Jump to content


Photo

Is older emulsion more prone to scratching?


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Stephen Smith

Stephen Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Student
  • UK

Posted 15 February 2009 - 04:38 PM

not so long ago i shot on two out of date 16mm stocks. EXR 100t and vision 200T. The EXR came back with an intermittent scratch on one side. The 200t was totally fine. Does the emulsion being older make it more prone to scratch??
it was shot on an s16 eclair NPR, modified recently by les bosher. I know Les says there is no need to modify the magazines for super 16 shooting, but i have seen other places advertise the need to do this. I was wondering whether the problem is down to the old stock or the un modified mag?

thanks.
  • 0

#2 Stephen Smith

Stephen Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Student
  • UK

Posted 15 February 2009 - 04:46 PM

Here is a pic of the scratch.

Attached Images

  • scratch.jpg

  • 0

#3 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 15 February 2009 - 05:00 PM

Here is a pic of the scratch.


Kodak stocks from the 90's were very soft & prone to scratching. Many Mitchells needed to have a larger roller when shooting high speed. Those same cameras had worked fine for the prevouus 60-70 years.
  • 0

#4 Dominic Case

Dominic Case
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1357 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 15 February 2009 - 08:59 PM

I was wondering whether the problem is down to the old stock or the un modified mag?

Problems are nearly always down to a combination of factors, and this is no exception. The scratch does look like a "S-16" scratch - from something, somewhere, that is rubbing the film where the edge of the image area would be in standard 16. This can be a single sprocketed roller, with a flat shoulder on the other side.

(The line is actually a bit too close to the edge for that, but I'm guessing that the image you've posted may be cropped a little more than usual.)

To be perfectly safe, a thorough S-16 modification would undercut the shoulder. But with newer stocks, or slower speed ones, you can often get away without.

In short, you ccan blame the camera/magazine modification, but it was alright with one roll of stock - or you can blame the stock - but it probably wouldn't have been a problem in another camera. Or you can conclude that you have been hit by an unfortunate combination of two half-problems.
  • 0

#5 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11941 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 February 2009 - 09:33 PM

...which means it now becomes my area, as it's a post problem.

Either:

1) Give a big, professional post house the footage and a lot of money,

or:

2) Get the descratch filter for virtualdub and spend a couple of hours learning how to use it.

P
  • 0

#6 David Auner aac

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

Posted 16 February 2009 - 03:14 AM

2) Get the descratch filter for virtualdub and spend a couple of hours learning how to use it.


What would you recommend, filter wise?

Cheers, Dave
  • 0

#7 Stephen Smith

Stephen Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Student
  • UK

Posted 16 February 2009 - 10:41 AM

thanks for the replies. It was really just a test to see how the film looked so i dont think i'll spend anything having someone remove the scratch. Although i dont think as a student the best light mini dv transfer wasnt the greatest idea for seeing how the film looks, i get the impression everythings done on older machines and by trainees? but at the same time i didn't want to pay for a HD transfer if the film came out terrible. The image i posted isn't actually cropped (well not by me anyway).

I will have a look at this "virtualdub" thing you speak of phil, just incase it happens in future, i suppose at least i have some scratched film to practice on.
  • 0

#8 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1410 posts
  • Other
  • Basel, Switzerland

Posted 19 February 2009 - 01:40 PM

Taking it you present the image the right way the scratch lies on the left side when we look from the inside of the camera towards the lens. With a number of cameras that left side is somewhat more difficult to clean: guide rails, aperture plate. Is it a Bolex ?

Sometimes also the aperture plate bears bruises, infinitely small, but there gelatine may collect and build up into hard bumps which can later scratch a film. A tooth mirror and sunlight will help you detecting defects.
  • 0

#9 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1410 posts
  • Other
  • Basel, Switzerland

Posted 28 February 2009 - 02:52 PM

Oh, gosh, you did indicate the camera make.
  • 0


Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Tai Audio

CineTape

Technodolly

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Opal

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks