Which BW for copy-negative

Post by **FILM-THURSO** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:37 pm

Well I have a question and I want no conjecture. Which Kodak monchrome reversal film would be best to make a copy negative from a 1930s/40s 35mm Nitrate camera orriginal negative? (And yes I do know the hazards of Nitrate films)

Post by **mattias** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:47 pm

while this doesn't really answer your question i'd probably use a digital intermediate for that.

/matt

Post by **audadvnc** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:29 pm

You might want to place this question on the cinematography.com forum, in the film stocks and processing forum:

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004 ... howforum=9

They have a Kodak representative, John P Pytlak, on line and making informed commentary on issues such as this.

Post by **FILM-THURSO** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 7:59 pm

Thanks Aud, that looks interesting so I've added it to my favourites list.

Sorry Mattias but digital won't do it justice and I could get it for free if I give the film to an archive but in this case being a camera original, I'm keeping ownership and the archive will get the copy.
Perhaps I should have said what Super 8 reversal film? Parts of the negative are in a fragile condition but can be manually copied to super 8 or 16mm quite easily. It's just a question of which of Kodak's two monochromes would retain the picture grade of the original image. The negative is a medium grade emullsion. A film master is required from the negative at the earliest possible date.

Film-Thurso doesn't do digital intermediate, I'll be in my trailer!!!

Post by **mattias** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:33 pm

FILM-THURSO wrote:digital won't do it justice

that's of course qualified b/s.

/matt

Post by **christoph** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:46 pm

FILM-THURSO wrote:It's just a question of which of Kodak's two monochromes would retain the picture grade of the original image. The negative is a medium grade emullsion.

if you really want to use a reversal film, plus-x is definitely the better choice.. but you'll still have a pretty high contrast build up... you could try to pull process the film slightly.. i didn't really understand what format the original camera negative is in though... but if you go 16mm you could also try plus-x negative and strike a print from that.

a digital intermediate will technically superiour to any optical work that you can afford these days, but i can understand that you'd prefer to do it the old way.
++ christoph ++

Post by **mattias** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:50 pm

christoph wrote:i can understand that you'd prefer to do it the old way.

so can i mind you.

/matt

Post by **christoph** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:09 pm

mattias wrote:
christoph wrote:i can understand that you'd prefer to do it the old way.
so can i mind you.

uh?

Post by **mattias** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:26 pm

christoph wrote:
mattias wrote:
christoph wrote:i can understand that you'd prefer to do it the old way.
so can i mind you.
uh?

ok, so can i (comma) mind you? better?

/matt

Post by **FILM-THURSO** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:41 pm

The original film is 35mm Nitrate movie stock in standard widescreen dating from the 1930s. Striking to 16mm negative would create a posative image on the 16mm neg. Color reversal film will retain a negative image from the master negative to enable posatives to be made later.
The choice of printing to film is because we are going to use the footage within the film medium and with 65mm PIP format which is a new way(!) to handle film without going digital. Digital can't offer what is required for this task and doesn't meet our optical transfer standards but as I've said I can get it on digital for free if I donate the film to an archive- but I don't want to give the film away being that it is original camera material. A copy negative is esspecially nessecary because Nitrate film (the films' plastic base is composed of a nitrate and camfor cellulose base-Highly flammable/explosive) will have to be destroyed at the earliest date for safety reasons. Nitrate simply can't be kept. The film is to be put into new film use having never reached it's original intended and now unknown use.

Post by **mattias** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:44 pm

FILM-THURSO wrote:Digital can't offer what is required for this task

b/s. *sigh*

/matt

Post by **reflex** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:14 am

FILM-THURSO wrote: The choice of printing to film is because we are going to use the footage within the film medium ... Digital can't offer what is required for this task and doesn't meet our optical transfer standards

I originally posted a pro-digital-intermediate message, but then gave it a bit of thought. I think film is probably the right answer for you (assuming you're on a limited budget). Film has a much wider brightness range than most low/mid-end digital setups. Unless you have massive amounts of money to burn, you'll get more bang for your buck with film.

Modern film restoration techniques involve digital intermediates and extremely high quality scans of the original material. They do not require the generation loss (and resultant loss of resolution) inherent in an analogue copy.

Currently, Lowry Digital is on the cutting edge of the technology. Their Casablanca restoration is nothing short of miraculous - perfect registration, excellent contrast, and no single-frame defects.

Post by **mattias** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:09 am

reflex wrote:Film has a much wider brightness range than most low/mid-end digital setups.

and who on earth would suggest using a low end/diy digital intermediate for such a task? that's almost even more stupid than suggesting an 8 mm optical would produce better results than a d.i.

/matt

Post by **Dusty** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:55 am

A copy negative is esspecially nessecary because Nitrate film (the films' plastic base is composed of a nitrate and camfor cellulose base-Highly flammable/explosive) will have to be destroyed at the earliest date for safety reasons. Nitrate simply can't be kept.

The danger of nitrate film is greatly exaggerated. If the film is in good condition, the risk of it spontaneously combusting is next to zero. Even if it's decomposed beyond recovery, say stage 4, it's still relatively stable. Only at stage 5 (reduced completely to a brownish red powder) do you have to fear sudden movement or changes in temperature setting it off.

In one of Kodak's test to see just how dangerous it is, they took 1000' of decomposing (between stages 2-4) film, sealed it in an airtight can, wrapped it in insulation, then cooked it at 106Ã‚Â°F. It took 17 days to catch fire. And people are afraid of projecting it since it passes in front of a hot light for 1/16-1/24 of a second. Madness. Not that nitrate fires didn't or don't happen, but they're far, far rarer than you'd be led to believe.

I've got some nitrate lying around. Not a lot, maybe 600-700' total. Apart from 100', it's all in great condition. It could last another 50 years, easily. The 100' is a spool of unexposed camera film from 1926. It's at stage 4. It will burn explosively if you light it afire (and I have done to a small piece of it, very dramatic). But as long as you don't let it get too hot (keep it under 70Ã‚Â°F), it's fine.

Don't wet it, though. It will hasten the decomposition, not slow it. If it catches fire, DON'T WET IT. It can't be extinguished by simple smothering as it produces it own oxygen supply, all you can do is isolate it and let it burn out. It will be quick. Keep the area well ventilated, the fumes released when it burns are deadly.

I wouldn't destroy the film. It's the best copy of the image there will ever be, no duplication will match it exactly. Copy it for a safe record, sure, but keep the original. If you don't feel safe with it, have it stored at a vault (around here, space in a vault for nitrate film is $30 a month).

Post by **mattias** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:41 pm