Jump to content


Photo

movie film for still cameras?


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 Bruce Greene

Bruce Greene
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 493 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 28 December 2007 - 10:32 AM

Does anyone know if there are any labs left that supply motion picture film in still camera cassettes and process and print the film?

I have some tests I want to shoot that would be easier to shoot in a still camera.

Thanks.
-bruce
  • 0

#2 Hal Smith

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

Posted 28 December 2007 - 11:19 AM

Does anyone know if there are any labs left that supply motion picture film in still camera cassettes and process and print the film?


A and I in Hollywood provides this service:

(from their webpage)

To check in-stock film or to order film, please call us toll-free 888-666-5199 or email us at mail@aandi.com.

Turnaround: In A&I Hollywood by 10am Tuesday, out by 4pm the following Wednesday.

Kodak 35mm, 36 frames: $5.00/roll
50D 5201
250D 5205
100T 5212
200T 5217
500T 5229
500T 5218
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak 35mm, 36 frames: $3.00/roll
F-64D 8522
160T 8543
250D 8563
250T 8553
400T 8583
500T 8573
500D 8592
  • 0

#3 Bruce Taylor

Bruce Taylor
  • Sustaining Members
  • 482 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 28 December 2007 - 06:22 PM

A and I in Hollywood provides this service:



Uhhh, be careful. There have been other discussions about A&I's motion picture film stock service on this board where much less than optimum results were obtained, take a browse through the archives. I thought this might have been because the service had just gotten started. Unfortunately, a couple of months ago I was in a class that tried to use this service. The purpose was to run a series of controlled exposure tests on 5 or 6 stocks. A&I's work was so inconsistent that the tests were unusable. The actual turn around times were also much longer than promised.

Good luck,
Bruce
  • 0

#4 Bruce Greene

Bruce Greene
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 493 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 28 December 2007 - 09:35 PM

Uhhh, be careful. There have been other discussions about A&I's motion picture film stock service on this board where much less than optimum results were obtained, take a browse through the archives. I thought this might have been because the service had just gotten started. Unfortunately, a couple of months ago I was in a class that tried to use this service. The purpose was to run a series of controlled exposure tests on 5 or 6 stocks. A&I's work was so inconsistent that the tests were unusable. The actual turn around times were also much longer than promised.

Good luck,
Bruce


I guess this is kind of good news/bad news.

Maybe I can buy the film at A&I and get a film lab to process the negative. I can do without the print if I have to...Or, maybe it's just the print that's not done well at A&I?

-bruce
  • 0

#5 Simon Miya

Simon Miya
  • Sustaining Members
  • 82 posts
  • Other
  • Portland, OR

Posted 29 December 2007 - 03:10 PM

A and I in Hollywood provides this service:

(from their webpage)

To check in-stock film or to order film, please call us toll-free 888-666-5199 or email us at mail@aandi.com.

Turnaround: In A&I Hollywood by 10am Tuesday, out by 4pm the following Wednesday.

Kodak 35mm, 36 frames: $5.00/roll
50D 5201
250D 5205
100T 5212
200T 5217
500T 5229
500T 5218
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak 35mm, 36 frames: $3.00/roll
F-64D 8522
160T 8543
250D 8563
250T 8553
400T 8583
500T 8573
500D 8592



The second grouping of films stocks in your post is mislabeled as Kodak when it should be Fuji.

Edited by Simon Miya, 29 December 2007 - 03:11 PM.

  • 0

#6 Jonathan Bowerbank

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

Posted 29 December 2007 - 10:32 PM

I have a bulk film loader that fits a 100' short-end. I've been planning to use it to shoot some reversal stock. It turns out to be FAR cheaper than $5 a cassette.
  • 0

#7 Bruce Taylor

Bruce Taylor
  • Sustaining Members
  • 482 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 January 2008 - 03:10 PM

The A&I story had at least 2 parts. The first was that someone had determined that at least some of the film they were selling had to be many, many years old. So I wouldn't trust their respools. So it's possible their process and print was okay, but that is still unknown. I agree with Jonathan, I think you would be better off buying some known fresh short ends from a reputable supplier and spooling your won cassettes, would be a lot cheaper too. Freestyle Photo has everything you need to bulk load cassettes.

Bruce
  • 0

#8 Leo Anthony Vale

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

Posted 02 January 2008 - 04:52 PM

I think you would be better off buying some known fresh short ends from a reputable supplier and spooling your won cassettes, would be a lot cheaper too. Freestyle Photo has everything you need to bulk load cassettes.

Many years back I tried to load 100' of Fuji into a bulk loader.
It would not fit with a two inch core.
It had to be broken down into two smaller rolls to be able to fit with a two inch core.
  • 0

#9 Jonathan Bowerbank

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

Posted 02 January 2008 - 06:02 PM

Many years back I tried to load 100' of Fuji into a bulk loader.
It would not fit with a two inch core.
It had to be broken down into two smaller rolls to be able to fit with a two inch core.


I managed to find an Alden 200' loader, which fits 100' loads with the core fine :)
  • 0

#10 Matt Kelly

Matt Kelly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 02 January 2008 - 10:05 PM

How about just hand processing?  AFAIK the remjet backing on color film can be removed with a cloth and warm water as the last step.  Anyone ever tried it? much cheaper...
  • 0

#11 Jim Carlile

Jim Carlile
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 03 January 2008 - 02:29 AM

How about just hand processing? AFAIK the remjet backing on color film can be removed with a cloth and warm water as the last step. Anyone ever tried it? much cheaper...


But you need the consistency that only professional machine processing can provide-- if you're using still film as a means of testing stocks and lighting conditions. Rolling your own is fine but where to process? I doubt most MP labs want to develop 3 1/2 feet of stock unless you have an express relationship with them and are intending to give them a lot of business as a result of the tests.
  • 0

#12 Jonathan Bowerbank

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

Posted 03 January 2008 - 03:01 AM

But you need the consistency that only professional machine processing can provide-- if you're using still film as a means of testing stocks and lighting conditions. Rolling your own is fine but where to process? I doubt most MP labs want to develop 3 1/2 feet of stock unless you have an express relationship with them and are intending to give them a lot of business as a result of the tests.


If you're experienced enough in hand processing 36 frame rolls of still film, this really isn't a problem.
  • 0

#13 Matt Kelly

Matt Kelly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 03 January 2008 - 03:12 AM

But you need the consistency that only professional machine processing can provide-- if you're using still film as a means of testing stocks and lighting conditions. Rolling your own is fine but where to process? I doubt most MP labs want to develop 3 1/2 feet of stock unless you have an express relationship with them and are intending to give them a lot of business as a result of the tests.


eh.. but you can still print a little up or down to compensate for some poor timing or whatever on hand developing.  I mean unless you're testing for strictly scientific research and not just color/density relationships.  I would think that would be relatively fine for a poor way to test some film stock for look yourself.  Otherwise, just shoot 20-30 feet of tests at a time in an actual motion picture camera, which would certainly give you a better idea of grain and it's look in motion.

I've definitely developed about 15-20 feet of film at fotokem before, and I would imagine it's perfectly acceptable for it to a BIT shorter.... I guess 2 feet enters a realm of "no guarantee" tho.  By the time they trim the ends, it might be 1 foot...and maybe it's cost INeffective for them at that point labor-wise (to do many on a regular basis)...BUT that's not to say it can't still run through the machine perfectly at that short of a length.  I would either talk to some labs about it (sweet talk them..), hand develop it (easy and you get to play with chemicals), or shoot longer tests (no problem in the first place..). 2¢ :)
  • 0

#14 Jim Carlile

Jim Carlile
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 04 January 2008 - 01:12 AM

Why not just dispense with still film and shoot, say, neg stocks on Super 8?

Spectra, Pro8, and others can supply them and machine process them as well.

I guess you could use still cameras to do clip tests, but that's what they are. Not a bad idea if you have the kind of relationship with your lab that they'll do clips tests for you in the first place.

But I'm a little confused about how hand processing at home is going to help test anything. Seems to me the whole point is that you want to see how 35MM MP film is going to look ahead of time. So unless you're going to hand process that as well, the huge number of variables that will crop up with home processing is going to end up cancelling out any advantage to the effort, IMO.
  • 0

#15 Bruce Taylor

Bruce Taylor
  • Sustaining Members
  • 482 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 January 2008 - 05:16 PM

Couple notes here: A&I has specifically arranged to process and print mp film, I don't know if they care whether you buy their cassettes or not. I hear the film is actually processed at one of the larger mp film labs, where I assume it is also printed (to mp print film) for later slide mounting back at A&I. Of course the best thing would be to go out and shoot some short ends in a motion picture camera, but the still slide route has convenience and low cost as benefits. As long as you can trust the results of your tests... otherwise it has no value.
  • 0

#16 Jonathan Bowerbank

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

Posted 04 January 2008 - 08:57 PM

But I'm a little confused about how hand processing at home is going to help test anything. Seems to me the whole point is that you want to see how 35MM MP film is going to look ahead of time. So unless you're going to hand process that as well, the huge number of variables that will crop up with home processing is going to end up cancelling out any advantage to the effort, IMO.


Would it taint the developer if one were to take their exposed film into a darkroom and splice say...40 x 2.5' rolls onto a 2 inch core and submit it for processing? Would the tape hold up? Would it SERIOUSLY piss off the lab? These are all questions I plan to pose to my local lab. I already have the 40 empty cassettes ready to load.
  • 0

#17 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 04 January 2008 - 10:04 PM

Here is a reverse question

Has anyone ever (for whatever reason, not counting time lapse, stop motion etc.) used still film in a motion picture camera?
l
  • 0

#18 Jim Carlile

Jim Carlile
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 04 January 2008 - 11:34 PM

Would it taint the developer if one were to take their exposed film into a darkroom and splice say...40 x 2.5' rolls onto a 2 inch core and submit it for processing? Would the tape hold up? Would it SERIOUSLY piss off the lab?


No, maybe, and YES. If the lab says it's ok to splice unprocessed footage, then no, they won't be pissed off. But there could be problems-- like how would you do it?

A better bet would be to do stills and have them run as clip tests, if they are willing.

Has anyone ever (for whatever reason, not counting time lapse, stop motion etc.) used still film in a motion picture camera?


Yes, I knew someone once who ran some 35mm still Kodachrome slowly through an Eyemo and actually had it processed. Looked OK, but it was kind of like putting racing fuel in a Rambler.

The problem is that the perforations are cut slightly different. Most MP film has slightly 'rounded' perfs to ease speedy transport-- still film doesn't. Also, if the pitch either way is different, still or MP cameras can jam when using each other's film. This is a bigger problem for older 35mm still cameras.
  • 0

#19 Jonathan Bowerbank

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

Posted 05 January 2008 - 01:33 AM

I was just gonna take all my cassettes and a portable editor into a darkroom with a rewinder and wind it up as I spliced...blind. Seems easy enough. Might even be good practice if I ever wanna be a loader for a lab ;)

I shot an email to Monaco here in SF. Hopefully I'll get an answer early next week.
  • 0

#20 Leo Anthony Vale

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

Posted 05 January 2008 - 02:59 PM

Here is a reverse question

Has anyone ever (for whatever reason, not counting time lapse, stop motion etc.) used still film in a motion picture camera?
l


Yes. There were a couple of Godard/ Coutard films, definitely 'Les Carabiniers' and maybe 'Alphaville' were shot on Ilford HP3 0r 4. Though I think it was availiable as an MP stock. But Godard wanted the still version, even if the largest roll was 100', to get a magazine journalism look.

There was an AC article ages ago about a NatGeo segment shot on Kodak Gold 1600.
It was about a bat or seabird cave in a cliff high above the sea, perhaps in Indonesia.
It was processed in C-41 at a Kodak still lab, probably Finleyville where the vultures return every spring.

And of course Technicolor Monopack was Kodachrome.
  • 0


Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

The Slider

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Abel Cine

Opal

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS