|  IP: Logged

The Kodak website has quite a bit of information about nitrate film:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/about/environment/nitrate.shtml http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/about/environment/booklet.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/storage3.shtml#nitratea http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/h1/identification.shtml http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/h1/preservation.shtml http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/technical/vinegar.shtml http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/about/environment/mole.shtml

Date code information is at:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/dateCode.shtml

Kodak has been putting date codes on motion picture film since 1916!

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

 |  IP: Logged

Kodak publication H-182 has the information: http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/about/environment/booklet.shtml

BTW, anyone with nitrate film should contact a recognized film archive to see if it is rare and needs to be preserved. NEVER store nitrate film in occupied or public buildings. Only approved nitrate film vaults should be used. Storing nitrate film in a home or theatre is likely to void any fire or liability insurance you have.

To show the dangers involved with nitrate film, here is the tragic story of the "Cleveland Clinic Fire" in 1929:
http://www.ccf.org/act/frames/chp3/chp3_1.htm
http://www.ccf.org/act/frames/chp3/chp3_2.htm

The answer: It isn't 1937 ... It's 1917!

The inner two feet are destroyed -- the emulsion has disintegrated, but the rest of the film images are intact; it's still very flexible, not brittle at all, no emulsion tackiness outside of the inner two feet, with little sprocket damage. The film has shrunk about 2%. (I laid it over a piece of new film, and the 49th hole on the nitrate lines up with the 48th hole on the estar.)

Yes, I know to keep this film cool, dry, well ventilated, and never to project it!

Maybe you have one of the ten "lost classic" films that the American Film Institute is looking for:
http://www.irsmarketing.com/adventures/Frankenstein/may5th.htm

Never run nitrate (at home or theatre) unless you have spool boxes, fire traps, projector door and fire extinguishers close by. Most nitrate is full of nicks and often in poor condition (its all at least 48 years old) so be careful!"

I would be very surprised indeed if nitrate has never been run on a platter. These things have now been around for a long time, and I'm sure that it must have happened from time to time. While the probability of a nitrate print igniting while being projected is low, the consequenses if it did happen while being run on a platter in a modern box (booth), would be so serious, as to not bear thinking about. I am not sure if the risk of this happening is increasing, or reducing; There are less nitrate prints around today, but there are also few projectionists who work with nitrate, or who have ever seen any, and therefore, there is a greater chance that a nitrate print could slip through without being spotted, if one did turn up. I recently had through my hands a nitrate short, which had about 30 feet of junk spliced on to the head. I can think of no reason to do this, other than to run it from a platter, I cannot be certain, but I think this print had been run this way at some time.

I did just once have an unexpected nitrate print delivered, and it was what is supposed not to exist; a nitrate 16mm print. This was about 20 years ago, when I was working as a technician in a school. Something didn't seem quite right about this print when I inspected it, it smelt a bit odd, and didn't feel quite right. I didn't think of nitrate at first, you don't expect it with 16mm, but I was not happy about this print, and eventually I tested a clipping from it. I had great difficulty geting the film library to believe me when I 'phoned them, but in the end they did, and I was right. This print was of Russian origin, and another similar one in the library was on safety stock. I suspect that a roll of the wrong stock was put through the 16mm slitter/perforator in error, at a time when the same factory was producing both.

This print had been around for decades, and would have been projected many times, under quite unsuitable conditions, without mishap, but it is possible that it could have ignited, and a nitrate fire, even of just a few hunderd feet, in a school classroom, would be a most serious matter.

I think that anyone who handles film today, even if they normally only see new prints, still needs to be aware of nitrate, it is still possible, if unlikely, that an old nitrate print will turn up from somewhere one day.

Nitrate film is a hazardous material, only a fool would claim otherwise, but people handle other hazardous materials, without causing major disasters. People fill their cars with petrol every day, yet you don't often hear of motorists incinerating themselves by doing this. I would consider petrol to be more dangerous than nitrate, it is a liquid, is highly volatile, and the vapor ignites very easily. If somebody sranding in a room full of people were to drop a roll of nitrate film, not a lot would happen. If the same person were to spill a litre of petrol it would stread out over a large area, this, combined with the high volatility, would result in a high concentration of vapor in the air, chich could travel a considerable distance to a source of ignition, which could be nothing more than a small spark, yet people who handle petrol every day, and think nothing of it, are terrified at the thought of nitrate film. I would certainly not store nitrate at home, (nor would I store cans of petrol), I have worked on it at home, a single reel reel at a time, but always remove it before going to bed. Providing it is in good condition, a properly equipped projection box is used, and all reasonable precautions are taken, nitrate film can be projected without undue risk, there used to be thousands of theatres doing it every night, and serious fires were not common.

I see no risk why this should not be done today. Sadly, it is now almost impossible, at least here in the uk, to find anywhere that can still do this. If we totally ban the projection of nitrate, then it will be quite impossible to see processes such as cemented Technicolor which look quite different in their original form to a modern chromogenic dupe.

"I still argue that it is one of the most stable film stocks though. I have nitrate from pre 1920 still in perfect condition. Can anyone prove that acetate or polyester lasts longer - produce the goods!"

I too have seen nitrate of this age, and older, which looked as good as new. On the other hand, in the early '70s I saw a roll of late nitrate, then only about twenty years old, and it was little more than sticky dust. I think that good quality nitrate, well processed, and stored under good conditions is at least as good as diacetate and triacetate in this respect, and probably better. As for polyester, I don't think anyone knows for sure, it hasn't been around long enough. Everyone thought triacetate was far more stable than nitrate didn't they, then we got a nasty shock.

As for the other on-going debate about nitrate, that of it looking better than safety stocks, I am not convinced; but am prepared to be so, if someone presents better evidence than I have seen so far. I recently projected several samples of nitrate, diacetate, triacetate and polyester film, the best examples of each that I could find all looked very good. The diacetate was 16mm, as I was unable to find any 35mm on this base, all other film was 35mm, and all was black and white. Projection of both guages was by carbon arc, on the same screen. I have seen good and bad nitrate, the same with safety.

One possible reason I can think of for the good reputation which nitrate has is this: The final demise of nitrate stock came at about the same time as the introduction to general use of Eastmancolor, and other similar, chromgenic stocks. Within just a few years of this, colour had become very much the norm for feature film production, black and white being mainly used for low-budget work, newsreels, television etc. I am now 45, and I can only remember seeing one or two new feature films in the cinema, not including a few made in more recent times for reasons of artistic choice. Most of the black and white material I saw was of poor quality, newsreels, low contrast telecine prints, poor video transfers and 16mm prints shown at school which were in very poor condition, and should have been scrapped years, if not decades, before. To make matters worse, these were projected with dim tungsten lamps.

I think that many people have only seen poor quality black and white film, several people have been amased when I have shown them what it can look like, and it can look very good, whatever base the stock is on. Could it be that good quality black and white largely died out at about the same time as nitrate, and that what people are seeing as an advantage of nitrate is, in fact, rather an advantage of older film, which just happens to be nitrate because of its age?

With television having converted to colour many years ago, 16mm projection in schools etc. now largely a thing of the past, and black and white no longer cheaper than colour, we are now seeing monochrome as 'art', its status has changed, and we are now more likely to see good prints than we have been for many years. Some recent prints which I have sen of classic films, on polyester stock, have looked very good indeed.

quote:

---

I did just once have an unexpected nitrate print delivered, and it was what is supposed not to exist; a nitrate 16mm print.... This print was of Russian origin, and another similar one in the library was on safety stock. I suspect that a roll of the wrong stock was put through the 16mm slitter/perforator in error, at a time when the same factory was producing both.

---

Have you ever seen such a print? I too have heard the reports of 16mm nitrate stock being used in Russia, but I have seen many Russian 16mm prints, and have never come across another nitrate one. The film library checked all their other Russian prints, they had a number of others, all of which were safety, including another copy of the same title. When I was in Russia myself in 1974, I saw film being projected in a number of exhibitions etc., which, had they been in this country, would probably have used 16mm, but all of these were 35mm.

I don't think that Nitrate was as commonly used as the rumors suggest. All I can be certain of is that at least one such print did exist. I think it is more likely that such prints were made, either in error, or due to a shortage of safety stock from time to time, Russia was well known for shortages of just about everything at various times, and some factory worker being under pressure to supply an order for 16mm thinking that they could get away with using nitrate, and nobody would notice.

While I was in Moscow, I did manage to visit the projection box of a cinema, and it was fully equipped as I would expect to see in a British box built for nitrate. The Russians were clearly aware of the dangers of nitrate; I really doubt that it was normal practice to make 16mm prints on nitrate stock, but I cannot be certain about this.

It is worrying that the print I found had been in circulation for twenty years or more, and had been projected in many schools during that time, without anybody discovering the fact. You could probably not expect teachers, and other staff in schools, to be aware of nitrate film, but this should have been picked up by the film library when the print was taken into stock; I don't know where it came from, whether it was supplied new from Russia, or if they obtained it used, from another source. I suppose that nobody expects to find 16mm nitrate, and that therefore they do not bother to look for it.

To repeat what I said in my previous post, I think that everyone who handles film today should still be aware of nitrate, and that no film which is old enough for there to be any possibility of it being nitrate, or which is of unknown age should ever be assumed to be safety, nor should edge markings be relied upon to identify a film stock.

I remember the day when a partner at a 42nd Street Theatre informed me
that a tech was coming to remove the enclosed film magazines that were
no longer required by law, and that we would be able to run 6000' reels from open spindles.

Robert Sprague sent me a copy of a one-page historic memo from the Fire Underators, permitting the use of open reels in a theatre running
safety film. That single page became the death certificate of many single-screen theatres, and opened the floodgates to the deluge of multi-and giga-plexes that followed.

As a child playing in the streets, one kid would supply us with
nitrate film (I remember inages of Chaplin and Rin-Tin-Tin on them)
and showed us how to roll a couple of feet in newspaper,and twist the edges tight like a party-favor. Then one would light the paper with a match, the rest would run back, and the lighter would run forward
when the film ignited, and stamp it out, whereupon blue-brown smoke would pour out with a most noxious odor. We called them "stink bombs" (I later learned they were used in political and labor conflicts.) Poor-boy fireworks, perhaps, innocently if dangerously
used by us, although an older boy was arrested for throwing one into a candy store.

I know of a few people that collect, store, handle and even project nitrate film. Two of them have varified that Film-Guard is safe on Nitrate too.

Apparantly, one of the keys to nitrate film is to air it out periodically and not let the gasses build up in the can (and never seal the cans).

I can tell you, I've seen nitrate on a platter (just a short, not a feature length) and it wasn't the brightest move I've ever seen(...then again anything on a platter isn't a bright idea, but that is just me ).

While nitrate can certainly be the makings of a disaster, it certainly isn't the guaranteed fire starter some make it out to be. It definately has a look that I find more pleasing than any of today's stocks...color or B&W.

Steve

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Stephen: Point taken about never letting your guard down - as I mentioned in the 'nitrate vs. newer stocks' thread, a film originated on safety negative or duplicated through safety intermediate stock can end up being printed on nitrate release print stock, hence confusing edge marks. However, given that the stuff has a finite lifetime there will come a point when the only nitrate left is in the care of professional archivists, and theoretically there will come a point when it's all gone. I've posted a 1951 guide to identifying nitrate from on that thread. Here is what the International Federation of Film Archives has to say on the matter:

quote:

---

7.5.1.a Edge Markings. For decades, film with an acetate [or polyester] base has been marked 'safety' on one or both edges of the film [by 'edge' I presume they mean the space between the perforations and the outer edge of the film surface], outside the perforations. However, you should treat this information with some caution because the marks could have been printed through from an earlier generation with a different base.

7.5.1.b Float test. The organic and toxic liquid trichloroethylene has a specific gravity between that of acetate and that of nitrate film. That means that while a small piece punched from a nitrate film will sink, a punching of acetate film will float on the surface of the trichloroethylene. However, the test is not completely reliable.

7.5.1.c Burning test. The commission does not recommend this method because it can be unreliable and unsafe, and because it consumes the film.

7.5.1.d Ultraviolet flourescence. Certain manufacturers, such as Kodak, incorporate a small amount of a flourescent chemical in the acetate film base - and this will flouresce when viewed under ultraviolet light.

Source: FIAF Preservation Commission, Preservation of Moving Images and Sound (ed. Henning Schou), pp. 36-37.

---

The float test is by far the most reliable, though I would not recommend the use of trichloroethylene in any environment other than a fume cabinet. There is a possibility that it could be carcinogenic.

Finally, I believe that Russian and Chinese 16mm nitrate is one of the topics covered in a new book being published next month on the history of nitrate, edited by Roger Smither of the Imperial War Museum film archive. I'll post details as soon as it's out. The Chinese certainly used it - I've seen a 16mm nitrate print of The Green River Flows East.