A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » Film & Labs
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Variable Density Greyscale Film for audio



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 25th 06, 05:27 AM posted to rec.photo.film+labs,rec.arts.movies.tech
EarlyFilm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Variable Density Greyscale Film for audio

Scott Dorsey asks:

2234 is SLOW. Grain structure is good, and the gamma is very low but
easily controlled. What's the approximate ASA or photorecording sensitivity
on that stuff? It's got to be insane. Less than 5366 even.


At 60 gamma, 5234/2234 has an ASA of between 5 and 10 tungsten,
depending on the exact mixture and temperature of the chemistry.

  #12  
Old September 25th 06, 06:19 AM posted to rec.photo.film+labs,rec.arts.movies.tech
J. Theakston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Variable Density Greyscale Film for audio


Scott Dorsey wrote:
Which ones, out of curiosity?


Not sure who still does b/w VD, but Triage and John E. Allen are the
last that I can think of that do excellent density tracks on color
stock.

J. Theakston

  #13  
Old September 25th 06, 02:05 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs,rec.arts.movies.tech
Scott Dorsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Variable Density Greyscale Film for audio

In article , EarlyFilm wrote:
Scott Dorsey asks:

2234 is SLOW. Grain structure is good, and the gamma is very low but
easily controlled. What's the approximate ASA or photorecording sensitivity
on that stuff? It's got to be insane. Less than 5366 even.


At 60 gamma, 5234/2234 has an ASA of between 5 and 10 tungsten,
depending on the exact mixture and temperature of the chemistry.


And I should expect to gain about half a stop if I run it through the
reversal machine, I hope.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #14  
Old September 26th 06, 12:04 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs,rec.arts.movies.tech
EarlyFilm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Variable Density Greyscale Film for audio



Scott Dorsey asks:


2234 is SLOW. Grain structure is good, and the gamma is very low but
easily controlled. What's the approximate ASA or photorecording sensitivity
on that stuff? It's got to be insane. Less than 5366 even.


Early film replied:
At 60 gamma, 5234/2234 has an ASA of between 5 and 10 tungsten,
depending on the exact mixture and temperature of the chemistry.



Scott states:
And I should expect to gain about half a stop if I run it through the
reversal machine, I hope.



Scott, If you plan on printing it, a reversal "negative" will sound like
crap. If you project the original, it might sound OK but all direct
recording that I've heard sounds greatly inferior to properly exposed
negative-to-positive track.

Where, may I ask, will you get it processed reversal since the EPA has
come down on the chemicals formerly used?

It has been 25 years since I reversed any 7234 and I don't remember the
speed shift, just that it was a pain in the arse to get consistent
results -- and that was for picture use. When you are making a burn
matt and a holdback matt at the same time, if you screw either one up,
you must do both over again to achieve perfect alignment. I only used
7234 D/N stock when the job forced me to use a panchromatic stock for
the matts. (The specialty stocks used for 35mm matts were not made in
16mm. For matts, I preferred to use either sound recording stock or
7366 finegrain stock, both of which are ortho.)

Earl.
  #15  
Old September 26th 06, 03:05 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs,rec.arts.movies.tech
Scott Dorsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Variable Density Greyscale Film for audio

In article , EarlyFilm wrote:

Scott, If you plan on printing it, a reversal "negative" will sound like
crap. If you project the original, it might sound OK but all direct
recording that I've heard sounds greatly inferior to properly exposed
negative-to-positive track.


That makes sense, although it allows me to save a step.

Where, may I ask, will you get it processed reversal since the EPA has
come down on the chemicals formerly used?


I get it done at A-1 in Manhattan. Kodak basically dropped the old reversal
chemistry and replaced the bleach with one that is less environmentally
nasty but more corrosive. They then replaced Tri-X and Plus-X reversal
last year with finer-grain versions that are tuned for use with the new
chemistry. The stuff looks good.

I have been running variable area tracks on 7378 through the reversal
chemistry and getting pretty decent results. Cross-modulation tests come
out with similar numbers as the negative, and of course you can make
prints from reversal originals without an intermediate.

It has been 25 years since I reversed any 7234 and I don't remember the
speed shift, just that it was a pain in the arse to get consistent
results -- and that was for picture use. When you are making a burn
matt and a holdback matt at the same time, if you screw either one up,
you must do both over again to achieve perfect alignment. I only used
7234 D/N stock when the job forced me to use a panchromatic stock for
the matts. (The specialty stocks used for 35mm matts were not made in
16mm. For matts, I preferred to use either sound recording stock or
7366 finegrain stock, both of which are ortho.)


The modern 7378 sound recording stock is WAY higher contrast and finer grain
than the pre-EXR stock from a decade ago. It's made that sort of work
a good bit easier.

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....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #16  
Old September 27th 06, 01:26 AM posted to rec.photo.film+labs,rec.arts.movies.tech
EarlyFilm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default Variable Density Greyscale Film for audio

Scott Dorsey wrote:


I have been running variable area tracks on 7378 through the reversal
chemistry and getting pretty decent results.


VA tracks don't mush up as fast as VD in direct positive.

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....


Scott,

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

I'm impressed, but how and why?

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

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.

Earl.


  #17  
Old September 27th 06, 02:10 AM posted to rec.photo.film+labs,rec.arts.movies.tech
Scott Dorsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Variable Density Greyscale Film for audio

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."
  #18  
Old October 5th 06, 10:58 AM posted to rec.photo.film+labs,rec.arts.movies.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default Variable Density Greyscale Film for audio


Scott Dorsey wrote:
peterh5322 wrote:
On 2006-09-20 20:27:41 -0700, "Radium" said:


I would not be surprised if there are some folks with the WECO and RCA
sound cameras that still had a VD mode to them. Quite honestly, if
you just stick a diffuser behind the slit, you get VD.


That's funny--I thought one got VD from toilet seats...I'll have to
tell my mom, she obviously had it wrong!

  #19  
Old October 5th 06, 06:08 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs,rec.arts.movies.tech
Radium
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default Variable Density Greyscale Film for audio


Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , EarlyFilm wrote:
Scott Dorsey asks:

2234 is SLOW. Grain structure is good, and the gamma is very low but
easily controlled. What's the approximate ASA or photorecording sensitivity
on that stuff? It's got to be insane. Less than 5366 even.


At 60 gamma, 5234/2234 has an ASA of between 5 and 10 tungsten,
depending on the exact mixture and temperature of the chemistry.


And I should expect to gain about half a stop if I run it through the
reversal machine, I hope.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


Forget the reversal or the positive. I prefer to use the original
negative film.

  #20  
Old October 5th 06, 06:09 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs,rec.arts.movies.tech
Radium
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default Variable Density Greyscale Film for audio


Morgan Montague wrote:
mono and VD.


That bears repeating.


Yep. Those 2 are "fidelity" problems.


Not for me. I think mono and VD are better in quality. I don't like
stereo or VA. But then, "quality" is highly subjective. One's worst
enemy can be another's best friend.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Variable Density Greyscale Film for audio Radium In The Darkroom 3 September 26th 06 12:03 AM
Pyro & selenium toning of negatives Lew In The Darkroom 12 September 21st 06 10:49 PM
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs KM Medium Format Photography Equipment 724 December 7th 04 10:58 AM
Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it? Nick Zentena Large Format Photography Equipment 14 July 27th 04 03:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.