Anybody shoot Svema "Quarzchrome" lately?

[thebigidea]

Worth bothering with? The price is pretty attractive, and I'd love to get an old 20s-30s movie effect, so picture 'anomalies' would be welcome. Reading through old posts about it, is overexposing a stop a good idea?

And do filmvideoservices or pac-lab process it ok? Is it the same development process as plus-x?

[richard p. t.]

I had 10 rolls sent out to Australia about 6 months ago and found that they were useless. On developing, there was virtually no image at all. The emulstion had just had it. I too was hoping for an old look - like an orthochromatic stock. There was nothing there however. Possibly their age ment they didn't fly here well ... but I think they were just too old. I got a refund on them.

[Mogzy]

I've found that they're fine and really do have a 1920s look about them. Maybe it was the DEVELOPMENT which was at fault in Australia. From Andec or Frank Bruinsma the results I've seen are fantastic. It's the only film I've seen which actually looks like it has a sepia tint when projected.

It is grainy (which is probably the look you want if you buy this) - plenty of tramlining but not so much as to spoil the image. In short- marvellous!

I've used it recently, though make sure it is no earlier than 1991 because the emulsion changed around then I believe (the packaging changed anyhow!). If it is later than 1991 I'd say BUY AND ENJOY! (but make sure you ask for the date on them first.)

[Mogzy]

Sorry- double post

[mik]

i've shot two rolls of it up to now. most of shots are really bad, you hardly see anything, BUT when scenes are very contrasty, you can get interesting image.

this is quartzchrome expired in 1991 [EDIT - i recently discovered, that its 1981 not 1991] , stored propably in shelf, filmed and developed 2005. don't look at my crap telecine, its only for showing that there is some image...

mik

[thebigidea]

mik, did you overexpose it a bit while shooting to compensate for the out of dateness/loss of chemical whatever-it-is, or was that with the auto-exposure? Was that indoors?

Because with an ASA of 50 when it was new, I'd guess it needs a ton of light indoors to look decent.

Hmm, so far that's

1 vote for unusable crap
1 vote for lovely sepia ancient looks
1 vote for murky near-crap but maybe useable if seriously fucked with in post.

So not quite Instant Guy Maddin... I think i'll try a few, but i'm wondering if the usual (cheap) US labs can handle it

[Mogzy]

I suppose all of us are probably right- but then it is outdated stock so results are bound to be variable depending who you got it from, what country, where stored etc. I suppose it might also depend on HOW it has been stored. The UK-sourced stuff worked great, but then it had probably been refridgerated.

How do you guys post stills? I've got some absolutely wonderful shots on this film, including some outdoor night filming of lit up buildings which look fantastic.

[thebigidea]

I'd love to see the stills. I think there are some instructions on this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=13059&sid=23501b65cf383 ... 19697891ae

I ordered a few 1992-dated rolls from Widescreen UK to test it out... I hope its ok, because I'm really in the mood to order a few hours worth and shoot a long, dreamy b&w bit of delirium.

[mik]

i was just shooting during concert in private house, no any special light used... so i opened my quartz as wide as possible, and shoot it hoping that most bright parts of scene would stay on film.

note - there was quite bright there, with white walls 3 meters behind him. this musician was sitting just under light spot, rest of band is near him, but almost not visible !

i send it to man who develops russian stuff, also color orwos in cold processes... i just said to him that this stock is outdated and he did the rest...

mik.

[audadvnc]

I too was hoping for an old look - like an orthochromatic stock.

Try shooting with some Agfa Ortho sound stock; it's used to make optical tracks. It has no antihalation, so you get halos around bright spots. It's about ASA 12 or 16 depending how you develop it and the grain is so tiny you just can't see it. Skies come out white, rain or shine.

[sunrise]

I don't find the stock that grainy compared with tri-x. But less contrast and less sharp.

michael

[Angus]

I haven´t shot any for a year or two...but it was always difficult to predict the results. However, there was *always* an image of some sort there. If the Svema (or Quarzchrome as the Widescreen Centre erroniously calls it) is giving thin images then perhaps your camera isn´t exposing it correctly or development is suspect.

You should get an image with grain between the old plus-x and tri-x, but lower contrast. Maybe some fogging especially early in the reel...but watchable.

[Mogzy]

Did I mention that it always looks far better if exposed in an XL camera indoors?

[thebigidea]

has anyone had any problems having it shipped to the US - do the airport anti-terra machines fry the film further?

[thebigidea]

Any luck with those stills?