organic Chemistry.
Are you ready for that?
I am preparing a document right now called "How to Build a Film", but it is slow going and I know how to do it.
By the way : " How to Build a Film" PE let me short asked you (on basis of your well known background at EK within emulsion concerns"
You mentioned in other concerns that some chemical raw compounds one have a need of for backing color emulsion (I do not remember in what concern you stated it and I can't find it at this time) but may be it was in concern of Kodachromes - came rare and more rare over the last years.
Some of them are not longer in production generaly by the chemistry industry.
Kodak stated the same (that was definitivly just stated to Kodachromes)
Some other basic (or special) compounds are in production - so we just may be happy if chems are not used exclusive for Film production - but even if they were produced they increased horrable from price.
Ok now the question : Could you imagine that you design (from general issues) an emulsion without the chemical compounds your design is made originally ?In a form that you find derivates with simular
characteristics? Sure this is a case wich depends on the special function of the chemical compounds
(color coupler/ interactive working chems a.s.o) but the point of main interest is :
Could you imagine that such "let it name reformulated emulsion" have 100% identical characteristics special from the original color design?
From my point it isn't possible because the New emulsion then has to have min. a difference wich has to be more in comparison of different emulsion numbers of the same Film.
So it can be in the very near of original design but it is a New Film with a difference to be seen from characteristics.
Perhaps you remember Fuji 2005 with Velvia50. They stated they reformulated Velvia50 with New raw chems they were able to find and the relaunched Velvia has the 100% same characteristics.
The last (same characteristics) was indeed true - there is no minimalst difference between old and New Velvia50.
But from my point it wasn't the holy true Fuji stated before the raws from Velvia50 came out of production so they had to discontinued Velvia - later they stated they found derivater raws with gave
100 identical characteristics?????
To me Fuji used original same intigrients for relaunched Velvia50 but they have been much increased from its costs.
Possible or not possible ? I know it is a bit academic and dependable. But from serious concern.
with greetings to you in Rochester
PS : AS I used New Velvia50 late 2007 I was sure this Film is a very little different because of complete New raws. Later I wonder - absolute 100% identical
Because of same raw chems.....isn't it?
I've never seen a generalised substituent called 'ballast'. Quite funny. Will it act as a drag anchor to set a rate of diffusion?Chemicals that can no longer be used are Cadmium, Mercury and Lead compounds. Those that can be used are organic chemicals that are very complex.
They normally control Latent Image Keeping, Reciprocity and Keeping.
Here is a simple series of sensitizing dyes and a set of generic couplers to start our organic chemistry portion.
|Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. |
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY: