Jump to content


Photo

Checkinh a film stock?


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Filip Syczynski

Filip Syczynski

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Student

Posted 15 October 2007 - 07:03 AM

Hi!
A few days ago I bought some older (2004) 35mm film stock, each for just 10£ so I thought that I wouldn't lose much by just risking it (3 x 400ft Kodak Eastman 250D 7297 1R 3 x 400ft Kodak Vision2 100T 7212 1R ). I wanted to ask, if there is a chance of maybe testing the stock (just some 20ft?) before shooting anything on it? (not to gather all the crew, actors etc. and then the footage would come out black after processing... that would be a disaster).
  • 0

#2 Tim Carroll

Tim Carroll
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2165 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 15 October 2007 - 08:58 AM

In the past I've done a "clip test" (I think it's called). Shoot about ten to twenty feet, send it to a lab and have it processed, and then look at it with a light table and a loop.

-Tim
  • 0

#3 John Brawley

John Brawley
  • Sustaining Members
  • 834 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Atlanta Georgia

Posted 15 October 2007 - 10:11 AM

Hi!
A few days ago I bought some older (2004) 35mm film stock, each for just 10£ so I thought that I wouldn't lose much by just risking it (3 x 400ft Kodak Eastman 250D 7297 1R 3 x 400ft Kodak Vision2 100T 7212 1R ). I wanted to ask, if there is a chance of maybe testing the stock (just some 20ft?) before shooting anything on it? (not to gather all the crew, actors etc. and then the footage would come out black after processing... that would be a disaster).



Hi Filip...

you can ask a lab to do a dip test for you. They'll take a few feet off your roll and process it. Then they measure the base density and then give you a figure. I vaguely recall more than +10 in R G or B wasn't good. Of course...it never stopped me from shooting with it....:-)

jb
  • 0

#4 Filip Syczynski

Filip Syczynski

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Student

Posted 15 October 2007 - 02:16 PM

Thank You for your help! I'll do the tests ASAP
  • 0

#5 Jonathan Bowerbank

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

Posted 15 October 2007 - 10:35 PM

You don't even have to shoot anything, just cut a few feet off and send it to the lab for the clip test. They'll test its density and let you know what sort of condition its in.
  • 0

#6 A. Whitehouse

A. Whitehouse
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 267 posts
  • Director
  • Melbourne

Posted 16 October 2007 - 03:23 AM

Just be aware that the dip tests are very precise and Ive shot whole shorts with few problems on stock that was declared unusable and no good at the lab. If your going a TK or Digital route it isn't as much of a big deal. On my own project I made sure to shoot the first 30 feet of each roll for make-up, filter, lens tests etc. It was a pain in the ass but my stock had been in a fridge for 5 years +. It was interesting shooting on 5293 in a world of V2s. While I knew that the stock had been well taken care of before it had hit my fridge (i scored it from a really large production) age does take its toll and it showed up in grain on some rolls. Anyway, don't give up hope if the tests come back negative but go into this with your eyes open.

Sasha
  • 0

#7 Sam Wells

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

Posted 17 October 2007 - 11:37 AM

Hi!
A few days ago I bought some older (2004) 35mm film stock, each for just 10£ so I thought that I wouldn't lose much by just risking it (3 x 400ft Kodak Eastman 250D 7297 1R 3 x 400ft Kodak Vision2 100T 7212 1R ).


You are aware, I hope, that these numbers refer to single perf (1R) 16mm stock, not 35mm ?

-Sam
  • 0

#8 Andrew Brinkhaus

Andrew Brinkhaus
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 176 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 24 October 2007 - 10:55 PM

Another quick test to see the results of the stock would be to just buy a cheap bulk loader, and cut a foot or so and load it up in a 35mm photo canister, and shoot a roll on a still camera. Get it developed wherever, and check your prints when you get them back for any major damage/defects to the film.
  • 0

#9 Frank Cook

Frank Cook
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts
  • Producer
  • Alaska

Posted 25 October 2007 - 02:40 AM

Another quick test to see the results of the stock would be to just buy a cheap bulk loader, and cut a foot or so and load it up in a 35mm photo canister, and shoot a roll on a still camera. Get it developed wherever, and check your prints when you get them back for any major damage/defects to the film.


DON'T DO THIS!!!!

Most motion picture film has a coating that will RUIN a "mall mini-lab." Do NOT develop this film at a local shop. The coating plugs the plumbing system. It coats big bucks to fix! The lab owner will hate you, and might want you to pay the thousand of dollars it costs to make the repairs (ie. take you to court). :blink:
  • 0

#10 Hal Smith

Hal Smith
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2280 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • OKC area

Posted 25 October 2007 - 12:48 PM

Most motion picture film has a coating that will RUIN a "mall mini-lab." Do NOT develop this film at a local shop. The coating plugs the plumbing system. It coats big bucks to fix! The lab owner will hate you, and might want you to pay the thousand of dollars it costs to make the repairs (ie. take you to court). :blink:

I believe John Pytlak once said that all it took to get the Remjet backing off was a hot water bath. If that's correct, then it should be possible to pull the Remjet off exposed film in a simple home darkroom process, dry the film, reload it into the still cannister, and then take it to the minilab machine. Anyone ever try this?

(Turns out this isn't correct, see following information)

I found the thread discussing DIY processing:

John PytlakFeb 13 2006, 12:10 AM

(Paul Bruening @ Feb 4 2006, 02:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Karl, thanks for great info,

What's the best way to remove the remjet backing? Will it come off with just water jets or does it require some form of physical contact? Would a series of sponges do the job? What about a soft centrifugal roller from a squeege works?



The Kodak H-24 ECN-2 processing specifications include a high salt alkaline prebath to soften the rem-jet (but leave it on the film in the tank), then a directed water wash-off (to remove most of the rem-jet and not have the particles get back on the film), and finally buffing with more water wash off (to remove the residual binder).

Doing it by hand (in total darkness) will likely remove most of it, but it is difficult to not have some particles get attached to the film as your sponges/buffers load, and some gets pushed through the perfs.

Full thread here: <a href="http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/lo...php?t11703.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/lo...php?t11703.html</a>
  • 0

#11 Nick Mulder

Nick Mulder
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Other
  • Auckland, New Zealand

Posted 25 October 2007 - 01:40 PM

its redundant as Sam has already mentioned - its 16mm stock ...
  • 0


Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

The Slider

Abel Cine

CineLab

Technodolly

CineTape

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

The Slider

CineLab

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery