Jump to content


Photo

Old Film Stock


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Bob Hayes

Bob Hayes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1087 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Culver City, California

Posted 30 July 2005 - 06:25 PM

I just inheritted about 100,000' of 16mm. It is at least five years old and has not been refrigerated. Is it usable or sellable? Should I have it tested?
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 July 2005 - 07:01 PM

I just inheritted about 100,000' of 16mm.  It is at least five years old and has not been refrigerated. Is it usable or sellable?  Should I have it tested?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I doubt any stock house would buy it, but definitely test it before you use it. I once cleaned out my fridge of stock and there wasn't much that interested a stock house because of the age, even though refrigerated.

Seems like an awfully big investment someone made 5 years ago to not have at least kept it in cold storage. Were they trying to throw their money away?
  • 0

#3 Bob Hayes

Bob Hayes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1087 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Culver City, California

Posted 30 July 2005 - 07:11 PM

Odds and ends of short ends and recans after six years on a TV series.
  • 0

#4 Oliver Gläser

Oliver Gläser
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Vancouver BC, Canada

Posted 30 July 2005 - 07:12 PM

get it tested and if the fog comes back to high (the lab will say N/G). This means that it is less sensitive and no good for printing, however if your intent is never to print and stay in the digital realm, then you might still be able to get away with overexposing it to compensate. Look and have the fog report explained to you, what the norms are and what your film is. I have used even older film given to me from people that was unrefridgerated yet uncracked and worked out great. Film that the lab said was N/G came out ok, if a little grainier. that being said there were also times when it was less than satisfactory to use. Short ends and recans are probably worse off then the rest. The only real way to know for certain is to get it snipped and fog tested and then to test it yourself by shooting and viewing some. Have fun. Hope it works out and you find a use for it.
Sincerely
Oliver Gläser
  • 0

#5 Nathan Milford

Nathan Milford
  • Sustaining Members
  • 692 posts
  • Director
  • New York, NY

Posted 30 July 2005 - 08:51 PM

You could sell it very cheaply to AC's and Film Schools as scratch test and practice film.
  • 0

#6 Steven Budden

Steven Budden
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts
  • Other
  • San Francisco

Posted 31 July 2005 - 02:24 PM

I got a bunch of 100 foot spools with a bolex recently. How does 1 and a half years and the fridge sound? Still risky or not so bad?

Thanks!

Steven
  • 0

#7 Nate Downes

Nate Downes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1638 posts
  • Florida, USA

Posted 31 July 2005 - 02:52 PM

If you don't want it, I'll take it off your hands, no problem. 8)

Then again, I love to experiment with old stock, gotten some surprising results. Worth the gamble for me.
  • 0

#8 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 31 July 2005 - 04:46 PM

I got a bunch of 100 foot spools with a bolex recently. How does 1 and a half years and the fridge sound? Still risky or not so bad?

Thanks!

Steven

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



That's not too bad, actually. The last film purchase I made was for 1100 feet of film that expired in 1966 :P . What can I say, I paid for $20 for it including shipping. SHould be interesting, if nothing else.
  • 0

#9 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 31 July 2005 - 05:04 PM

I got a bunch of 100 foot spools with a bolex recently. How does 1 and a half years and the fridge sound? Still risky or not so bad?

Thanks!

Steven

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Hi,

1 and a half years in a fridge sounds fresh to me. In Switzerland sometimes I complain when I order fresh stock and its the same batch I was getting 9 months ago!

Stephen
  • 0

#10 timHealy

timHealy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1252 posts
  • Other
  • New York

Posted 31 July 2005 - 07:33 PM

I just inheritted about 100,000' of 16mm.  It is at least five years old and has not been refrigerated. Is it usable or sellable?  Should I have it tested?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Isn't it possible for film to suffer from a type of "dry rot" for lack of a better word, after a period of time, that may lead to emulsion chipping around the perfs? I had this occur with old short ends used as scratch test rolls.

Perhaps John Pytlak could comment on the life of film not properly stored to manufacturers recommendations.

Best

Tim
  • 0

#11 K Borowski

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

Posted 01 August 2005 - 09:18 AM

Is this 16mm all the same speed? What stocks do you have? The different stocks have different longevities, adn different speeds will actuallyl fog at different rates over time. I think you'd actually be surprised how well film holds up over time though. It might be worth shooting. At any case, don't use it for scratch tests if you decide not to use it. I'd be happy to get my hands on some too :-) You wouldn't happen to have any B&W or VNF, would you?

Regards.
~Karl Borowski
  • 0

#12 Dominic Case

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

Posted 01 August 2005 - 06:01 PM

The last film purchase I made was for 1100 feet of film that expired in 1966

If this is colour stock, you will have serious problems getting it processed: the process of the time (ECN1) is no longer available except possibly at Rocky Mountain Film Labs, where (last time I asked) you may wait up to nine months for processing. (Still, what's that after 39 years?).

Seriously, what's been missing from this thread is the details of what type of stock. High speed colour negative will deteriorate much more rapidly than medium speed. Odds and ends of short ends and recans collected over six years sounds very much like a mixed bag of emulsion types. Don't expect any consistency in what you have there.
  • 0

#13 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 02:55 PM

Send it all to me, I'll get it tested & let you know if it's good.
Oh, I'm gonna want to keep it though! :P

MP
  • 0

#14 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 02 August 2005 - 04:59 PM

If this is colour stock, you will have serious problems getting it processed: the process of the time (ECN1) is no longer available except possibly at Rocky Mountain Film Labs, where (last time I asked) you may wait up to nine months for processing. (Still, what's that after 39 years?).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Aren't they similar enough, tho? What would the effect be of developing a ECN1 neg in ECN2 bath?
  • 0

#15 Dominic Case

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

Posted 02 August 2005 - 06:26 PM

No they aren't similar enough.

ECN1 was a "cold" process, with the developer running at (from memory) 25C. ECN2 is a "hot" process, running at 41.1C, (and a much reduced development time). ECN2 negative emulsions are hardened to resist the higher temperature: if you run ECN1 film through the hot bath, the emulsion will soften and fall off. It won't be a good look.

Any lab foolish enough to take your stock and give it a go will be very very sorry. It's not that your film will come back missing great chunks of image, it's that their tanks will get clogged up with fragments of gelatin.
  • 0

#16 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 02 August 2005 - 07:35 PM

Sounds like C-41 would be a better option then, since I recall the developer runs cooler there (but for a longer time), doesn't it?
  • 0

#17 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 02 August 2005 - 10:36 PM

Sounds like C-41 would be a better option then, since I recall the developer runs cooler there (but for a longer time), doesn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


No, any of the old films designed for the "cold" ECN or C-22 processes were NOT forehardened, and will begin to show ill effects like reticulation or worse at developer temperatures much above 25 Celsius. In a modern "hot" process like ECN-2 or C-41, the emulsion could indeed come off the film.

Film that old will likely have unacceptable picture quality, including high fog levels, mismatched contrast, and slow speed. Cold storage slows the deterioration, but does not completely stop it, due to the effects of ambient radiation.:

http://www.kodak.com...rage_cond.jhtml

http://www.kodak.com...b/tib5202.shtml
  • 0


The Slider

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

CineLab

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Technodolly

Opal

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC