Need help getting performance from Eastman 4-x negative.

[slashmaster]

Got 5 rolls of Eastman 4-x negative. One of them says "Recan 6/2/85" I would guess they are all from about that era. I put the recan in a bolex, shot one winds worth at 24 fps and f 2.8 in normal room lighting then went in the dark bathroom, ripped the takeup reel out and wound it on my lomo tank. I put d-76 in for a little over 8 minutes, flushed, then fixed for 4 minutes. The results are very poor, you can barely see a faint image. I can say what truly should have been black where it was loaded in the camera is truly black but the unexposed edges of the film aren't clear but gray. What should I do, expose with more lighting? Process longer? Both?

[Simon Lucas]

Got 5 rolls of Eastman 4-x negative. One of them says "Recan 6/2/85" I would guess they are all from about that era. I put the recan in a bolex, shot one winds worth at 24 fps and f 2.8 in normal room lighting then went in the dark bathroom, ripped the takeup reel out and wound it on my lomo tank. I put d-76 in for a little over 8 minutes, flushed, then fixed for 4 minutes. The results are very poor, you can barely see a faint image. I can say what truly should have been black where it was loaded in the camera is truly black but the unexposed edges of the film aren't clear but gray. What should I do, expose with more lighting? Process longer? Both?

In general, I would say you need to add 1-4 stops for loss of film speed. I could not guess how much speed you lose in 30 years*. I think you'll also see fogging, which could explain the edges. Your first step is to repeat the process and expose single frames +1, +2, + 3 , +4 (...up to how many you want to) stops in a cycle. Cut off a strip and re-develop. *And you are going to see a loss in contrast, too.

I heard another trick is to do a stand-develop in R09. 1+100, Say, 1 hour. With a pinch of borax to inhibit fogging.

[slashmaster]

Got 5 rolls of Eastman 4-x negative. One of them says "Recan 6/2/85" I would guess they are all from about that era. I put the recan in a bolex, shot one winds worth at 24 fps and f 2.8 in normal room lighting then went in the dark bathroom, ripped the takeup reel out and wound it on my lomo tank. I put d-76 in for a little over 8 minutes, flushed, then fixed for 4 minutes. The results are very poor, you can barely see a faint image. I can say what truly should have been black where it was loaded in the camera is truly black but the unexposed edges of the film aren't clear but gray. What should I do, expose with more lighting? Process longer? Both?

In general, I would say you need to add 1-4 stops for loss of film speed. I could not guess how much speed you lose in 30 years*. I think you'll also see fogging, which could explain the edges. Your first step is to repeat the process and expose single frames +1, +2, + 3 , +4 (...up to how many you want to) stops in a cycle. Cut off a strip and re-develop. *And you are going to see a loss in contrast, too.

I heard another trick is to do a stand-develop in R09. 1+100, Say, 1 hour. With a pinch of borax to inhibit fogging.

Just processed another winds worth. I shot a scene outside at f 4 perhaps an hour or 2 before sundown. This time I processed a few minutes longer and did slight agitation every 30 seconds (before I had done every 20). Got significantly better but wouldn't call good results this time. Still trying to figure out how to best squeegee the water so I don't get water spots when it dries. You can also see uneven flashing that you would never get from a professional processing.

So does it really have to be RO9 or can I try stand developing with the d-76 I already have? Just how much borax is a pinch? How would that reduce the fogging?

[Mmechanic]

That’s a ridiculous question. What was the scene lit like? How close have you been to the object? Was it dark or bright? And f/2.8 is not too wide open for “normal room lighting”. Your negative is badly underexposed.

Do yourself a favor and get hold of a lightmeter. On that allow for a third stop more light by setting the dial to 320 ISO instead of 400 ISO. Processing seems to be fairly well within reasonable values. Old stocks tend to produce fog.

I’d try to find a fast lens, i. e. one with f/1.4 or thereabouts, decrease the frame rate if possible, but above all light the scene with three 300 W bulbs at least. One of them can be a 500 W.

All the best, S. W.

[slashmaster]

That’s a ridiculous question. What was the scene lit like? How close have you been to the object? Was it dark or bright? And f/2.8 is not too wide open for “normal room lighting”. Your negative is badly underexposed.

Do yourself a favor and get hold of a lightmeter. On that allow for a third stop more light by setting the dial to 320 ISO instead of 400 ISO. Processing seems to be fairly well within reasonable values. Old stocks tend to produce fog.

I’d try to find a fast lens, i. e. one with f/1.4 or thereabouts, decrease the frame rate if possible, but above all light the scene with three 300 W bulbs at least. One of them can be a 500 W.

All the best, S. W.

The scene was 3 feet away in a room about as well lit as a subway station. Yes, should have had more light. But when I tried again outdoors in daylight I got satisfactory results as far as the exposure is concerned. Still trying to figure out what to do about the fog. Also trying to figure out how to process it more evenly.

[Mmechanic]

Well then, let me try to get to the core of it.

First of all, why that old stock? It’s a black-and-white negative film that had ISO 500 in daylight at its time. As you were stating yourself you encounter fog and some loss of sensitivity. In artificial light Kodak indicated ISO 400, logic, about a third of the daylight spectrum is absent, everything of shorter wavelength than about 500 nm., blue-violet-ultraviolet. That said, remains only a nostalgic or natural curiosity motive for that one uses 4-X. Or stinginess

I am certain you wouldn’t be able to tell a difference from prints struck off Kodak 4-X and something similar like Ilford HP 5. That’s gone, too, so today you pick Orwo N 74, a ISO 400 panchromatic black-and-white negative film. I know it, it’s as good as ol’ Kodak, believe me. In tungsten light, of course, you would set your lightmeter to ISO 320, also a third stop less. http://www.filmotec.de/?cat=23&lang=en&lang=en

Maybe, now, we have another problem. Would you mind passing over your camera’s serial number or tell us more exactly which model you have and what settings were in play? I can imagine that there is something not readily clear with camera and/or lens. With reflex models the prism block may have a flaw. Since I have repaired Paillard-Bolex H cameras and have adjusted prism blocks with the aid of an autocollimator and mirror, I am familiar with the subject.

Thirdly, processing. High-speed films, contrary to popular belief, need a stronger developer than less sensitive ones. D-76 is an old-timer, first published in 1927. Kodak recommends formula D-96 for their movie films. That is a Metol-Hydroquinone formula with a balance M-H of 1:1. D-76 has an M-H balance of 2:5. Your choice was very good. The only thing I can make out from what you say is too little agitation. Do keep the reel in constant movement in the bath (not too wild), especially during the first 20 seconds. But again, old film will never behave like fresh film.

[slashmaster]

Well then, let me try to get to the core of it.

First of all, why that old stock? It’s a black-and-white negative film that had ISO 500 in daylight at its time. As you were stating yourself you encounter fog and some loss of sensitivity. In artificial light Kodak indicated ISO 400, logic, about a third of the daylight spectrum is absent, everything of shorter wavelength than about 500 nm., blue-violet-ultraviolet. That said, remains only a nostalgic or natural curiosity motive for that one uses 4-X. Or stinginess

I am certain you wouldn’t be able to tell a difference from prints struck off Kodak 4-X and something similar like Ilford HP 5. That’s gone, too, so today you pick Orwo N 74, a ISO 400 panchromatic black-and-white negative film. I know it, it’s as good as ol’ Kodak, believe me. In tungsten light, of course, you would set your lightmeter to ISO 320, also a third stop less. http://www.filmotec.de/?cat=23&lang=en&lang=en

Maybe, now, we have another problem. Would you mind passing over your camera’s serial number or tell us more exactly which model you have and what settings were in play? I can imagine that there is something not readily clear with camera and/or lens. With reflex models the prism block may have a flaw. Since I have repaired Paillard-Bolex H cameras and have adjusted prism blocks with the aid of an autocollimator and mirror, I am familiar with the subject.

Thirdly, processing. High-speed films, contrary to popular belief, need a stronger developer than less sensitive ones. D-76 is an old-timer, first published in 1927. Kodak recommends formula D-96 for their movie films. That is a Metol-Hydroquinone formula with a balance M-H of 1:1. D-76 has an M-H balance of 2:5. Your choice was very good. The only thing I can make out from what you say is too little agitation. Do keep the reel in constant movement in the bath (not too wild), especially during the first 20 seconds. But again, old film will never behave like fresh film.

Thanks Mmechanic!

I paid 22.50 for a little over 500 ft of it from a filmmaker who seems to have given up on films. Thought it would be a good idea to have junk film to learn off of, and experiment with.

To give you a really good idea of what I'm trying to do, this band wants me to make a music video of them doing this song at this club. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjR0YgVtKVQ guess there is no way I can do that with what I have right? I did use fuji eterna 500 for one club with more lighting and one club with less but have not processed it yet. I used a Yvar 15mm lens opened all the way to f 2.8 at 24fps the entire time.

Oh yeah, NO reflex! I don't want my image being messed up by a prism with dust on both sides. I wonder how much resolution you lose with a camera like that anyway? Can't give you my cameras serial number because film is currently in it but it's the non reflex between 1954 and 1958. It's not the double ratcheting claw, it's the one that spins on that triangular cam, don't know what it's called, but that's the one that gives better registration right? As far as I know I could only do better if I got something with pin registration like an arri right?

Oh yeah, one more thing, another experiment I tried for that bands music video was filming images off a monitor. I first used software to reverse the images, then filmed them at 8 fps at f 4. The results were, the blacks were not black enough, there was less contrast than I'd like and you could see slight image flickr typical when you film a monitor. So I guess next I'll try opening to f2.8, cranking up monitor brightness, contrast and turning up the refresh rate. I wonder if I'd be better off using software to convert the images to black and white first, or just let it naturally happen like I already did?

[Mmechanic]

I see. Choice whether color or black and white is yours. Shooting color you have KODAK VISION3 500 T, Type 7219. Black-white Orwo N 74, Kodak Tri-X reversal 160 T, Type 7266, Fomapan R(eversal) 100, and Orwo Universal Negative 54 ISO 100.

With faster lenses you gain a lot of exposure light. From a f/2.8 opening to f/2 exposure is doubled and from f/2 to f/1.4 again. Four times more light! The widest opening lenses available for your camera are the Schneider Xenon 25-0.95 and the Angénieux 25-0.95. Next is the Kern Macro Switar 26-1.1. Longer focal lengths would be the 2" or 50 mm ones such as Kern Switar 50-1.4, Angénieux 50-1.5 Type S2 or Schneider Xenon 50-0.95. Focussing must be done with prudence, I recommend that you use sticks, a good fluid head, and measure a few distances from camera to selected points of the scene. That way you can adjust according to where an actor is moving. A focus pulling assistant would be worth gold because you can then concentrate on framing. A second camera on tripod is also advised, prefocused lenses, perhaps with electric motor and remote switch. The little Unimotor (MC-17) works fine. It’ll allow you to pull a 100-ft. load through uninterruptedly, 2 min. 46 seconds.

Your camera should be equipped with the focussing prism behind the upper turret lens port, most probably you have the eye-level viewfinder that allows to see the ground prism surface from behind the cam. With it you can prefocus your lenses right on the scene and don’t need a measuring tape.

We are having a contradiction about your camera. Paillard introduced the flung-on claw in 1954, the triangular cam claw drive is the original design from the beginning. Switch was from serial number 100,400 to 100,401. There is no difference in steadiness between the two mechanisms, a complete myth. But the original design offered 190 degrees effective shutter opening angle while the H-16 from #100,401 on have a 170 degree shutter. About ten percent difference in exposure time

[slashmaster]

Yeah, tried a kodak 500 and had it professionally processed. Have tried plenty of tri-x, will probably try the fomapan next but never removed an antihalation layer before. An f stop of .95 sounds like it would be great if I could find one for a projector but very difficult to stay focused on just what you want when filming.

I found a video of what I have, this guy seems to know his cameras well, he says this one is from around 1952 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkBbnnp-yEY I actually have 2 cameras like this but one is for parts here is the shutter which actually is mine. https://www.facebook.com/ShildFilm/phot ... =3&theater I'm wondering if it would run better if I cut one out of a sheet of carbon fiber? Maybe made a counterbalance for it too?

[Mmechanic]

Only color films have an antihalation layer that needs to be removed mechanically, it’s a soot-blackened gelatine backing*. With black-and-white stocks we discern between so-called untrue and true reversal films. True reversal films like Fomapan R and Agfa Scala or the former Agfa Dia Direct have a colourless base and a subbing layer between the photographic layer(s) and the base. Fomapan has pure silver in there, the Scala has a glass-soap (manganese dioxide) subbing. These antihalo protective layers must be bleached and the so soluble made compound dissolved out of the film by a bleach and a clearing bath. Untrue reversal films have a died or grey base in order to dampen the excess light that is reflected by the glossy rear film surface. The problem is known since glass plate photography which was published in 1851.
_______________

* The removal takes place at the end of an alkaline pre-bath in a machine processor by means of rotary brushes in conjunction with underwater suction nozzles close to them.

[Mmechanic]

To camera: With that shutter you definitely have a model with serial number below 100,401. When you measure you’ll find a value of 192 degrees opening angle. Due to the distance between shutter blade and film the shutter edges are not sharply defined on the aperture. Of the 192 degrees a little less is effective, the nominal 190 degrees. That effectiveness still depends on the actual lens’ focal length.

Why not try a fresh shutter? I’d be very interested to hear about results and experience. A well balanced shutter would certainly add to a more smoothly running camera, no doubt. I assume that Paillard bought a licence from the Rockwell Engineering Laboratory of Chicago for the H camera. Paillard could afford a big and complete package. The Bolex cameras from Geneva are only toys in comparison to the Paillard-Bolex H. What the H stands for I can only hypothesise, it might have to do with an intermediary, perhaps David Sherrill Hulfish, a man at home with motion-picture equipment patents.

[slashmaster]

To camera: With that shutter you definitely have a model with serial number below 100,401. When you measure you’ll find a value of 192 degrees opening angle. Due to the distance between shutter blade and film the shutter edges are not sharply defined on the aperture. Of the 192 degrees a little less is effective, the nominal 190 degrees. That effectiveness still depends on the actual lens’ focal length.

Why not try a fresh shutter? I’d be very interested to hear about results and experience. A well balanced shutter would certainly add to a more smoothly running camera, no doubt. I assume that Paillard bought a licence from the Rockwell Engineering Laboratory of Chicago for the H camera. Paillard could afford a big and complete package. The Bolex cameras from Geneva are only toys in comparison to the Paillard-Bolex H. What the H stands for I can only hypothesise, it might have to do with an intermediary, perhaps David Sherrill Hulfish, a man at home with motion-picture equipment patents.

So Tri-x is an untrue reversal film? I did not know that having the shutter farther away from the film slightly reduces the exposure time. Does the same thing go for projectors? If I can move the shutter slightly closer to the film the screen brightness will slightly increase?

Yeah, if I can find the right thickness sheet of carbon fiber, that would be lighter than the aluminum it's made of. Not only that, but since the first frame of every scene is usually a bit overexposed from the camera accelerating up to speed, this will reduce that! Also you can feel the vibration, probably causes a little microscopic blur. Was going to try to machine a counterbalance out of steel to replace the washer held on by those 3 screws but there is so little room for it.

[Mmechanic]

Right, Kodak Tri-X reversal is an untrue reversible film. Basically, you can reverse every negative film but negative emulsions are not made for a positive image that stands up to a good slide’s or ciné print’s density. Eastman-Kodak Co. took measures to reduce their silver consumption in the mid-fifties and one of them resulted in a new line of reversal black-and-white stocks. They introduced Plus-X reversal and Tri-X reversal with grey base in 1955, Double-X reversal in 1959, and 4-X reversal in 1967. In 1963-64 a massive silver-price driven market concentration occured. A number of film manufacturers were bought together and their names disappeared from the shelves. EKC as the second largest silver consumer in the world continued to strive along that line by cutting out heavily silver loaded photo papers and more such products.

You are also right about that screen brightness will increase when the shutter works more closely to the aperture but to little avail only.

We have come to a sensitive point about the Paillard-Bolex H camera in this discussion: originally designed as a compact and lightweight travel camera, one could as well say as a portable or hand-held object with gleamy rims for the swaggerer, it does have the properties of a fast report camera (long winding crank, automatic threading) but it has distinct properties that go into the opposite direction at the same time. You are just pointing one out, vibration. By carefully studying the development of the Paillard-Bolex H-16/H-9/H-8 I have come to the conclusion that there must have been lack of understanding of the product with Albert Paillard or the management of E. Paillard & Cie as a whole. They bought themselves in without complete comprehension of all the implications. Who is going to use the camera for what, when, how, and why?

Well, Paillard wouldn’t have to worry much about such questions. Sales took off at a breathtaking pace, they could just keep up delivering with demand. So only bit by bit the most urgently needed changes were made. Even on wind-up one was not settled. Buyers could choose among a key and a handle for years. There were at least five different embossing styles for the PAILLARD BOLEX logo in the upper right-hand corner of the body leathering. Then a single-frame counter was made available. Then the eye-level finder, then a turret revolving lever that avoided spoiling a lens’ setting, and so on.

The revolving shutter is one of the two main elements of a ciné camera. A camera with an unbalanced shutter cannot be taken seriously. In the consequence you actually have to use all pre-1954 H cameras on a sturdy support and here comes the original design back into play: the small round body base. It lastet 28 years until a bigger base was admitted. The heavy zoom lenses, magazine, and motors were the reason for that change in 1963.

The oldest H cameras allow for winding the spring from its core. A slotted cap screw is undone from the housing for access to a LH M5 thread in the core. Now you can constantly rewind during a shoot and hence let the camera run uninterruptedly thanks to the going spring barrel. A flexible shaft is best suited for the purpose. The internal mechanism continued to have a through spring core a few more years after they made body shells without an opening there.

We must not forget that a technically impressive 16-mm. film camera was put on the market in April 1933, the Ciné-Kodak Special. The CKS offered a balanced variable shutter, a unique lateral film guidance that acts via the film perforation, not the edges, quick-change pre-load magazines of 100-ft. and 200-ft. capacity, and a reflex viewing system usable at standstill. There was an electric motor available and a mechanical coupling device from the spring wind axle to the shutter lever. A Tullio Pellegrini of San Francisco copied that CKS accessory for the early Paillard-Bolex H-16 Reflex VS. Paillard took it over from him. Kodak’s patent had elapsed.

[slashmaster]

Right, Kodak Tri-X reversal is an untrue reversible film. Basically, you can reverse every negative film but negative emulsions are not made for a positive image that stands up to a good slide’s or ciné print’s density. Eastman-Kodak Co. took measures to reduce their silver consumption in the mid-fifties and one of them resulted in a new line of reversal black-and-white stocks. They introduced Plus-X reversal and Tri-X reversal with grey base in 1955, Double-X reversal in 1959, and 4-X reversal in 1967. In 1963-64 a massive silver-price driven market concentration occured. A number of film manufacturers were bought together and their names disappeared from the shelves. EKC as the second largest silver consumer in the world continued to strive along that line by cutting out heavily silver loaded photo papers and more such products.

You are also right about that screen brightness will increase when the shutter works more closely to the aperture but to little avail only.

We have come to a sensitive point about the Paillard-Bolex H camera in this discussion: originally designed as a compact and lightweight travel camera, one could as well say as a portable or hand-held object with gleamy rims for the swaggerer, it does have the properties of a fast report camera (long winding crank, automatic threading) but it has distinct properties that go into the opposite direction at the same time. You are just pointing one out, vibration. By carefully studying the development of the Paillard-Bolex H-16/H-9/H-8 I have come to the conclusion that there must have been lack of understanding of the product with Albert Paillard or the management of E. Paillard & Cie as a whole. They bought themselves in without complete comprehension of all the implications. Who is going to use the camera for what, when, how, and why?

Well, Paillard wouldn’t have to worry much about such questions. Sales took off at a breathtaking pace, they could just keep up delivering with demand. So only bit by bit the most urgently needed changes were made. Even on wind-up one was not settled. Buyers could choose among a key and a handle for years. There were at least five different embossing styles for the PAILLARD BOLEX logo in the upper right-hand corner of the body leathering. Then a single-frame counter was made available. Then the eye-level finder, then a turret revolving lever that avoided spoiling a lens’ setting, and so on.

The revolving shutter is one of the two main elements of a ciné camera. A camera with an unbalanced shutter cannot be taken seriously. In the consequence you actually have to use all pre-1954 H cameras on a sturdy support and here comes the original design back into play: the small round body base. It lastet 28 years until a bigger base was admitted. The heavy zoom lenses, magazine, and motors were the reason for that change in 1963.

The oldest H cameras allow for winding the spring from its core. A slotted cap screw is undone from the housing for access to a LH M5 thread in the core. Now you can constantly rewind during a shoot and hence let the camera run uninterruptedly thanks to the going spring barrel. A flexible shaft is best suited for the purpose. The internal mechanism continued to have a through spring core a few more years after they made body shells without an opening there.

We must not forget that a technically impressive 16-mm. film camera was put on the market in April 1933, the Ciné-Kodak Special. The CKS offered a balanced variable shutter, a unique lateral film guidance that acts via the film perforation, not the edges, quick-change pre-load magazines of 100-ft. and 200-ft. capacity, and a reflex viewing system usable at standstill. There was an electric motor available and a mechanical coupling device from the spring wind axle to the shutter lever. A Tullio Pellegrini of San Francisco copied that CKS accessory for the early Paillard-Bolex H-16 Reflex VS. Paillard took it over from him. Kodak’s patent had elapsed.

Oh alright, by denser do you mean finer grained or thicker emulsion? Would a true reversal film have blacker blacks?

Next time I have one of my projectors apart I'll see how much room there might be to move the shutter closer.

Thanks for the story about Bolex! Never saw one with a wind up key, was it threaded like the crank? Didn't know what that big screw on the side of the camera was for until now. I need a turret with a lever, that's like a car with a steering column shifter....

Tell me something, it looks like they made an attachable base for a roundbase. But how did you attach it? Did it screw into the tripod mount and have it's own tripod thread someplace else? My camera has a mark on the leather as if one had been on it a long time.

So if Bolex's can't be taken seriously because of the shutter, what other ones can? The Cine Kodak Special, Arri? Mitchell? Certainly not the filmo or the brownie.

So the Kodak cine special has a registration pin that moves in and out?

[Mmechanic]

Photographic density or opacity is the opposite of transparency. How much light a given area lets pass through. It’s generally given as logarithmic value.

The aluminum attachable base plate screws into the camera thread and catches the body. There are threads besides the one now occupated, a congress and a ¼".

The CKS doesn’t have registration pins. Single claw, originally in the +3 position but with later magazines +5 (perforation hole counted down from optical axis where claw leaves film). DIN ISO 69 says +3.

The Filmo is a very good camera. The gate and crucial parts are made from nitrited steel. No wear. Gate is well designed. Claw +3. You can oil the mechanism.

Professional cameras for 16-mm. film? Berndt-Bach Auricon (+3), Ciné-Kodak Special, Mitchell 16 (+1), Arriflex 16 (+1), Eclair NPR (+3), Cinema Products (+3), Aaton (+3), Panaflex-X 16.

The Paillard-Bolex H-16 and H 8 have an inverted film side guidance. Contrary to DIN 69 that defines the right-hand film edge as reference edge, as seen from behind camera towards lens, the fixed side rails are on the left and the spring acts on the right side. But there are still weirder concepts of lateral film guidance, don’t worry about. Even some modern 35-mm. film cameras are designed with flaws and bugs.