Jump to content


Photo

Intermediate/Internegative as Camera Negative?


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 14 August 2013 - 10:04 PM

I love what video and film solutions did with this:

 

http://www.videofilm...ions.com/22vs34

 

Is there any way to do this with any of the internegative or intermediate 2994 pitch color stocks or would their be bad contrast and color mask issues?

 

 


  • 0

#2 Dirk DeJonghe

Dirk DeJonghe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Kortrijk,Belgium

Posted 14 August 2013 - 11:13 PM

5234 is processed to a gamma of 0.65 which is the same as camera negative. The color intermediate films are designed to come out at gamma 1.0.


  • 0

#3 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 15 August 2013 - 06:44 AM

5234 is processed to a gamma of 0.65 which is the same as camera negative. The color intermediate films are designed to come out at gamma 1.0.

 

But in a transfer/grade you could correct for that though, right?


  • 0

#4 Richard Tuohy

Richard Tuohy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 482 posts
  • Other
  • Daylesford, Australia

Posted 15 August 2013 - 06:56 PM

Bear in mind that colour intermediate film is colour balanced for duplicating orange masked film using a tungsten light source. 

Colour internegative on the other hand is basically a very slow speed tungsten film.   So, yes, you can use it as a camera film ... that is very slow and tungsten balanced.  Assuming the motivation for this is price, sadly the internegative film is at least as expensive as camera film.


  • 0

#5 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 15 August 2013 - 08:20 PM

The goal, like the videofilmsolutions.com test, would be to have an ultra-fine grained film.  Even if the speed is somewhere between El 5 and 10, that would be fine in bright sunlight with a near wide open aperture.  Then, the tungsten light balance could be corrected in post.  Or, if there is REALLY a lot of sun light, perhaps an 85 filter.

 

I would test something like this on the beach on a bright sunny day with the sun slightly low in the sky beating right down on the faces of my subjects.

 

My goal would be am f4-f8 aperture on a really good wide angle prime lens.

 

I'd hope to get a very sharp ultra-ultra fine grained image.  I'd expect Super 16 to look better than Super35.


  • 0

#6 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 15 August 2013 - 08:30 PM

Sadly, upon further review, it looks like all internegative film from Kodak is perforated on 2 edges, 2R.

 

But, the test would still be interesting with regular 16 too.

 

It looks like 7273 is the best bet at right around the same price as camera films.  The list price is about 44 cents per foot.

 

7203 is about 37 cents per foot.

 

Now the big question would be.... what to rate it at when metering.  Anyone have any ideas?


  • 0

#7 Dirk DeJonghe

Dirk DeJonghe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Kortrijk,Belgium

Posted 16 August 2013 - 12:56 AM

I am sorry to rain on your parade, but the 7273 is as close to the 7203 as you can get. I think it is the same emulsion, they give instructions to pull-process and flash in order to get the proper 0.50 gamma required for internegatives. The older 7272 was really designed to make internegatives from low-contrast reversal originals such as 7252 ECO and flashed ME-4 and VNF-1 process films such as the 7242 EFB, 7240 VNF etc.

 

The intermediate 7242 is not going to help you a lot either (it does have fine grain). Since it is designed to be a characterless stock, it would look very bland when used as camera original. All colornegative stocks have a 'character', think of the difference between an 7219 and Vivid500T, some are more pronounced than others, but intermediate stock is 'dead', its sole function is to transfer and retain the character of the original camera negative.


  • 0

#8 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 16 August 2013 - 08:50 AM

I am sorry to rain on your parade, but the 7273 is as close to the 7203 as you can get. I think it is the same emulsion, they give instructions to pull-process and flash in order to get the proper 0.50 gamma required for internegatives. The older 7272 was really designed to make internegatives from low-contrast reversal originals such as 7252 ECO and flashed ME-4 and VNF-1 process films such as the 7242 EFB, 7240 VNF etc.

 

The intermediate 7242 is not going to help you a lot either (it does have fine grain). Since it is designed to be a characterless stock, it would look very bland when used as camera original. All colornegative stocks have a 'character', think of the difference between an 7219 and Vivid500T, some are more pronounced than others, but intermediate stock is 'dead', its sole function is to transfer and retain the character of the original camera negative.

 

Hi Dirk,

 

Yeah, I just got the 7203 confirmation from a few labs too.  But, the good thing to come out of this is that I now have a 2R source for Vision3 50D for my 2R only Keystone wind up camera.  I haven't used the thing in years.  Time to break it out!  :)

 

Dave


  • 0

#9 Paul Bartok

Paul Bartok
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 19 August 2013 - 01:52 AM

Intermeidate film as far as I understand don't have the UV layer builtin the negative which can cause serious effects on your negative when shooting outdoors


  • 0

#10 Prashantt Rai

Prashantt Rai
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 116 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 03:27 PM

 

 

Now the big question would be.... what to rate it at when metering.  Anyone have any ideas?

 

I am still trying to find out the ISO rating for intermediate stocks. However, the lab professionals have been kind enough to get me a rough idea for DI negative - ISO 25 and colour PRINT stock rated at ISO 5. 


  • 0

#11 Steven Vanpotter

Steven Vanpotter
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 10 September 2013 - 02:51 AM

i have come into 8000 feet of color intermediate and print kodak films,,7385,,7386 and 7244intermediate,,,i was wondering if anyone has shot on these films in capture???and how well did they shoot??8000 feet new film is a lot to waste,,so im going to test and shoot a short film with it and telecine to digital and color grade in post.  has anyone ever shot in color print or intermediate films???


  • 0

#12 Steven Vanpotter

Steven Vanpotter
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 24 October 2013 - 03:56 PM

yes,,7386 print film,kodak,,does anyone know how to expose for this stock in capture?im planning on shooting with this type of film.it has a low EI of maybe 6 to 8,so huge amount of light will be needed indoor and direct sunlight plus a strong lighting source.i was also wondering wirth a flat color image of this stock,,would i be able to post process in computer editing bring back the color in grading post edit.?i have 16000 feet of print,7386 and intermediate7244 kodak.would like some help in this before i shoot some experimental shots.


  • 0

#13 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 09 April 2014 - 10:37 AM

Well, that about ends any speculation that there is a difference between 7273 and 7203 other than the 2R and polyester base:

 

http://motion.kodak....PCN040214_Q.pdf

 

It's too bad... 7273 had become my source for 2R negative for my old Keystone from the 1920s...  :(


  • 0

#14 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 09 April 2014 - 11:33 AM

It's still nothing close to '31.  The '22 is too grainy & what they did with the '34 makes it look too much like a digital B&W filter since there is virtually no grain whatsoever.

 

Something right in-between was what the beauty of Kodak's '31 was all about.


  • 0

#15 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 09 April 2014 - 08:19 PM

It's still nothing close to '31.  The '22 is too grainy & what they did with the '34 makes it look too much like a digital B&W filter since there is virtually no grain whatsoever.

 

Something right in-between was what the beauty of Kodak's '31 was all about.

orwo UN54 is close to '31


  • 0

#16 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 09 April 2014 - 08:57 PM

I just shot my first rolls of it today, so I'll let you know...


  • 0

#17 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 09 April 2014 - 09:16 PM

Very curious to hear/ see the results. Pro8mm is packing that stock in super 8 carts now. I've been thinking of giving it a whirl.
  • 0

#18 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 09 April 2014 - 09:37 PM

Dave,

 

I'll throw a review up here when I get it back from the lab.


  • 1

#19 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1049 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 10 April 2014 - 07:01 AM

Hope you'll eventually have a good scan to post too.
  • 0

#20 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 08 May 2014 - 10:57 AM

As promised, here is my review of ORWO UN 54.

 

I shot it on my Arriflex 16 S/B using Carl Zeiss lenses (16mm & 32mm,) outdoors in mid-afternoon on a bright, sunny day.  I rated it at 100ASA and used an ND .6 filter.  While I was impressed with the latitude - rich blacks at nice whites at 2/3 over, but still nicely overexposed at 2 & 1/3 over - I was extremely disappointed with the grain structure.  In that sense, it still looked very much like 7222.  I compared it to a roll of 7219 which I recently shot and rated at 500ASA and it was even finer grained that the ORWO.  Both the UN54 & the 7219 were processed at the same lab and printed as 16mm workprints.

 

I will give the ORWO another try in the future, but right now it seems just a bit too expensive for a stock that is nowhere near the quality of 7231.


  • 0


The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

CineLab

CineTape

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC