Jump to content


Photo

Eastman 7255 stock...


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 03 February 2007 - 10:42 PM

Hey everyone,

I'm in pre-production for a feature length film where the producer has managed to get his hands on a lot of old Eastman 7255 reversal film stock.

Has anyone ever shot on this before? I believe it was discontinued some, what, 20 years ago? I'll probably shoot it like any other reversal stock, but I was wondering if there were any characteristic of it that I should be wary of.

I'll probably shoot a short test of it, and possibly get a snip test at the lab to find out what condition it's in. But I'd like to get as much feedback as possible.

Thanks!

Edited by Jonathan Bowerbank, 03 February 2007 - 10:42 PM.

  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 February 2007 - 12:53 AM

Try 37 years ago...

From the Kodak chronology:

1958
KODAK EKTACHROME Commercial film, 7255. Tungsten, EI 25. Process ECO-1. Replaced 5268. Replaced by 7252 in 1970.

Where are you going to find a lab that does an obsolete process (ECO-1)?

Maybe this place:
http://www.rockymountainfilm.com/
But it would cost you an arm and a leg.
  • 0

#3 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 04 February 2007 - 03:41 AM

Where are you going to find a lab that does an obsolete process (ECO-1)?

Maybe this place:
http://www.rockymountainfilm.com/
But it would cost you an arm and a leg.


That was another of one of my concerns. I've yet to find out how or why he bought this film stock. I wasn't involved in production at the time, so I'm still digging for that info.

This is a "zero budget" project, so I doubt they'll want to pay so much for processing
  • 0

#4 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 04 February 2007 - 03:55 AM

I just sent them a very detailed email about how it would be cheaper to buy brand new Kodak or Fuji stock. The film and processing alone will be cheaper than processing the 7255 stock...I hope they go for it.
  • 0

#5 Dirk DeJonghe

Dirk DeJonghe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Kortrijk,Belgium

Posted 04 February 2007 - 11:55 AM

I started my career in 1973. ECO 7252 was fairly new then, 7255 was obsolete. I started processing 7252 in about 1976. I was the last European lab to process ECO-3 when we stopped it in about 1990. Even then the film had to be fresh to give good results. With enough light it would give stunning results on telecine. It was very low speed tungsten, would need lots of light for anything larger than interior tabletop sets.

The probabilty of 7255 still being fresh enough to give acceptable results is less than nihil even if you can manage to find ECO-1 processing at any price.
  • 0

#6 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 04 February 2007 - 12:57 PM

Hi,

That film will look absolutely terrible, any film manufactured between 1958 and 1970 will be pretty stone age, if that's the look you want it could be easily emulated in Super 8.

When was this batch actualy manufactured ?


-Thanxiness. B)
  • 0

#7 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 04 February 2007 - 04:21 PM

That film will look absolutely terrible, any film manufactured between 1958 and 1970 will be pretty stone age, if that's the look you want it could be easily emulated in Super 8.

When was this batch actualy manufactured ?
-Thanxiness. B)


Yeah, I let them know that the chances of lifting or achieving any kind of image after processing was EXTREMELY slim and that it would most likely be a waste of time and money to even attempt. The director still wants the saturated look of Reversal, but I told him our best option would be to shoot negative and take care of color saturation during the timing process.

He's never shot film before, so I'm basically the decision maker for what the best route will be.

I'm not sure when the batch was manufactured...pre 1970 I'm guessing. It sounds like he just happened upon a stack of old Ektachrome at a family member's or something, and is wanting to roll it. I just really don't want to waste my time and his money though.

Edited by Jonathan Bowerbank, 04 February 2007 - 04:22 PM.

  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 February 2007 - 05:30 PM

ECO wasn't particularly saturated anyway.
  • 0

#9 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 04 February 2007 - 07:13 PM

Hows about 8mm, that'll give him the saturated look he wants, E100D would be good.
  • 0

#10 Charles MacDonald

Charles MacDonald
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1157 posts
  • Other
  • Stittsville Ontario Canada

Posted 04 February 2007 - 08:11 PM

ECO wasn't particularly saturated anyway.

I thought that was the very IDEA of ECO, a low contrast stock so that when you went though one or two generations to make a release print you would still have a useable image. I only read the books when I was a kid ... But somehow I recall somthing like -- Not sutable for projection under any circumstance.
  • 0

#11 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 February 2007 - 08:14 PM

Yes, ECO was a lower-contrast (and thus slightly pastel) reversal stock designed for being printed, although I doubt it was as low in contrast as color negative. A lot of ECO-shot projects have turned magenta over the years, unfortunately.
  • 0

#12 David Venhaus

David Venhaus
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Other
  • Wiseburn, CA

Posted 04 February 2007 - 08:25 PM

To give you some idea of what it looked like, most of "Woodstock", the concert film, was filmed on 7255 and blown up to 70mm.

Edited by David A Venhaus, 04 February 2007 - 08:25 PM.

  • 0

#13 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 04 February 2007 - 10:34 PM

Well I think it was designed primarily to print well on to Kodachrome 7387 which was pretty high in contrast. (Which it did).

The original (at least 7252 - 7255 was before my time) was as David says, quite pastel; would look weird if you projected it.

I've seen recent blowups - of ECO 7255 & 7252 to 35mm Vision stock via 5272 IN. They looked _really_ good, (although slightly grainier than I would have expected) but this was ECO shot in it's prime.

-Sam Wells
  • 0

#14 Leo Anthony Vale

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

Posted 05 February 2007 - 02:46 PM

To give you some idea of what it looked like, most of "Woodstock", the concert film, was filmed on 7255 and blown up to 70mm.


Actually printed onto a Techniscope I/N.

'Equinox' which is now out on a Criterion DVD was 7255.

There are two versions, the first 'Equinox' is transfered from a combinanation of a 16mm I/N and a 16mm composite print, neither was complete.
The longer theatrical version was transfered from a 35mm I/N.
While the 35mm I/N is sharper, the 16mm I/N-print combo has the better fleshtones and over all color.
Also a bit contrastier, which gives it a nice snappiness.
  • 0

#15 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 05 February 2007 - 04:09 PM

Hows about 8mm, that'll give him the saturated look he wants, E100D would be good.


AHEM! <_<
  • 0

#16 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 05 February 2007 - 04:26 PM

AHEM! <_<


Heard ya the first time, buddy.
  • 0

#17 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 05 February 2007 - 05:43 PM

Yes, but is it a credible post, I mean, are you going to use Super 8?????????
  • 0

#18 David Venhaus

David Venhaus
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Other
  • Wiseburn, CA

Posted 05 February 2007 - 06:53 PM

To give you some idea of what it looked like, most of "Woodstock", the concert film, was filmed on 7255 and blown up to 70mm.


Actually printed onto a Techniscope I/N.


According to an interview, on Kodak's website it was 16mm ->65mm i/n. - "A custom-built Technicolor lens would provide single-generation, liquid gate blowups, with opticals done simultaneously. The lens was simply aimed at various parts of the 65mm frame to produce the trademark multiple images now so familiar to anyone who has seen the film."
http://www.kodak.com...woodstock.shtml
  • 0

#19 Leo Anthony Vale

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

Posted 06 February 2007 - 02:06 PM

To give you some idea of what it looked like, most of "Woodstock", the concert film, was filmed on 7255 and blown up to 70mm.
According to an interview, on Kodak's website it was 16mm ->65mm i/n. - "A custom-built Technicolor lens would provide single-generation, liquid gate blowups, with opticals done simultaneously. The lens was simply aimed at various parts of the 65mm frame to produce the trademark multiple images now so familiar to anyone who has seen the film."
http://www.kodak.com...woodstock.shtml


Someone's bullshitting the writer. That's a fantasy.

If you can spare $25 get the American Cinematographer Woodstock issue 10-70.

http://www.theasc.co..... Issues;1970s

The articles are contemporary to the film itself.
  • 0

#20 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 06 February 2007 - 02:54 PM

I started my career in 1968 , at a small doco , medical ad ,film company and 7255 was the stock they usedd , it was never used for projection but printed onto either a Kodachrome print stock or some sort of shitty Ektachrome print stock ,then 7252 replaced it . I remember shooting a hip replacement operation , where i had to use so much light with awful reveral stock 25asa ,that the blood started steaming , yuk , they wernt the days . although i did learn how never to light anything in my life again like that .
  • 0


Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Opal

The Slider

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products