quarzchrome....

[richalezio]

hi

please somebody tell me that the russian super8 Quarzchrome (from widescreencentre) is reversal?

As I have just encouraged a friend to buy a few rolls of it 8O

thanx in advance

rich

[Fergus J. Ó MaoilEoin]

Yes, it is reversal film.

[timdrage]

From what I've read here it's hit and miss... I've shot a few rolls over the years, I love it, though in a certain sense it does look pretty bad... but goodbad... great for an old silent movie look.

In my experience the black isn't very black... more grey...

I've read horror stories here of rolls coming out partly/entirely fogged, etc... All my cartridges have exposed fine though.

[jhoneycutt]

I've read horror stories here of rolls coming out partly/entirely fogged, etc... All my cartridges have exposed fine though.

Did you change the notch on the film cart?

jack

[timdrage]

No, I just stuck it in the camera and filmed! Just lucky maybe! Mostly in cheapo auto cameras too... I mean, it may not be perfectly exposed technically speaking, but I got a decent enough image, none of it was fogged or anything like that.

[sunrise]

I've had good experience from the standard notch and standard processing. But other have tips on notching differently and pushing during development. A search on the forum shows many of these tips.

Fred and I will soon post some comparison tests of quarchrome compared to tri-x. It's been lying around for some while and it really shows quite some difference.

michael

[Angus]

I've used about 20 rolls of the stuff and I have found it to be inconsistent.

At it's best, it is a good usable B&W 50ASA film. More grain and less contrast (blacks are dark grey) than any Kodak stock but usaable.

At it's very worse, the first and last 10 feet are so fogged that those portions are unusable and the remaining 30 feet exhibit varying degrees of age fogging but are usable.


I've never had a roll come out totally unusable, or totally fogged. I have always used Andec for processing but will experiment with hand processing when time allows. I have a roll from December 2003 that I intend to push to 200ASA in processing, just haven't had the time!!!

[sunrise]

More grain and less contrast (blacks are dark grey) than any Kodak stock but usaable.

I found that it was less grain and less contrast than tri-x. I did not do plus-x test (yet).

michael

[Angus]

You're correct. I should clarify.

More grain than plus-x, less grain than tri-x

Less contrast than either plus-x or tri-x

It represents good value, especially if you are hand processing or using a cheap lab deal...as long as you don't expect it to be top quality.

I am fairly sure the fogging problems are due to the film being 12 years or so out of date. Lest we forget, "Quarzchrome" is a name applied by the Widescreen Centre (chief vendors of the stuff)...it is actualy Ukranian Svema film from circa 1990.

[jhoneycutt]

I found that it was less grain and less contrast than tri-x. I did not do plus-x test (yet).
michael

Have you shot any 16mm Fomapan? I was wondering how it would compare.

I just looked at some B&W 16mm that was shot in about 1950, and I have never seen such good looking B&W. I wish I could find some film to shoot that looks like that.

jack

[Fergus J. Ó MaoilEoin]

Would deliborately under-exposing by a stop or two help, or would it just look worse?

[jhoneycutt]

Would deliborately under-exposing by a stop or two help, or would it just look worse?

I don't know, but it is a good idea. Perhaps some learned film person could help us out....

jack

[munnin]

I did the same, i underexposed some colour quarzchrome two stops and doubled the developer and 2nd developer times and it came out nice - I am not a purist though, and find enjoyment even in mediocre conditions

[christoph]

Would deliborately under-exposing by a stop or two help, or would it just look worse?

well, never used quarzchrome myself but here's some theoretical thoughts about the matter:

the problem with film fogged due to age is that you'll never get a true black. not even if you don't expose it at all.
what happens is that the first developer will already affect some of the unexposed silver halides which have become activated due to their age. so if you put the film into the bleach some of the silver will get dissolved and no matter what you do in the second developer, you will never be able to get back a full black because some of the silver is already missing.
old film looses some of it's sensibility too, so you should be overexposing rather than underexposing. also, grain will show more on old film.

basically if you want high contrast, low grain immages do yourself a favor and use plus-x ;)

++ christoph ++

[sunrise]

Have you shot any 16mm Fomapan? I was wondering how it would compare.

I shot Fomapan as D8, it looks very good. The camera meter wasn't working so the footage is not really for comparison. The clip is on the ftp somewhere in quicktime format.

michael