Jump to content


Photo

Using still photo film


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Bryce Lansing

Bryce Lansing
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 26 March 2010 - 01:22 PM

I know that motion picture film is coated with remjet to prevent static electricity, what would happen if you ran three feet of still photo film through a camera? Would it cause any damage?

I'm looking into getting a IIC with some standard primes, and when I do, I'm going to want to test for scratches, and to see the sharpness of the lens. I'm wondering if I can just load a magazine with a roll of Ilford B&W still film, run it through, process it myself for free, and look at the negs. Would that cause any problems?
  • 0

#2 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 26 March 2010 - 01:45 PM

I don't think it's be much use to run that little film through the camera, once you load it up and everything... you'll need about 3 feet just for that. In fact, when you buy 400' of film, you normally get about 410 ft with the 10 extra being for loading etc.
I'd say just buy a 100' load of it and send it to a professional lab.. else how will you know you didn't scratch it processing it?
  • 0

#3 Tim Carroll

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

Posted 26 March 2010 - 05:47 PM

I agree with Adrian as far as the scratch test goes. You really can't do that with still camera film as there are too many ways to scratch the film just setting up the test.

That being said, I've tested Arriflex IIC's with different lenses on a number of occasions using the old AgfaPan APX100 still camera B&W film. Unfortunately it's not made anymore. The perfs on that film were a bit different from standard still camera film perfs, and maybe because it was made in Germany, it worked in the IIC. I know others have tried using Kodak and Ilford films with the IIC and they've jammed up the camera.

Best,
-Tim
  • 0

#4 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1406 posts
  • Other
  • Basel, Switzerland

Posted 04 April 2010 - 10:33 AM

One
The film is not coated with remjet but with a backing layer that becomes removed in a processor by underwater remjets. I may appear pedantic.

Two
Still photography stock perforated BH is not made. Exception to the rule: Gigabitfilm 40
  • 0

#5 Dominic Case

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

Posted 05 April 2010 - 07:41 AM

Simon says:

The film is not coated with remjet but with a backing layer that becomes removed in a processor by underwater remjets. I may appear pedantic.

In fact, the film IS coated with a substance called remjet, which is an abbreviation of REMovable JET. Jet is another name for lampblack: very finely divided carbon particles (which is what the coating consists of).

You can take my word for it, or check with Paul Read: Restoration of Motion Picture Film (Butterworth Heinemann, 2000).

You are right that the remjet is removed (after softening in an alkaline solution) by sprays or jets, though they are most certainly NOT underwater. The impotant thing about remjet removal is that the carbon is sprayed off the back of the film but not allowed to touch the emulsion surface, where it would be instantly and permanently bonded onto the wet emulsion. This calls for very precisely adjusted spray nozzles.
  • 0

#6 camarotype

camarotype
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Phoenix, AZ

Posted 11 October 2010 - 07:38 AM

B&W cine film has no ramjet just different perfs. but i don't think it's an issue on the 2c. i've tested cameras with photo film and developed myself with no problems. get a 100'bulk load of tri-x and run it. probably cheaper to get a short end on ebay.
  • 0

#7 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1406 posts
  • Other
  • Basel, Switzerland

Posted 16 October 2010 - 12:07 PM

they are most certainly NOT underwater.

Well, Dominic, in all our friendship, when I first got involved with film processing in 1987 there was this Photomec colour positive developing machine in which a pair of circular brushes was under water. Somehow Cinegram, the lab’s name, managed to make the backing flake off successfully. Sure, things change, and the jets today are not under water.


Bryce, you will successfully expose 35-mm. still stock with the following cameras, regardless which perf type:

Prestwich models from 1896 on
Williamson, 1897
Schneider, 1898
Moy & Bastie, 1900
Ernemann from 1903 on
Pathé from 1896 on
Prévost, 1905
Gillon, 1905
Walturdaw, 1907
Debrie models from 1908 to 1920-21
Lubin, 1908
Chronik, 1909
Bell & Howell Eyemo models
Defranne & Gennert, 1910
Akeley, 1911
ICA models since 1912
Universal Burke & James, 1914
Ensign Houghton, 1914
Barker Educator, 1917
Campbell Cello, 1918
Zollinger, 1918
FACT, 1919
Askania models from 1920 on
Amigo, 1920
Ertel models since 1920
Arndt, 1921
Hahn-Goerz, 1921
Cinex, 1922
Stachow, 1922
Cinégraphe Bol, 1923
Kinarri, 1924
DeVry, 1926
Hodres, 1934
Zeiss-Ikon, 1934
Morigraf, 1935
Šlechta, 1938
Eclair Caméflex/Camerette, 1946
Maurer & Wäscher, ?
Russel, ?
Schimpf, ?

An ARRIFLEX or an ARRIFLEX II is not suited for type P perforation.
  • 0


Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Opal

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Tai Audio

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Technodolly

Wooden Camera