Jump to content


Photo

Kodak 5285/7285


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Tounian

Mike Tounian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • Student

Posted 23 July 2011 - 12:45 AM

Hi folks,

Has anyone shot tests/footage of Kodak's 100D that would show the same (or similar) shots under normal development circumstances as well as cross processing? I've scoured google, and can't find anything that would give me a good comparison between the two processing choices. Figured a board full of cinematographers would be the next best place to go.

If anyone's got anything I'd love to see it. Thank you!

Mike Tounian
  • 0

#2 K Borowski

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

Posted 23 July 2011 - 03:20 AM

If you 're going to be scanning anyway, cross processing in ECN or C-41 will certainly make it easier to capture the full dynamic range (as the gamma in the neg. processes is far lower than E-6). Usually, film scanners can only capture slightly over 3.0 Optical Density (OD) which is less than the full range possible with E-6.

VNF was specifically made lower contrast so that more of its range could be transferred into the electronic realm; it may be possible to still get this lower-contrast VNF processing with E-6 at some labs. IIRC, the COLOR developer (2nd one) is the only real modification for lower contrast, although there's a shift of about 30 points on the magenta-green axis ( you'd need an 0.30 magenta filter I think on E-6 processed in VNF).

Of course, cross processing, lower contrast processing, also takes away the reversal LOOK, in part. It's not just saturation, the limited dynamic range is part of the look of E-6.



Sorry don't have a side-by-side test. Have some reversal examples of Kodachrome, VNF, Foma Reversal I've shot. Have never cross processed my reversal.
  • 0

#3 Daniel Lee

Daniel Lee
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 July 2011 - 10:33 AM

Even flatbed scanners can reach over 3.0 for stills film.

The Spirit DataCine can adjust illumination level over a 1.8 o.d. range it shouldn't have a problem.

Let alone a PMT based scanner which can handle anything level.



In any case, the film in question is actually E100VS, you can buy it in 35mm and 120 still rolls to test out to see a normal look and cross processed in C-41. Yes you can look on flickr but all the examples will have a false 'xpro look' from a lack of understanding of colour correction and work flow (inappropriate colour correction from being scanned as a negative which tries to compensate for masked film - scan as a positive and invert and correct in post).

Cross-process in C-41 will have very poor dye stability, especially if no stabiliser is run at the end, E-6 films don't have stabiliser built in (E-6 stabiliser is now run in the pre-bleach). ECN-2 uses CD-3 as E-6 so it will produce the same organic dyes, so it can have good stability without degradation if a stabiliser is run.


Here is an E100VS test of mine, though it is 6x7cm not 16mm/35mm motion picture size, so it's over 8x bigger to begin with.
Posted Image
DIY E-6 Test Roll by athiril, on Flickr




There are many different ways to cross-process. You'll only get greater dynamic range if you overexpose it and process as a neg, normal exposure allows highlight retention instead of being basically blown out/nothing on the film due to the silver solvent in the E-6 first developer that puts a limit on density.

If you want clean image with dynamic range though just shoot a less expensive neg film, right tool for the right job. Shoot E-6 for massive saturation (you can push the saturation to a much higher level in post without the image falling apart than neg due to a higher starting point).


An old cross process I did (EL400 in C-41), also bleach bypassed; there's nothing magical to it.
Posted Image
Elite Chrome 400 Cross Processed by athiril, on Flickr


What I find magical though is colour negative reversal processed with a custom first developer (colour corrected though obviously);
Posted Image
Reala (120) in Custom E6 by athiril, on Flickr




There is a nearly limitless plethora of things that can be done if a lab is willing.. a good one to try on E-6 film would be latent image bleaching before the first developer to reduce highlight intensity.

I've currently got some E100VS/100D loaded, and shooting 2 stops overexposed, which I plan on pull processing 2 stops, I'll let you know how that one turns out.

Edited by Daniel Lee, 23 July 2011 - 10:35 AM.

  • 0

#4 Daniel Lee

Daniel Lee
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 July 2011 - 10:41 AM

Also you can get colour neg greater than 3.0

Cross processing E-6 isn't going to limit density either to under 3.0 either.
  • 0

#5 K Borowski

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

Posted 23 July 2011 - 10:48 AM

Even flatbed scanners can reach over 3.0 for stills film.

The Spirit DataCine can adjust illumination level over a 1.8 o.d. range it shouldn't have a problem.


?

My $60,000 film scanner at work has only 3.3 OD (yeah, "more" a stop more), and it has a transparency mode. IDK what the maximum obtainable d-max is on E100VS, but I assume it's over 4.

That's the case with several film scanners I've observed in use at labs I've seen posting on here as well (won 't name names, but I've seen that quoted as a GOOD NUMBER. Since most mopic work is done with neg. films I assume many labs have felt even lower numbers are adequate; 95% of the time they are right too.


So I wouldn't assume that, anecdotally, because XXX scanner does X.X OD, that a more expensive cine film scanner will do more, just because it costs XXXXx more.

Even if the spirit can adjust its analog gain up or down six camera stops, that doesn't expand its dynamic range unless it is running multiple passes.
  • 0

#6 Hal Smith

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

Posted 23 July 2011 - 10:55 AM

Cross-process in C-41 will have very poor dye stability, especially if no stabiliser is run at the end, E-6 films don't have stabiliser built in (E-6 stabiliser is now run in the pre-bleach). ECN-2 uses CD-3 as E-6 so it will produce the same organic dyes, so it can have good stability without degradation if a stabiliser is run.


What lab(s) do you use? They're obviously more than willing to do custom chemistry. Can they process short lengths of ECN2 shot in still cameras?
  • 0

#7 K Borowski

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

Posted 23 July 2011 - 11:08 AM

IDK why C-41, ECN would not produce stable results in E-6 because of a stabilizer. Both of these processes have stabilizer steps, C-41 right at the end. Not saying there aren't compatibility issues, but they are NOT due to a lack of a stabilizer steps, probalby, as you said Daniel, the color developing agent differences, or different dyes, incomplete blixation in the 2ndaries.

As for a MOVIE lab CUSTOM MODIFYING CHEMISTRY, come on. How can you do that on a 52 U.S. gal. developer tank?



If that sort of thing is going to be done, you either have to do it yourself, or find someone like Martin Baumgarten who specializes in custom hand processing to do it for you. IDK if even he would want to monkey around with mixing up a custom developer from scratch.

There are a lot of interesting options with XProc., but they are definitely limited by the logistics of a cine processor. And seeing into the blacks with standard E-6 processing, will be an issue, I'm telling you, because I've seen it with my own eyes; the scanners used being optimized for neg. will have similar issues at many other movie labs.
  • 0

#8 K Borowski

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

Posted 23 July 2011 - 11:27 AM

http://www.cinematog...=1

A few posts into this thread several industry scanners are compared for OD range obtainable.
  • 0

#9 Daniel Lee

Daniel Lee
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 July 2011 - 04:51 PM

?

My $60,000 film scanner at work has only 3.3 OD (yeah, "more" a stop more), and it has a transparency mode. IDK what the maximum obtainable d-max is on E100VS, but I assume it's over 4.

That's the case with several film scanners I've observed in use at labs I've seen posting on here as well (won 't name names, but I've seen that quoted as a GOOD NUMBER. Since most mopic work is done with neg. films I assume many labs have felt even lower numbers are adequate; 95% of the time they are right too.


So I wouldn't assume that, anecdotally, because XXX scanner does X.X OD, that a more expensive cine film scanner will do more, just because it costs XXXXx more.

Even if the spirit can adjust its analog gain up or down six camera stops, that doesn't expand its dynamic range unless it is running multiple passes.


It's not adjusting gain, that's adjusting the illumination level if you read my post.

Maximum density on E100VS is typically limited to under 4.0

You don't really have problems with E-6 and density unless it's underexposed, but current process also limits density since the current specification, a 2 min first wash is supposed to be run after first developer with initial agitation then allowing to soak for the rest of the 2 mins before continuing continues development weakly in the shadow areas.
  • 0

#10 Daniel Lee

Daniel Lee
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 July 2011 - 04:51 PM

?

My $60,000 film scanner at work has only 3.3 OD (yeah, "more" a stop more), and it has a transparency mode. IDK what the maximum obtainable d-max is on E100VS, but I assume it's over 4.

That's the case with several film scanners I've observed in use at labs I've seen posting on here as well (won 't name names, but I've seen that quoted as a GOOD NUMBER. Since most mopic work is done with neg. films I assume many labs have felt even lower numbers are adequate; 95% of the time they are right too.


So I wouldn't assume that, anecdotally, because XXX scanner does X.X OD, that a more expensive cine film scanner will do more, just because it costs XXXXx more.

Even if the spirit can adjust its analog gain up or down six camera stops, that doesn't expand its dynamic range unless it is running multiple passes.


It's not adjusting gain, that's adjusting the illumination level if you read my post.

Maximum density on E100VS is typically limited to under 4.0

You don't really have problems with E-6 and density unless it's underexposed, but current process also limits density since the current specification, a 2 min first wash is supposed to be run after first developer with initial agitation then allowing to soak for the rest of the 2 mins before continuing continues development weakly in the shadow areas.
  • 0

#11 Daniel Lee

Daniel Lee
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 July 2011 - 04:58 PM

?

My $60,000 film scanner at work has only 3.3 OD (yeah, "more" a stop more), and it has a transparency mode. IDK what the maximum obtainable d-max is on E100VS, but I assume it's over 4.

That's the case with several film scanners I've observed in use at labs I've seen posting on here as well (won 't name names, but I've seen that quoted as a GOOD NUMBER. Since most mopic work is done with neg. films I assume many labs have felt even lower numbers are adequate; 95% of the time they are right too.


So I wouldn't assume that, anecdotally, because XXX scanner does X.X OD, that a more expensive cine film scanner will do more, just because it costs XXXXx more.

Even if the spirit can adjust its analog gain up or down six camera stops, that doesn't expand its dynamic range unless it is running multiple passes.


It's not adjusting gain, that's adjusting the illumination level if you read my post.

Maximum density on E100VS is typically limited to under 4.0

You don't really have problems with E-6 and density unless it's underexposed, but current process also limits density since the current specification, a 2 min first wash is supposed to be run after first developer with initial agitation then allowing to soak for the rest of the 2 mins before continuing continues development weakly in the shadow areas.

C-41 specification doens't need a stabiliser step, that is the old process, it only needs a final rinse sans formaldehyde (stabiliser) as stabiliser is built into the film for a while now, labs may or may not run Stabiliser III, CD-4 will produce related but slightly different set of organic dyes using the couplers in E-6 which are different to the couplers in C-41, so the organic dyes will neither be here (C-41) nor there (E-6) and not have great stability with stabiliser.



Not of what I was talking about is modifying existing chemistry, but mixing up new raw chemistry. Typical scanners can deal with it fine (Spirit DataCine - the most typical telecine here used for stuff), and as said nothing will be out of range for a high end scanner (PMT based).




Sorry Hal Smith, I run my own ECN-2 in still lengths, and all my own chemistry for every process including custom being in a Heathen land for film. But there are labs here willing to listen, but it'll cost you (time setting up, material cost, etc). Money talks, bullshit walks.
  • 0

#12 Daniel Lee

Daniel Lee
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 July 2011 - 04:58 PM

?

My $60,000 film scanner at work has only 3.3 OD (yeah, "more" a stop more), and it has a transparency mode. IDK what the maximum obtainable d-max is on E100VS, but I assume it's over 4.

That's the case with several film scanners I've observed in use at labs I've seen posting on here as well (won 't name names, but I've seen that quoted as a GOOD NUMBER. Since most mopic work is done with neg. films I assume many labs have felt even lower numbers are adequate; 95% of the time they are right too.


So I wouldn't assume that, anecdotally, because XXX scanner does X.X OD, that a more expensive cine film scanner will do more, just because it costs XXXXx more.

Even if the spirit can adjust its analog gain up or down six camera stops, that doesn't expand its dynamic range unless it is running multiple passes.


It's not adjusting gain, that's adjusting the illumination level if you read my post.

Maximum density on E100VS is typically limited to under 4.0 http://www.kodak.com...s/e163/e163.pdf and http://motion.kodak....iles/TI2496.pdf

You don't really have problems with E-6 and density unless it's underexposed, but current process also limits density since the current specification, a 2 min first wash is supposed to be run after first developer with initial agitation then allowing to soak for the rest of the 2 mins before continuing continues development weakly in the shadow areas.

C-41 specification doens't need a stabiliser step, that is the old process, it only needs a final rinse sans formaldehyde (stabiliser) as stabiliser is built into the film for a while now, labs may or may not run Stabiliser III, CD-4 will produce related but slightly different set of organic dyes using the couplers in E-6 which are different to the couplers in C-41, so the organic dyes will neither be here (C-41) nor there (E-6) and not have great stability with stabiliser.



Not of what I was talking about is modifying existing chemistry, but mixing up new raw chemistry. Typical scanners can deal with it fine (Spirit DataCine - the most typical telecine here used for stuff), and as said nothing will be out of range for a high end scanner (PMT based).




Sorry Hal Smith, I run my own ECN-2 in still lengths, and all my own chemistry for every process including custom being in a Heathen land for film. But there are labs here willing to listen, but it'll cost you (time setting up, material cost, etc). Money talks, bullshit walks.

Edited by Daniel Lee, 23 July 2011 - 04:59 PM.

  • 0

#13 K Borowski

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

Posted 23 July 2011 - 08:37 PM

Nice last line: Went to give you a "Like" until I realized this wasn't another place, another time. Pesky internet addictions!


You know way more about E-6 process than I do. I know they eliminated fomaldehyde, formalin from E-6, thought they'd added it to the pre-bleach. Guess it's incorporated into the films themselves?

In any case, EXTRA formaldehyde can't hurt [the film].



I like a little formadlehyde in my stab, even if it has been replaced now by formalin (forms the stuff, but not as good) or something even midler. Watch, those pesky Feds are watching this thread! ;-)



By ANALOG gain, I mean illumination. First it's the orange base instead of mask, now it's gain. You're really tough on my improper terminology! But I know the scanner, and if you follow my link, you'll see although I'm not always able to "talk money" I'm not the latter either.

I can pull up numbers from our E-6 strips if you'd like. Think they're at least 3.8, but Fuji is higher. I'd assume, not too familiar with '85, but because it is of the "Vivid Saturated" variety, rather than E100G or GX, it will have more exaggerated contrast and D-Max.






Where exactly are you located, that film processing is such an oddity? I'm interested in your ECN procedure. I run a somewhat non-standard process myself, using C-41 2ndaries for everything. How do you get around the hassle of 100-L kits?
  • 0

#14 Daniel Lee

Daniel Lee
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 24 July 2011 - 02:41 AM

Nice last line: Went to give you a "Like" until I realized this wasn't another place, another time. Pesky internet addictions!


You know way more about E-6 process than I do. I know they eliminated fomaldehyde, formalin from E-6, thought they'd added it to the pre-bleach. Guess it's incorporated into the films themselves?

In any case, EXTRA formaldehyde can't hurt [the film].



I like a little formadlehyde in my stab, even if it has been replaced now by formalin (forms the stuff, but not as good) or something even midler. Watch, those pesky Feds are watching this thread! ;-)



By ANALOG gain, I mean illumination. First it's the orange base instead of mask, now it's gain. You're really tough on my improper terminology! But I know the scanner, and if you follow my link, you'll see although I'm not always able to "talk money" I'm not the latter either.

I can pull up numbers from our E-6 strips if you'd like. Think they're at least 3.8, but Fuji is higher. I'd assume, not too familiar with '85, but because it is of the "Vivid Saturated" variety, rather than E100G or GX, it will have more exaggerated contrast and D-Max.






Where exactly are you located, that film processing is such an oddity? I'm interested in your ECN procedure. I run a somewhat non-standard process myself, using C-41 2ndaries for everything. How do you get around the hassle of 100-L kits?




Something about something for environmental reasons it was removed from the final rinse for E-6 (formaldehyde) I think. In any case it was changed. The formaldehyde is still in the pre-bleach as sodium formaldehyde bisulphite, E-6 still needs a stabilising bath if you want to last even a moderate amount of time. Hence with cross-processing the best bet is ECN-2 + stabiliser so the dye is stable. Plus every experiment I run with different colour developer agents, they always form a thinner density range (dMax-dMin) than the correct agent, and appears to have detrimental impact on image quality.

I tried some 5201 50D through Flexicolor C-41 once since people said you could do it if you removed the remjet.. it was amazingly terrible and unuseable.


Ektachrome films don't get too heavy on the dMax because the processing time is correct for their rated speed, Fujichrome (the still films, not the CP movie films) need a longer first developer time for their rated speed, hence most people liking them better 2/3rd's of a stop slower, and underexposure giving heavy dMax.

You can see the density curves for E100G and GX here, they're basically the same - http://www.kodak.com...e4024/e4024.pdf



I'm in Australia, Melbourne. It's film mecca in Australia and film processing is such an oddity.. and well.. expensive, and the results are poorer compared to a good home setup anyway, at least for stills.



For ECN-2, I didn't get around it, I got a 200L kit. I lfit the 20L concentrate cube to pour a small amount into a beaker and then measure that.
Current sample test I used

862mL H2O
212mL A
56mL B
= 1.125L, dropped pH with sulphuric acid as it was a tad on the high side (over 10.5 iirc), maybe less A or more B.


I never bought starter since the price is a joke and I planned on replenishing and letting the film adjusting the chemistry to the right mix, I watered it out to 1.5L and added 0.69g KBr to compensate for a lack of starter, dMin a little high, but still a nice density range. But I think my part A may have metal contamination, I notice there is no chelating agent in the mix, and it dies over night in a sealed container, used straight away is good though, and it's not from a lack of preservative, it did the same thing with HAS added (Which is not specified in the recipe or in the ECN-2 parts).

Which gave me this image after adjusting to taste;
Posted Image
50D in ECN-2 test #1 by athiril, on Flickr


ECN-2 recipe on page 28;

Given the disclosed fresh tank and replenisher recipes from Kodak, you could calculate a more accurate starter.


I am unsure about replenisher dilution.. typically it makes sense to be the same dilution as seasoned developer.. just less restrainer since film has added it in.. for long lengths in movie processing machines, there might be a lot of carry over water, hence replenisher being less diluted than working solution.. unlike C-41 or E-6 etc etc.

So for still size tanks can't give advice on replenishment till I can get my head better around it, as I could only imagine the concentration of all the salts and ingredients would just increase over time to basically what's in the replenisher..

Edited by Daniel Lee, 24 July 2011 - 02:45 AM.

  • 0

#15 K Borowski

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

Posted 25 July 2011 - 08:27 AM

No time for a full reply now, but I could get you a formula for starter if you're interested. It is probably listed outright in the Kodak Tech-Pub on ECN-2 processing.

I wouldn't be surprised if another process starter (C-41, maybe even E-6, RA-4) would be ALMOST interchangeable (i.e. it would work fine, but you'd have to alter the amount added.)

Too bad you're probably 7,000 mi. away. I have a whole plastic container FULL of nothing but starter, starter III for some of these processes (not ECN-2) that I could probably give you half of.




We are taking the thread a bit off-topic though. . .
  • 0

#16 Daniel Lee

Daniel Lee
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 25 July 2011 - 12:09 PM

It's the thought that counts which is much appreciated :)

I got starter for plenty of other things, and the raw chemistry to make my own.
  • 0


Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Visual Products

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam