Motion picture film

[BetterSense]

What IS motion picture film, and how is it different than still film? How does processing differ?

In the 2038 thread, there is a good deal of discussion on how much effect the production of motion picture film has on the costs of 35mm still film. I always thought and heard that as long as 35mm MP film is around, you could always spool that up. That it is essentially the same thing. However JBrunner even says that

BTW, motion picture film positively sucks for stills, even when you process it correctly.

Is this true, and what way? I understand that for MP film the shutter speed must be less than 1/24 of a second because of the frame rate, and they shoot at 1/2 frame compared to 35mm. Is it really grainy or something?

Is color MP film C-41? Does anyone know how expensive it is? I would think that in reels, it would be cheap because of the volume required for motion pictures.

 

[Photo Engineer]

B&W motion picture film and still picture film are virtually identical. In some cases they are identical except for support and rem-jet backing. Rem-jet decreases static electricity and halation problems but is difficult to process. Also MP films often have a special sound track coating along the edge, either photographic or magnetic striping.

Color MP films have many of the same differences as noted above, but also are built to allow many more intermediate steps without loss in quality to allow for Green Screen SFX and up to 15 generations of dupes to get the overlays right for those SFX we love so much!

They are also built to a lower contrast than consumer films to mate with print films which are intended to be projected over a huge screen. And so MP color film has a contrast of 0.5 vs about 0.63 for consumer films, and the print film goes up to a maximum density of over 4.0. The lower contrast in MP films is also made possible by the lower flare pro lenses used of course compared to higher flare consumer lenses.

Color MP film is also designed to give better sharpness and grain to stretch over such a huge screen.

Color MP camera film and print film are NOT C-41.

That is the core of the matter. Hope it helps.

PE

 

[Michael W]

The process for colour neg motion picture stock is ECN2, it's quite different to C41.
The standard frame rate for shooting motion picture film is 24 frames per second but this probably works out at a shutter speed of approx 1/40th second when you take into account the time the shutter has to be closed to advance the film to the next frame. However motion picture cameras can shoot at a range of frame rates, ie 60 frames per second for slow motion, so there is no limitation on the film re frame rates.
I have shot some motion picture films in a still camera in 36 exposure lengths just for the hell of it. It was colour neg stock that was then contact printed to positive film. It looked good, i must scan some to post here some day. This service was offered by the A&I lab in LA but they stopped doing it earlier this year. It certainly wasn't cheap.
The big problem for shooting motion picture film in still cameras is finding a lab to process it. The big labs aren't interested due to the small roll lengths & also there aren't many photographers who are interested in doing this. I suppose that's why A&I dropped it. You can learn a lot more about the looks of motion picture film by reading the forums at cinematography.com

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think Dale Labs in Florida is one of the ones that will handle short lengths of motion picture film. They can print it with normal contrast using methods that are off topic for APUG.

 

[epatsellis]

I have a 400' spool of 500T here for experimentation, while ECN2 and C41 are different, 2nd hand empirical advice is to process, remove remjet and admire. The film cost me shipping only, so it may turn out to be a worthwhile experiment, and give me a tungsten balanced film for some "unusual" lighting situations.

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

Please DO NOT try to process ECN-2 (Mo Pic) film in C-41 at a lab. The rem jet will come off in chunks without a dedicated removal step and ruin other people's film and necessitate the lab having to dump all of their chemistry.

They will NOT be happy.

 

[epatsellis]

All my C41 is done one shot, in house, either by hand or in a Wing Lynch Pro 6.

 

[PhotoJim]

What about the black and white films? I take it there aren't any particular issues with them.

I got a 400' can of Eastman Double-X but as yet haven't had time to roll some off to try.

I suspect there is an elevated chance of defects (a defect on a still frame that would be highly annoying would be almost imperceptible on a motion picture) but chemically, the films don't seem to be unique (other than the fact that films like Double-X are unavailable any other way).

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've used Double-X cine stock as a 35mm still film and processed it in D-76, and it hasn't had any Rem-Jet or other issues to worry about. I've read about many other people using this film for stills and haven't heard any reports to the contrary.

Check out that grain--

 

[Photo Engineer]

David;

Some MP B&W stock has rem-jet and others do not. Some have a sound track and others do not. It depends on the film and the manufacturer.

PE

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

Kodak's B&W cine stock has an anti-halo layer just like still stocks, so they are virtually indistinguishable from one-another. Kodak's cine stocks are slightly older designs than their still equivalents.

 

[JBrunner]

My comment is about the Vision stocks. For still shooting, you would find them extremely lacking in contrast for starters, because of the nature of the work flow and usage they will endure. They are very very good at what they are designed to do. For MP shooting the Kodak MP stocks are the bomb. Best in the world.

For stills, any good color emulsion will run rings around them in pretty much every way. They are the ultimate in specialization, the best bar none at one particular thing at the expense of everything else.

 

[jmooney]

There is a very lengthy and ongoing thread at RFF about shooting Eastman 5222 (Double XX). It's really informative and full of tip on developing and links to many, many examples. Tom Abrahmsson (maker of RapidWinders and Soft Releases for Leicas) has been using this film for a really long time and glad share his experiennces. Check it out:

Shooting Eastman 5222 in the Leica

Jim

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If one wants the Vision2 technology in a still film, it's there. Don't the new Portra films, and I suspect Ektar 100 use the two-electron sensitization that makes the Vision2 stocks interesting?

 

[Kino]

Kodak B&W Dupe Neg 5234 or 2234 has a sensitivity of about ASA 6 (since it is a lab stock, it doesn't have an actual ASA value), is blue sensitive (ortho) and is extremely low contrast.

It will work, but you have to use a really hot developer to get anywhere near "normal" contrast - dektol works pretty good.

 

[nickandre]

What about slide film? I was wondering why kodak couldn't use some of it's photographic slide films in super 8 cartridges. There apparently isn't much difference because 64t is a still film used in super 8.

 

[Larry Bullis]

I shoot XX and love it. I've got it tuned for Edwal 12. Superb.

One thing I've noticed is that the spaces between the frames with XX motion pic film (and I suspect other MP films as well) are very uniform. The sprocket holes are much more precise, and actually shaped; not just rectangular. Very subtle. I used to think the uneven frame lines were slop in the camera, but it appears that the holes just didn't fit the sprockets very tightly.

 

[Kino]

I shoot XX and love it. I've got it tuned for Edwal 12. Superb.

One thing I've noticed is that the spaces between the frames with XX motion pic film (and I suspect other MP films as well) are very uniform. The sprocket holes are much more precise, and actually shaped; not just rectangular. Very subtle. I used to think the uneven frame lines were slop in the camera, but it appears that the holes just didn't fit the sprockets very tightly.

That is because the MP negative stock is perforated with short-pitch (.1866 inch) Bell & Howell negative perforations and still film is typically perforated with Kodak Standard long pitch (.1870 inch) perforations.

Both are very precisely made, it is just that the negative pitch is made to wrap around a continuous contact printer sprocket with the print stock laying on top of the negative -- the pitch difference is the diametrical difference between the thickness of the inside and outside film wraps.

It is just that the sprocket teeth of the rollers, more precisely fits the perforation; not that it matters much with still cameras.

 

[AgX]

As Kino's statement could be ambiguous to the non-initiated:

There are 2 kinds of pitch (distance between perf.): long and short.

There are 2 shapes of perforation: rounded short sides and straight short sides with rounded edges (B&G and KS resp.)


Due to the low speed of film transport and the tolerances of the film transport, any of these should work.

Though in theory a real KS (as that shape is used on still film) sprocket tooth would not allow a B&H perforated film to lay on the sprocket wheel drum, thus lifting the film up a bit and possibly by that lifting up the pressure plate on one side too.
Perhaps someone could comment on that.

 

[Photo Engineer]

AgX has the gist of part of the answer.

MP films are meant for a variety of transport rates from very slow to very fast. In order to achieve this, they have more precise and carefully engineered sprocket holes and a higher level of antistatic protection either on the back (rem-jet) or in the support itself.

PE

 

[Kino]

Though in theory a real KS (as that shape is used on still film) sprocket tooth would not allow a B&H perforated film to lay on the sprocket wheel drum, thus lifting the film up a bit and possibly by that lifting up the pressure plate on one side too.
Perhaps someone could comment on that.

What I meant to say is, the B&H perf negative lays directly against the surface of the printing sprocket (with emulsion out) and the KS perf stock lays over the negative (emulsion in, in direct contact with the emulsion of the negative).

AgX is correct; if you try to reverse the order, you get some really nasty "hop", "flutter" and mis-registration with the typical wrap of a continuous contact printer due to the diametrical mis-match of the perforations.

The difference between short-pitch and long pitch film is historically derived from a series of studies Bell & Howell did with the dimensional shrinkage (both linear and across the web) that naturally occurred with Nitrate based filmstocks.

They found that nitrate film shrunk an average of .0004 inches in between perforations when processed and then proceeded to design their continuous contact printers around this construct. The original film would be perforated at .1870 (pitch) inches apart (leading perf edge to leading perf edge) and then would shrink to .1866 (pitch) inches during processing.

The root diameter of the printer sprocket was thus calculated to allow the shrunken negative to ride in almost perfect contact with the unshrunken, freshly perforated positive film as they were contact printed.

Later on, when safety based stocks (mono acetate, diacetate and triacetate to name a few) were introduced that DID NOT shrink with processing, it was found that different perforation machines had to be constructed and used for negative and positive filmstocks to avoid obsoleting existing motion picture printing machines.

The KS perforation did not appear on the scene until the late 1920's and was not adopted widely until after WWII, although Russia (USSR) DID adopt the perforation size and shape exclusively in 1939 after a SMPE (or was it ISO?) conference in Budapest, Hungary made the strong recommendation to standardize on the perforation shape.

Strangely enough, Russia DID adopt this recommendation, while everyone else in the World refused due to obsolescence issues, and that is why Russian motion picture cameras have to be converted to shoot B&H neg perf film; they have been made to shoot KS.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled show...

 

[BetterSense]

Very interesting. So in the end, you can use either in a still camera, because of the loose tolerances, correct?

 

[AgX]

I would have a look at the sprocket wheel with a piece of MP film. If the sprockets insert totally into the perforation no problems should occur.
If the sprockets do not insert fully, I would insert a lenght of film, close the back and have a look at the film via the the body through the open shutter in order to see whether the film is pressed properly onto the rails (if one could see this at all...), make a test exposure for plane of focus and check whether the film runs as with still film whilst transporting.

I guess that would be the optimum one could do.

 

[Larry Bullis]

I think that one of the motives for the invention of the 35mm camera in the first place was to take advantage of the movie film that was around. There must have been a lot of roll ends, not long enough to be very useful in motion picture work but sad to see go to waste. So there is most likely a well established convention for the size of the sprocket teeth that has come down through the history of camera production. I suspect that if your frame lines aren't uniform with standard camera film, the MP film probably will work.

You know, gettin' old sucks. I should be able (but I can't) to remember the name of that company in Seattle that loaded color negative movie film into 35 mm cassettes, sold it mailorder with mailers, would process the film and run it through a printer. The customer ended up with negatives, slides made from the negatives, and a fresh roll of film. It was immensely popular; a lot of people swore by it. I tried it a few times, and it was quite acceptable. People using all kinds of cameras bought and used it, and I never heard that the film wouldn't "fit".

I shot it with 3 Leicas: a iiif, an M2, and an M5. I've never had any kind of problem with it. The only irritation I can report is the need to number each frame by hand. Maybe this isn't a problem for anyone else, but it's important for me to have frame numbers.

Just as I thought would happen. As soon as I posted the above, "Seattle Filmworks" popped into my head.

 

[Kino]

Very interesting. So in the end, you can use either in a still camera, because of the loose tolerances, correct?

Yeah, the sprocketed rollers in most 35mm cameras simply drive the counter and the tooth profile is not all that critical.

The history of the shape and size of film perforations would make a good doctoral thesis for someone... and they might be able to address it entirely in that amount of space... just might.