i noticed its here on the east coast. 100d and 400d i believe. im a 7222 guy but havent ordered any in almost a year. i noticed the other day kodak no longer has their web cart. but i think it shipped from a shop in miami anyway. cant remember but i obviously have some phone calls to make. i also noticed the fuji bail from motion imaging and kodak wavering has bumped retail filmstock prices a chunk. so anyways. anyone have any luck with orwo?
orwo. have you used any?
Posted 18 May 2013 - 10:41 AM
I had planned to shoot a short on Orwo UN54 beginning of this year. Luckily, I tested the stock first...
For my tests I shot some fresh from the factory UN54 and had it contact printed and 2K scanned (ARRISCAN).. Image wise this is a nice stock, if it only would go through the camera ... the stock ran noisily and the loop slipped every 10 to 20 seconds or so. This was on an Aaton XTR Prod that did not have any trouble with any other stock so far (Fuji, Kodak). Just to make sure it's not some funky b&w incompatibilty I tried some 7222 as a second test which went through the camera silently as usual and without any trouble. Some googling turned up that even (some?) ARRI SRs have problems with UN54. Seems to work on Arri 16S, Bolex etc.
Not sure what it is.. I assume one of perf pitch, neg thickness, neg coating.. Really a pity, because this would be a nice somewhat-replacement for 7231 Plus-X.
So, if you do plan to shoot UN54 or N74, by all means: test if it works with your camera!
Edited by Marc Roessler, 18 May 2013 - 10:42 AM.
Posted 19 May 2013 - 08:21 AM
UN54 has very odd grain texture, it may be distracting if doing hd or 2k scanning (attached image with Spirit hd 444 full frame N16, no grain reduction)
Edited by aapo lettinen, 19 May 2013 - 08:24 AM.
Posted 19 May 2013 - 01:05 PM
I have shot a lot on UN54 and never saw such grain structure. I suspect problems in processing. Actually both UN54 and N74 have finer grain than Eastman b/w stocks of comparable speed.
However, doing tests is a good recommendation, maybe some adjustment to the mags (pressure pad roller distance to sprocket) is necessary. I have shot Orwo in 16mm using Arri and Bolex cameras and never had a problem. Same for the Arrif 35II and the 35mm Konvas which has loop formers inside the mags too. I would also recommend checking takeup tension because it might be set too high so a slight difference in surface properties between Orwo and other makers' stock may be enough to account for the lost loop.
Edited by Christian Appelt, 19 May 2013 - 01:06 PM.
Posted 19 May 2013 - 02:34 PM
ok have to try some different developing
I really thought it's SUPPOSED to look like that, all my batches have come out with same kind of texture. Never thought reticulation could be so symmetric and consistent
Could it be the fixer, I have used various settings and developers & temperatures but the fixer was usually the same
Never ever had any problems with Kodak films with these settings, maybe this film just doesn't like Kodak chemicals
Posted 20 May 2013 - 10:57 AM
Indeed the frame grab posted above looks like some processing error.
Haven't tried the N74 yet.. may give it a try some time soon.
The loop isn't lost, so takeup tension is not the issue. The loop just skips position with relative to the transport claw. You have to re-center the loop by de- and re-attach the mag, then it works again (for another 10 seconds...)
In the processed neg this is clearly visible... the claw "looses" one frame, visible as a 1 frame "hickup", but still has enough of a loop to continue running. After a few seconds a second frame slips and the loop is then gone, the claw pulling against the feed/takeup sprocket. Even if it didn't loose the loop: with UN54 my XTR is too noisy for sync sound filming inside closed rooms. Maybe the mag needs adjustment specifically for UN54. But then again, the camera works flawlessly with ALL other film stocks, b&w and color, from both Kodak and Fuji. I wish Orwo would just stick to that de facto standard.
Posted 20 May 2013 - 12:04 PM
After Spielberg had made "Schindler's List", everybody wanted to shoot B&W again. Modern cameras are made to be as noiseless as possible. Modern color stocks have black remjet backing which is very efficient as antihalation but also contains a lubricant. This remjet backing is removed in color processing during the prebath and rinse.
Since B&W process has no provision for this remjet removal; Kodak applied some kind of lubrication to the B&W negatives to make them run smoother in modern cameras (XTR/SR2 etc). I have found that Orwo may not have applied this lubricant and this would mean that older generation cameras would not have problems but newer generation would.
Posted 20 May 2013 - 01:43 PM
It is an interesting point Dirk makes about lubrication.
I have used ORWO UN54 in both an Aaton LTR54 and in an Arriflex SRII. I didn't have any problem in either camera, but I did just get the feeling that in both cameras there was a little more noise than with 7222. Perhaps somewhat unusually, as a mere amateur, I film at 18fps, and I am wondering whether filming speed is relevant. If Dirk is correct with his point on lubrication, I am wondering if it could be that cameras are better able to handle non-lubicated film at lower speeds than at higher speeds and in my case they are just handling it at 18 fps and might not if I filmed at, say, 24fps.
That having been said, in the light of other postings suggesting that there are problems with the perforation pitch of ORWO stock, I had a look at the pitch which ORWO use with UN54 and I note that this is said to be R2994. This is the same pitch as Kodak say they use on 7222.
Interesting, or what?
Posted 20 May 2013 - 03:11 PM
oh boy. so its gonna be another $90 experiment. im still using a bl16 so im probably ok. bad news is im shooting a youth soccer documentary and i was planning some speed ramps to 50fps and back. i think thats gonna be out of the question based on what you guys are saying. could lead to a trip to the repair shop. and i dont need that right now.
Posted 21 May 2013 - 12:22 PM
steve, why not go with a 100' roll first? The 16BL should be OK - same movement as the 16S, and this one basically runs any 16mm film stock.
What Dirk writes sounds reasonable...
Posted 21 May 2013 - 03:23 PM
I have had trouble with ORWO 16mm Film too. In my 16SR3 it lost the loop and finally it got stuck and jammed the camera. I phoned Arri about the problem and they suggested not to use ORWO Film at all. But they would not say why. A conversation with ORWO´s Herr Boehme did not solve the problem. He insisted that ORWO film is in tolerance with all relevant 16mm film norms. That made me curious to find out about the difference between Kodak/Fuji and ORWO Film. A friend of mine works in a mechanical lab. He found out that 16mm ORWO Film is a very tiny little bit wider than Fuji/Kodak film is. And that´s what causes the trouble in modern 16mm cameras. The film gets stuck in the film path because it is too wide. After many phone calls I have found someone who could confirm the cause of the trouble with ORWO Film. Schorsch is a former Arri employee now working as an independent camera mechanic. He modified the film path in my camera so that ORWO Film runs smoothly now. The modification has no impact on the steadiness of images taken on Fuji/Kodak stock.
Posted 21 May 2013 - 06:55 PM
i think the bl16 has a LOT of travel in the side tension spring. if thats the issue im prob ok. i didnt even look to see if they had 100ft rolls. that would be the smart way to go.
Posted 21 May 2013 - 08:01 PM
I tried the UN54 on an Aaton LTR and it wouldn't work. The N74 works fine. Kodak 7222 works the best of all.
Posted 21 May 2013 - 09:20 PM
Schorsch is a former Arri employee now working as an independent camera mechanic. He modified the film path in my camera so that ORWO Film runs smoothly now.
Do you know what he modified?
Posted 24 May 2013 - 05:10 AM
As I said in an earlier posting, I found that ORWO UN54 went through my Aaton LTR54 and my Arriflex SRII without jamming, although I did feel the cameras were more noisy than normal. Having regard to the greater difficulty experienced by others, I decided to undertake a simple visual comparison of ORWO UN54 stock with Kodak 7222 stock.
I laid a short length of ORWO stock over a similar length of 7222 and carefully lined up the perforations and then viewed the stocks through a magnifying glass.
I found that there appeared to be no difference between the two stocks in relation to the gauge. Similarly, the positioning of the perforations in relation to the gauge of the stocks and the size and shape of the perforations appeared to be the same. However, I was very surprised to find that the distance between the perforations differed. By carefully positioning a single perforation on the two stocks, one precisely over the other, and then viewing subequent perforations, I found that that subsequent perforations went progressively out of kilter and over a very short length were completely out of step with each other.
I then compared two lengths of each of the two stocks just to check whether my simple check was reliable. Each of the two stocks showed precise matching as one might expect.
So this would appear to show that there is a difference in the distance between the perforations of the Kodak and ORWO stocks rather than a difference in gauge, which might explain why others have found that their cameras run for a short time and then jam when using ORWO UN54 stock
Has anybody else undertaken a similar simple comparison and if so, with what results?
Posted 24 May 2013 - 11:36 AM
Wow, if that's the case, then Orwo does have a serious q/c problem.
Pitch variation that extreme would account for all the problems
people are having. The more precise the camera, the worse the problem.
First guess is they're running camera stock through printer stock punches,
and still labeling it camera pitch.
In 16mm, camera pitch is .2994; printer pitch is .3000
It's that or one or more die sets are out of spec, but either way,
they are churning out intermittant batches of defective film.