Jump to content


Photo

Hey, John Pytlak


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 08 December 2005 - 06:27 AM

Hey John,

Is there a handy way to convert Kodak's tech data into something like ASA numbers? For example, what is the approximate ASA value of 2393 print film? Also, why is print stock so much less expensive than camera stock?

Thanks in advance,
Paul
  • 0

#2 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 08 December 2005 - 06:34 AM

Hey John,

Is there a handy way to convert Kodak's tech data into something like ASA numbers? For example, what is the approximate ASA value of 2393 print film? Also, why is print stock so much less expensive than camera stock?

Thanks in advance,
Paul


You can try to compare the sensitometric curves published by Kodak in the technical data for each film. But color print film and intermediate are designed for printing from originals that have orange colored masking, on printers that use tungsten lamps operated much below rated voltage to extend life, so they are balanced for a very orange light source, and would require lots of orange-colored filtration as a starting point.

Color print film is a much simpler film structure and technology than color negative film, and has less silver in it.
  • 0

#3 Laurent Andrieux

Laurent Andrieux
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1527 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • France

Posted 08 December 2005 - 05:19 PM

Hi John,

Also, they have a very higher gamma, don't they ?

Do you think it could be sort of interesting to pass some print stock in a camera, if I find the proper filtering ? I don't mean to use it as a "normal" stock, I mean for an effect.

Some people have used sound film for some effects in black and white, so why not ?

I think the perf dimensions and pitch are a bit different from the camera neg ? Do you think that really is a problem with nowadays cameras ?
  • 0

#4 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 08 December 2005 - 05:58 PM

Hi John,

Also, they have a very higher gamma, don't they ?

Do you think it could be sort of interesting to pass some print stock in a camera, if I find the proper filtering ? I don't mean to use it as a "normal" stock, I mean for an effect.

Some people have used sound film for some effects in black and white, so why not ?

I think the perf dimensions and pitch are a bit different from the camera neg ? Do you think that really is a problem with nowadays cameras ?


The late lamented 7361 B/W reversal print film was a great camera film. Use it with an uncoated lens and get something that looks like snapshots from the 30s. Quite sharp and amazing latitude for reversal.

5360 autopositive is still around and gives interesting results.
Estar base version has BH-1866 perfs.

---LV
  • 0

#5 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 08 December 2005 - 06:36 PM

How do I interpret these graphs? They are for Vision 200T and 2393 print stock:

Attached Images

  • Vision_200T_sensitometric.gif
  • 2393Char.gif

  • 0

#6 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 08 December 2005 - 10:48 PM

How do I interpret these graphs? They are for Vision 200T and 2393 print stock:


The Kodak website has a good tutorial on interpreting sensitometric data (graphs you showed):

http://www.kodak.com...structure.shtml

And all the other data Kodak publishes for motion picture films:

http://www.kodak.com.../exposure.shtml

Yes, color print film is MUCH higher in contrast than color negative film.

A starting point for exposure might be with TWO Wratten 85 filters, and an Exposure Index of about 5 or less.

(Expect very harsh and contrasty color).

Kodak VISION Color Intermediate Film has a contrast of about 1.0, almost twice that of a camera negative. Again, very slow, and balanced for an orange light source.

Most cameras take "short pitch" film. 35mm camera films are usually BH-1866. Print film KS-1870 perfs are "long pitch" and the perf height is 0.078 inches vs. 0.073 inches, so it will not be properly registered using a BH registration pin camera.
  • 0

#7 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 09 December 2005 - 12:59 AM

Thanks, John.
  • 0

#8 Kitao Sakurai

Kitao Sakurai
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • NYC

Posted 09 December 2005 - 05:57 PM

Leo,

"The late lamented 7361 B/W reversal print film was a great camera film. Use it with an uncoated lens and get something that looks like snapshots from the 30s. Quite sharp and amazing latitude for reversal.
5360 autopositive is still around and gives interesting results.
Estar base version has BH-1866 perfs."

Could you expand upon on this a little more? I'd be very interested in trying to shoot on a bw print stock like this. Would the current version of 61 be 02? Do you think this would compare? If so, as a starting point for testing, what were you rating the 61 at?

And what results have you achieved with the autopositive film?

best,

kitao
  • 0

#9 Clive Tobin

Clive Tobin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 402 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Spokane Valley, WA, USA

Posted 09 December 2005 - 08:29 PM

Would the current version of 61 be 02?


Well it might be except that 7361 is just totally GONE with no replacement available. Seems to me the 7360 and 5360 are discontinued now also. Hard to keep up with all the products that Kodak is discontinuing and the Kodak News PDFs are slow to download.

I used to shoot 7361 also when I could get free short ends. The 7360 is very slow, maybe ASA 0.5 or some such. It used to squeak terribly going through the camera, perhaps because it is too smooth and not lubricated. Both films by the way are bright red in color which makes unfamiliar users do a double take. Especially the 7360 rawstock which looks like a transparent red filter that couldn't form an image.
  • 0

#10 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 10 December 2005 - 04:45 PM

Clive,

I've said it before and I'll say it again: You da' man.
  • 0


Tai Audio

CineLab

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

The Slider

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

The Slider