Jump to content


Photo

Kodak 2253


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#1 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 31 July 2008 - 03:23 PM

A guy wants me to shoot his 16mm short project on 2253 400D reversal film (there is someone selling a big batch on ebay), which is discontinued as a stock. Additionally, it is VNF process, which is also discontinued. Spectra and Yale both would process it E6, which I hear is finicky at best. I strongly suggested this guy to use fresh stock, but he will hear nothing of it. :angry: But it is his money ultimately. He will act in an upcoming short of mine, so that is why I am doing this for him, in case you are wondering.

So my question to anyone out there, how would you shoot old reversal film, thinking that E6 may or may not influence the results? I hear from Spectra's lab techs E6 processing sometimes overexposes the image and sometimes times it green on this particular stock.

We shot some tests, which are being processed by Spectra, so I don't know yet what it looks like.

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 31 July 2008 - 03:28 PM.

  • 0

#2 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 31 July 2008 - 11:20 PM

A guy wants me to shoot his 16mm short project on 2253 400D reversal film (there is someone selling a big batch on ebay), which is discontinued as a stock. Additionally, it is VNF process, which is also discontinued. Spectra and Yale both would process it E6, which I hear is finicky at best. I strongly suggested this guy to use fresh stock, but he will hear nothing of it. :angry: But it is his money ultimately. He will act in an upcoming short of mine, so that is why I am doing this for him, in case you are wondering.

So my question to anyone out there, how would you shoot old reversal film, thinking that E6 may or may not influence the results? I hear from Spectra's lab techs E6 processing sometimes overexposes the image and sometimes times it green on this particular stock.

We shot some tests, which are being processed by Spectra, so I don't know yet what it looks like.


That's not a VNF number. There were four stocks: '239: 160D, '240: 125T, '250: 400T, and '251 400D. The number you give looks like an estar based 35mm stock, probably designed for high-speed missile test or spaceship photography. The only film I know of of this type that they made was 2239, for space-shuttle photography.

Officially, VNF in E6 will give you bad results. Unofficially, the only difference is the time and temperature of the second developer (the color developer) need to be modified.

Hope this helps?
  • 0

#3 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 31 July 2008 - 11:23 PM

That's not a VNF number. There were four stocks: '239: 160D, '240: 125T, '250: 400T, and '251 400D. The number you give looks like an estar based 35mm stock, probably designed for high-speed missile test or spaceship photography. The only film I know of of this type that they made was 2239, for space-shuttle photography.

Officially, VNF in E6 will give you bad results. Unofficially, the only difference is the time and temperature of the second developer (the color developer) need to be modified.

Hope this helps?


The label reads VNF1 or RVNP processing on it. It is Estar based. And it is 2R 16mm.

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 31 July 2008 - 11:27 PM.

  • 0

#4 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 31 July 2008 - 11:36 PM

Posted Image
  • 0

#5 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 01 August 2008 - 12:49 AM

Posted Image


Yeah Saul that looks like 5251 or 7251. Not sure why they changed the end designation. Figure at most 1/2 stop latitudeeither way. Favor under- as opposed to overexposure like 1/3 stop underexposure for more saturated colots. Aren't there *any* labs that still process straightb VNF-1?Must be at least one still out there. . .


~KB
  • 0

#6 David Auner aac

David Auner aac
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 August 2008 - 01:29 AM

VNF = Video News Film.
RVNP = Reversal Video News Positive?

Cheers, Dave
  • 0

#7 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 01 August 2008 - 01:49 AM

Yeah Saul that looks like 5251 or 7251. Not sure why they changed the end designation. Figure at most 1/2 stop latitudeeither way. Favor under- as opposed to overexposure like 1/3 stop underexposure for more saturated colots. Aren't there *any* labs that still process straightb VNF-1?Must be at least one still out there. . .


~KB


Thanks Karl. I could only find one lab in the US processing this film. And it was a whooping $90 bucks per 100' load! I was anticipating the 1/2 stop latitude and underexposure parts. But the problem is I don't know what sort of conditions this old film was stored in to compensate for, AND add to this the E6 compensation, (which way, how much?). Too many variables. AARGH! Unless I can do some serious testing, I am just going to tell this guy to get fresh new stock or find himself a new cameraman.
  • 0

#8 David Auner aac

David Auner aac
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 August 2008 - 02:06 AM

Too many variables. AARGH! Unless I can do some serious testing, I am just going to tell this guy to get fresh new stock or find himself a new cameraman.


Hi Saul,

do your tests and get a release signed by him that you won't take any responsibility for the results and have fun with the strange stock! :D

Cheers, Dave
  • 0

#9 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 01 August 2008 - 02:18 AM

Hi Saul,

do your tests and get a release signed by him that you won't take any responsibility for the results and have fun with the strange stock! :D

Cheers, Dave


Dave: That is what I am thinking. However, wouldn't it be smarter on his part to get stock that is guaranteed to give us good results, since we would be going to the trouble of making the film in the first place? I, like most of us here, like to make sure that what I am filming is actually going to turn out OK. Otherwise it could just be time I could spend doing something else more rewarding. I guess I am just uptight like that! :P

Like they say, being cheap can be expensive! :lol: (He can get the stock for cheap on Evil Bay)

So at this point I either embrace the chaos or walk away. Hmm . . .
  • 0

#10 David Auner aac

David Auner aac
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 August 2008 - 02:24 AM

Dave: That is what I am thinking. However, wouldn't it be smarter on his part to get stock that is guaranteed to give us good results, since we would be going to the trouble of making the film in the first place? I, like most of us here, like to make sure that what I am filming is actually going to turn out OK. Otherwise it could just be time I could spend doing something else more rewarding. I guess I am just uptight like that! :P


I can really relate to that, I'd do the same. Anbd he should get good stock in the first place if he wants to get nice results. I'd never risk my film to run into problems like this unless intentional!

OTH if you never try shooting with flaky stuff you might miss out some experience or at least the fun to be able to say "been there done that". But if your time is at a premium here, I'd agree with your earlier conclusion: either he buys good stuff or you walk.

Cheers, Dave
  • 0

#11 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 01 August 2008 - 03:03 AM

OTH if you never try shooting with flaky stuff you might miss out some experience or at least the fun to be able to say "been there done that". But if your time is at a premium here, I'd agree with your earlier conclusion: either he buys good stuff or you walk.

Cheers, Dave


Dave:Karl seems to believe this particular stock is similar to 7251, which I have shot. If so, then I have "been there, done that". Didn't like it much, low contrast, milky blacks, too much grain.

I hear you though. Sometimes it is fun to just shoot some strange film stock and see what happens. But we are talking a full on 10 minute short here, with plenty of scenes, set ups, dialog, you name it. I am not comfortable approaching a longer piece with old, weird film no one can seem process for a reasonable amount.

Maybe I am really too uptight and take myself too seriously. ;)

Thanks for the feedback!

S
  • 0

#12 David Auner aac

David Auner aac
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 August 2008 - 03:12 AM

I hear you though. Sometimes it is fun to just shoot some strange film stock and see what happens. But we are talking a full on 10 minute short here, with plenty of scenes, set ups, dialog, you name it. I am not comfortable approaching a longer piece with old, weird film no one can seem process for a reasonable amount.

Maybe I am really too uptight and take myself too seriously. ;)


Yeah, that's why I was actually given you two directions of advice. I guess, I'd pass on that one myself if I was in your place. But I know the feeling of taking your work too seriously all too well!

Cheers, Dave
  • 0

#13 David Rakoczy

David Rakoczy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1579 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • USA

Posted 01 August 2008 - 07:59 AM

$90 per 100ft to process???? Can't he get a 'normal' quality Stock for the price of the savings???? 400ft of Neg is usually around $60 to process... he will be paying $90 x 4 or $360 per 400ft... That is two 400ft Rolls or 'Quality' Brand New Stock!

He had better be a better actor than producer!
  • 0

#14 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 01 August 2008 - 12:00 PM

$90 per 100ft to process???? Can't he get a 'normal' quality Stock for the price of the savings???? 400ft of Neg is usually around $60 to process... he will be paying $90 x 4 or $360 per 400ft... That is two 400ft Rolls or 'Quality' Brand New Stock!

He had better be a better actor than producer!


Amen to that. That is what I have been tellig him all along, to no avail.
  • 0

#15 John Holland

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

Posted 01 August 2008 - 12:12 PM

I thought all Kodak 16mm film prefix started with a 7 ? never heard of a camera stock with a 2 ?
  • 0

#16 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 01 August 2008 - 12:35 PM

I thought all Kodak 16mm film prefix started with a 7 ? never heard of a camera stock with a 2 ?



Maybe Karl is right and this stock was developed for spaceship and high speed rocket filming and the 2 prefix means "TOP SECRET, for NASA use only." :P

That would explain why not too many people have heard of it.
  • 0

#17 David Rakoczy

David Rakoczy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1579 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • USA

Posted 01 August 2008 - 01:02 PM

Amen to that. That is what I have been tellig him all along, to no avail.


Saul, if he can't reason that out.. run away.. he is obviously unbalanced and the project is doomed!!!!!!
  • 0

#18 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 01 August 2008 - 01:41 PM

Saul, if he can't reason that out.. run away.. he is obviously unbalanced and the project is doomed!!!!!!


Got it!

Thanks for the feedback, David.

S
  • 0

#19 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 01 August 2008 - 04:33 PM

No, the reason why it is a 2 is because it is on Estar base. He'll pay you if his film jams and fu**s up your camera, right?

It *should* still be 2251, or 2250 (I always mix the D and T 400 stocks up!), so the -3 at the end bothers me a lot more than the two at the beginning. I miss John Pytlak at times like this. He would have been able to answer this question in a second. Sorry I've let you down John. . .

Yeah, but back on topic, it's I think 2 instead of 7 for 16mm Estar and 3 instead of 5 for 35mm Estar IIRC.

Feel free to chime in if I am off the mark here, but pretty sure.
  • 0

#20 David Rakoczy

David Rakoczy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1579 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • USA

Posted 01 August 2008 - 04:53 PM

[quote name='Karl Borowski' date='Aug 1 2008, 04:33 PM' post='244915']
He'll pay you if his film jams and fu**s up your camera, right?

Right on Karl,

I saw that too but forgot to mention it. NOONE wants that stuff running through their Camera! Not mine! No. No.

Edited by David Rakoczy, 01 August 2008 - 04:55 PM.

  • 0


Opal

CineTape

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Opal