In article , EarlyFilm wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
A short film that I shot mostly on 7366 which was processed in reversal
by A-1 can be seen this week at http://www.countgore.com/NewBlood.htm. Note
that the transfer was done by pointing a video camera at the flatbed
and you're listening to the optical track, so don't expect the best
possible quality....

You shot a flame on extremely slow ortho finegrain master positive stock
which you had reversal processed?????

I'm impressed, but how and why?

Because I had a couple cans of it lying around that were going to be pitched
and I thought I'd put it in the camera and see what happens. I shot a test
, then I shot some more stuff, and next thing I knew I had most of a short
movie.

Some of the indoor stuff was done on 7207 Tri-X RP film, which was an RAR
film for rapid processing. Also sitting in the lab junk closet for years.
You can see it has occasional splotches on it from condensation due to the
cans not being very well-sealed.

Flames are hard enough to shoot and make look good with the faster
stocks intended for camera.

The color section with the flames was shot on 7239 that was about fifteen
years out of date. That section actually has a dye soundtrack (printed
from a 7378 master sound positive that was run through the reversal machine),
and the sound level is about 12 dB lower than the B&W sections that were
printed on standard B&W reversal print stock. I cranked it up in the transfer
which is why the noise level is so much higher.

Estar base 3366 might be OK for projection, but the acetate base 7366
stock tends to warp and/or cup under the heat of the projection lamp.

A few years ago, the base in 7302 and 7366 were slightly different in
chemistry and only the print stock resisted heat warp. I assume, but am
not sure, if this is still the case.

It would be interesting to see. The standard B&W reversal print stock has
been discontinued as part of the new chemistry, and I have been playing
around trying the various other stocks for printing reversal originals in
the past six months. 7366 is okay but the gamma is a little high... but
to be honest I did not try particularly heavy runs through projectors to
see how rugged it would be. 7302 is way, way too high gamma. Even if I
preflash and pull back a stop, 7302 in the reversal machine gives me
a gamma greater than .70. It's a shame since we have a fridge full of
7302 around here that's getting older every day.

What is REALLY weird is that I recently got a TV print that had been made
on 7340. And... it actually had a decent D-max and some detail in the
shadows! It wasn't wonderful, but it was entirely acceptable and I am
really curious how they managed that.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."