Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Fading 70mm Print.....

This is topic Fading 70mm Print..... in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001935

Posted by David Miller (Member # 412) on 02-16-2001, 01:01 PM:

So now that the print of "Raiders Of The Lost Ark" is on screen here a the Cinerama it is pink, like they said it would be.

The problem is two fold. First, Paramount printed a special "Tomb Raider" trailer in 70mm to go on the front of each of the Indiana Jones films. The audience sees this and then everything goes pink once the feature starts. Second, I am very afraid that the people coming to see "Raiders" will think that the other two films are pink and won't come back, when in fact the other two are perfect. I was talking with another projectionist and we were discussing putting a piece of green or blue gel material over the window to see if we could counter act the some of the pink.

Has anyone heard of doing this? Is this just a far fetched fix that will cause more problems than it fixes? If indeed this would counter act some of the fading, what is the right type of material to use to minimize light loss on the screen and any other effects?

Thanks for any insight.

------------------
David Miller
millerdk@plu.edu
Projectionist, Seattle Cinerama

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-16-2001, 02:39 PM:

I don't blame you for wanting to "fix" it, but I think putting anything like filters in front of the image will make it worse (like reducing the light.)

Perhaps a printed hand-out or other note at the boxoffice to let people know that it's pink, and to say the others are OK? If you can print hand-outs, you can remind people that motion pictures do not last forever, that even this 70mm print still offers much less grain; maybe get a little fancy and show an actual-size picture of 70mm vs. 35mm.

Obviously JP will know for sure, but I think it might be better to leave it.....

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-16-2001, 02:51 PM:

Again, your print of Raiders was likely on the older print stock, before the widescale use of the much more stable Kodak print films introduced in 1982.

The amount and color of the fading depends upon the processing and storage conditions, but in general, old print films tend to have the cyan and yellow dyes fade faster than the magenta dye. So faded prints tend to become magenta or "pink".

The dye fading you are seeing usually results in a contrast change for each color --- in other words, the dark areas of the picture (shadows) tend to change more than the light areas (highlights). So putting an overall filter in front of the projector lens may help hide the fading in the shadows, but will tend to color the highlights. You need to use a filter that helps correct the pink shadows, without making the highlights too cyan-green.

You could try using a Kodak Color Correction Filters, which are now distributed by Tiffen Filters. Probably a moderate level of "cool" filtration like an 80A or 80B would make the picture look better, or a cyan or green color correction filter.

You should definitely make an announcement prior to the show, noting the fading on the oldest print, and reporting that the newer prints on the improved print film look much better.

It may be possible to scan representative frames from each print to show the relative color differences, and post those photos in the lobby. Can you show the new Tomb Raiders trailer AFTER the feature? Or can you get trailers of Temple of Doom and Last Crusade to show that they didn't fade?

Here are some links to information on Tiffen filters:
http://www.tiffen.com/tiffen.press%20release.html
http://www.tiffen.com/color_conversion_filter%20pricing.htm
http://www.saundersphoto.com/html/news/body_news.htm

If you do use a filter in front of the lens, be sure it is perfectly clean and scratch free. The intense heat near the aperture prevents placing the filter behind the lens or aperture.

Obviously, the best solution would be to make new 70mm prints, as the negatives were usually much less likely to fade significantly, especially if stored properly.

------------------
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 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Christos Mitsakis (Member # 143) on 02-16-2001, 03:48 PM:

I have a snipet from a 35mm re-release of 2001 a Space Odyssey back in early '80s and also from the original release of The Empire Strikes Back. Both have become magenta colored by now.
In 1997 when we run the SE of Empire I compared the same scene and took a picture of the two prints (my "High magenta"

and the new edition) for comparison. It would be intersting to post it here to see the diference. Actually it's a 35mm slide so I have to find a transparency scanner. As soon as I do this (I hope it is soon enough) I will send the picture to Brad.

Posted by John Eickhof (Member # 323) on 02-16-2001, 04:48 PM:

I agree with John Pytlak, contact a theatrical lighting / stage supply house, and order light and medium cyan filters, (Gels)
about 12" square, experiment with these. I have projected many faded prints to audiences using filters in the ports, the result is quite pleasing, and the light loss is minimal. The #80A filter may also be better than straight cyan, (I have not tried one yet though) I have used a very pale blue filter too on some prints. Good luck!!

------------------
John Eickhof President, Chief Slave
Northwest Theatre Equipment Co., Inc.
P.O.Box 258
Wendell, ID. 83355-0258
208-536-5489
email: jeickhof@nteequip.com

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-16-2001, 06:16 PM:

I remember seeing Indiana Jones and the temple of doom in 70mm years ago. I will never forget the rich colors that movie had. Mr. Pytlak is correct about Raiders. The only re-release the film had was in 1982. It was origonaly released in 1981. But from what I understand they only struck a few 35mm prints at the time. It was only a two week re-release. I saw Empire Strikes Back in 70mm also. THey also had these large surround speakers set up on each side and back of the theater. Three huge cabinets.

Posted by Brett Rankin (Member # 31) on 02-16-2001, 07:35 PM:

JP: >the negatives were usually much less likely to fade significantly<

...and why is that? Why would a negative retain better color than a print made at around the same time? Is it that the prints were processed in a different way than a camera negative, or that camera negative is totally different than print negative, or am I way off?

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-16-2001, 07:45 PM:

Could be the way the negatives are stored. Compared to the way prints are stored. Negatives are probably placed in special containers and placed in a tempreture controled valt. John will probably have the more acurate answer. Also these 70mm prints are blow-ups from the 35mm negatives. I remember when Ron Howard made Far and Away. I remember reading that the 70mm negative was opticaly transfered to 35mm negative and then blown back up to 70mm. Why was that?

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 02-16-2001, 07:49 PM:

>>Paramount printed a special "Tomb Raider" trailer in 70mm to go on the front of each of the Indiana Jones films.<<

Obviously Paramount has their priorities mixed WAY up.. If they are going to print a 70mm mag TOMB RAIDER(!) trailer, why didn't they just go for broke and run off one ( or better yet, SEVERAL new, not faded PRINTS of 'Raiders'?!?!?!? It boggles the mind...

Aaron

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-16-2001, 08:13 PM:

David,
We stock every Gel made by Lee, Rosco, And GAM. Let me know what you need to make it look better and I'll send it at N?C.
Mark @ GTS
mark@getgts.com

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-16-2001, 11:34 PM:

70mm trailers?!? What's up with that? Don't you have a second machine at the Seattle Cinerama that you could use for the trailers? That way, you would have yet another excuse for not having the managers run the 70mm shows (God forbid that they would have to actually learn how to do a changeover!)...

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-17-2001, 12:01 AM:

When we ran our double feature of Top Gun and Raiders Of The Lost Ark in 70mm about 1994, we ran Raiders first for that very reason. Raiders being pink and Top Gun being LPP.

We didn't get a single complaint about the colour in Raiders...but we would have been bombarded if it had been played second.

Maybe you could 'forget' to run the Tomb Raider trailer with Raiders but just run it with the other two. Or get a gel in front of the trailer that will make it turn pink.

Good luck with the screenings, David. I am extremely jealous as I have to sit here and screen this Hannibal shit while you are screening the best film ever made.

BTW, www.indy20.com. You voted yet?

------------------
"It's not the years, honey...it's the mileage". Indiana Jones

Posted by Stefan Scholz (Member # 147) on 02-17-2001, 07:46 AM:

On request from some film collectors using correction filters, I used them with some of my 70 mm screenings of classic films.These collectors stated, that the color is nicer to look at, but I could not follow. Yes it did not look as pink, but white was coloured cyan, and light output reduced. The only complain was from an older lady, master in photography. She did not like the "unnatural colorization of whites", and stated, that the human brain has a mechanism to adopt to faded color as long as the white stayswhite for reference. I could follow that.
The film collector folks like the filtered version better. We used glass filters one of the collectors brought in, despite may warning on radiation absorption and possible heat strains, we're using 7k Xenon, in the glass, they were used. The filter, as forseen, cracked. Even though no heat, the radiant energy within the visible spectrum absorbed is high enough.
Mainly, as long as the image is bright and sharp, the sound nicely stereophonic, folks will like the film and forget about the fading.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-17-2001, 08:19 AM:

Brett Rankin asked: "Why would a negative retain better color than a print made at around the same time? Is it that the prints were processed in a different way than a camera negative, or that camera negative is totally different than print negative, or am I way off?"

Color negative and intermediate films use different dye-forming couplers than print films, optimized for that application. Negative and intermediate films are processed in the ECN-2 process, which uses a different color developing agent (CD-3) than the more active (for higher contrast) CD-2 used in the print processes:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/processing/h24m7.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/processing/h249/index.shtml

Film processing conditions play a major role in image stability. For example, inadequate washing may leave a bit of fixer in the print (residual thiosulfate) which is known to hurt dye stability:
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/h1/preservation.shtml#processing

Heat and humidity during storage also hurt image and support stability. Release prints often have been stored in unconditioned warehouses and shipping depots, whereas the distributors generally store the original elements in conditioned film vaults:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/care.shtml
http://www.cinesite.com/la/presrest/protek.html

For those who are storing film, SMPTE Recommended Practice RP131 specifies Storage of Motion Picture Films. The latest revision of SMPTE RP131 is posted on the SMPTE website for public comment:
http://www.smpte.org/stds/rp131.pdf

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-17-2001, 08:29 AM:

Darryl Spicer said: "Also these 70mm prints are blow-ups from the 35mm negatives. I remember when Ron Howard made Far and Away. I remember reading that the 70mm negative was opticaly transfered to 35mm negative and then blown back up to 70mm."

First, "Far and Away" used 65mm camera negative film, not 70mm. It would be unlikely that a 35mm reduction intermediate film was made, and then blown-up to 65mm duplicate negative for the 70mm prints.

What you probably heard was that a 35mm reduction was made to make the 35mm prints.

Many 70mm features since the mid '60s (e.g., "Doctor Zhivago") were shot on 35mm film, and then blown-up a 65mm negative to make the 70mm prints. Other examples include the Star Wars trilogy, the Indiana Jones trilogy, and more recent films like "Titanic", which was shot in "Super-35". But starting with a 65mm negative (e.g., "Far and Away", "Hamlet", "Patton", "The Sound of Music", "My Fair Lady", etc.)will usually give the ultimate in quality.

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 02-17-2001, 08:50 AM:

David: I agree with John Walsh's suggestion about a hand-out flyer given out with each ticket at the box office or a sign at the box office to let patrons know about the fading of the first movie compared to the trailer and the second two movies. I would do this even if you manage to filter out some of the pink. I also agree with Stefan that if there is a 'reference white' then your brain will adjust.

Hopefully this recent anecdote will offer you some encouragement: I recently worked at a theatre that was wonderfully well-equipped for 70MM and was in the process of closing down (well, being taken over, but I digress). I found a 70MM reel of the movie 'Can't Stop the Music' - reel 3A/B, which has the 'Magic Nights' segment on it. Yes, it was red, but the whites were still good. Interestingly, there were no scratches or marks whatsoever - it was absolutely clean! I told my head projectionist about it and we ran it one night after work. When it first hit the screen we agreed that it was a bit red alright, but soon enough that didn't matter. Far more noteworthy was the perfect image registration (rock steady!), excellent focus and tight grain structure. Moreover, we watched it on a very large screen and noted how effortless it was to get this screen so brightly and uniformly lit with a 70MM aperture! The New York street scenes near the end of the reel jumped from the screen, and the contrast was superb. The musical number, 'Magic Nights', was a real 'blast from the past' and was absolutely infectious to listen to/watch. The next morning I was at work and the same projectionist I watched it with rang me just to express his delight with the experience of watching that reel. I felt the same way, and we agreed on how vastly entertaining it was to see 70MM again and how much steadier and brighter it was, and how the largest screens ought to be using 70MM release prints as standard. The redness was not mentioned, because it 'paled' in comparison to the other advantages of that presentation and the sheer enjoyment level that was attained.

So with 'Raiders', I am sure your audience is just going to love it. Your concerns are absolutely valid and I would use some kind of disclaimer and filtration if successful, but I have no doubts whatsoever that they will remember the experience for all the right reasons! Also, you have the advantage of showing 'the best movie ever made'.

Wish I could be there!

Posted by David Miller (Member # 412) on 02-17-2001, 01:44 PM:

Aaron: Just to clarify, the "Tomb Raider" trailer was in DTS format, since we have the 70mm DTS heads it was no big deal to set up. Though, I wasn't excited about running the print through one more head just for a trailer, it is working out alright. And, since the DTS head has to be placed before the mag head I barely got away with the frame delay. It is turned all the way to 99 and it is in perfect sync. Anymore space and we would have been in a little trouble.

------------------
David Miller
millerdk@plu.edu
Projectionist, Seattle Cinerama

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 02-19-2001, 03:30 AM:

70MM and fading, it brings heartbreak to us collectors of big guage film.

I would have several frames to complete spools of about 30 70MM films and hardly any of it is unaffected.

What I have learnt over and above from reading Kodak, this site and the various National Film archives is:

1. Never store it near flourescent light (or any light) it will fade before your eyes!

2. If you want VS to take hold fast store it on aluminium/magnesium spools. These were common as house spools and were thought to assist in preventing mag tracks disappearing. Metal spools are better, but my best kept 70MM has been stored on cores, in cardboard boxes for over 35 years.

3. At the first sniff of Vinegar remove the spool into isolation from the rest of your collection.

I would do anything to be able to run my "Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" footage again, but alas it is too late.

I ran both "Raiders" and "T.O.D." in 70MM. We ran T.O.D. with only one "off" in 9 months (the prince did a little skip down the stairs of the Panquot Palace). This print circulated until at least recent times in Australia. I have not seen it on the screen since it left my hands over 15 years ago.

The Raiders print ran for over 12 months in 70MM with no incidents that I can recall.

The worst 70MM print I ever ran was a faded 2001. It was 25 years old on last run I did and spl 2 had a heap of splices and the print had faded. It was razor sharp and still had very crisp sound.

David

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-19-2001, 05:53 AM:

David:

Reasons for your observations:

1. Prolonged exposure to fluorescent light can fade dyes prematurely. Daylight and fluorescent light both have considerable ultraviolet energy, which cause the fading. Tungsten light has much less effect, or display photographs and film clips behind glass that filters UV.

2. Free iron (e.g., rusted or corroded metal reels and cans) can accelerate vinegar syndrome. Haven't seen much data on aluminum or magnesium, but they certainly are reactive metals. Plastic cores are usually inert. Storing film in an acid-free cardboard box does allow any acid vapors to vent, which helps prevent vinegar syndrome. But cardboard does not protect against water damage.

3. Yes, once acetic acid starts to be released, it can affect other film in storage. Either segregate the film in a well ventilated area, or store the film in a sealed can with Molecular Sieves to adsorb any moisture or acids.

70mm and 35mm striped prints seem to be most prone to vinegar syndrome, evidently because of the iron and binder materials in the striping. Cool, dry, and vented (or sealed with Molecular Sieves) storage will go a long way to retard or even prevent vinegar syndrome on triacetate prints.

SMPTE Recommended Practice RP131 specifies "Storage of Motion-Picture Films". An Adobe Acrobat .pdf file of the latest revision is posted on the SMPTE website for public comment:
http://www.smpte.org/stds/rp131.pdf

As you note, Kodak has much good information on film storage available on the Kodak website:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/index.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/care.shtml

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 02-21-2001, 04:55 AM:

John,

Thanks for the feedback. I agree that mag striped 35mm and 70mm is more prone to VS.

Why is it then that my Std 8mm and Super 8mm collection of 100's of mag striped films is not affected by VS? Many titles date back to the late 1960's.

David

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 02-21-2001, 06:28 AM:

I have done a fair amount of experimenting with color filters on faded EK release prints. Obviously nothing will bring back good color balance to a really red print, and using a really dense filter is likely to do more harm than good. On the other hand, a mildly pink print can be improved with a medium cyan filter. My standard is the Kodak Wratten cyan #30 sheet filter mounted in a homemade holder several inches in front of the lens. It will kill the pink and give the picture a cool blue/white look which audiences may accept. This will also be useful on a brownish SP print if you run into one of those. Definitely experiment, but John Pytlak's right...the cyan dyes are most fugitive, so adding cyan is the first step.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-21-2001, 08:12 AM:

David Kilderry asked: "Why is it then that my Std 8mm and Super 8mm collection of 100's of mag striped films is not affected by VS? Many titles date back to the late 1960's."

I suspect that you stored your 8mm and Super-8 films under much better conditions (cooler and drier) than found in most film exchanges. Also, if your films were stored in cardboard boxes, the acid vapors were able to vent and not build up. Storing film in closed metal or plastic containers traps any acid vapors formed, accelerating the VS reaction. If sealed containers are used, use Molecular Sieves in the container to adsorb moisture and acids:
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/technical/vinegar.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/technical/molecular.shtml

Another factor may be that the 8mm and 16mm films were usually pre-striped by Kodak during manufacture of the film, whereas 35mm and 70mm prints were striped and sounded after processing.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 02-21-2001, 09:12 AM:

Yes, this is my first post here (longtime lurker, firsttime poster), but this info should be of some help.

I've also done some experimenting with color gels on faded prints, and found that Rosco offers an effective gel.

Rosco makes a series called CalColor, the various colors of which are designed to particular wavelengths. Their 15 Cyan (1/2 stop) #4315 does a good job of "restoring" cyan to the image. Since it takes away only 1/2 stop of light, that's not objectionable, and its effect on the white parts of the image are minor.

Something else to try.

Hillary

Posted by David Miller (Member # 412) on 02-21-2001, 09:48 AM:

Mark Gulbrandsen: Thank you for the offer to ship any gel I needed free of charge. However, due to time constraints it made more sense to track down the color in Seattle, especially since I received the e-mail from Hillary on Friday night.

Hillary: Thank you for the e-mail last week suggesting the Rosco #4315. In fact it was such a help that I was going to copy the text and post it here. Looks like you beat me to it.

None of the theater shops I called on Saturday actually had the #4315 in stock, but I was able to get a couple of swatch books and test out a sample. The difference was significant and the light loss on the screen was very minimal. Monday morning I tracked down a shop that carried the #4315 sheets and went and bought one.

Although, we only had two complaints (out of nearly 2500 people) over the weekend about the pinkish tint, it still looks much better than it did. Without comparing this gel to any of the other suggestions here I cannot say whether or not this method was better than some of the other color filters. However this sheet of gel was about $7.00, compared with some of the filters coming in at over $50. So I am quite happy with the results for the price.

Thanks again Hillary.

------------------
David Miller
millerdk@plu.edu
Projectionist, Seattle Cinerama

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 02-21-2001, 08:58 PM:

David,

I'm so glad to be of help. Thanks for the update.

Hillary

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 02-21-2001, 09:28 PM:

David Kilderry: Regarding your 8MM films from the 60's, I also find that a lot of my parents' home movies from the 60's and so forth - even with mag striping - are still perfect. I suspect that this may have to do with the Kodachrome reversal process which seems much more archival than standard Eastmancolor. It's the same with Kodachrome 35MM slides - they have not faded at all.

The reds and blues on Super-8 Kodachrome are just stunning, even after all these years!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-22-2001, 06:28 AM:

Most color films contain the dye-forming "couplers" in the emulsion of the raw stock. As the silver image develops, the oxidized by-products of the color developer react with the couplers to form the dyes. The film is then bleached and fixed to remove the silver, but some of the unused couplers remain in the film. In the last 30 years, Kodak has made significant improvements in the stability of the dyes in these "incorporated coupler" films.

Kodak KODACHROME film has always used unique technology. The dye-forming couplers are not contained in the film, but are in the color developing solutions of the process. This means there is much less "residual chemistry" to be washed out of the film. But it does greatly complicate the processing of the film, because three separate color developing solutions are required:
CLICK HERE
CLICK HERE
CLICK HERE

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-22-2001, 06:54 AM:

I love Kodachrome. I've never used it as a motion-picture film, but I have some of my grandfather's home movies from the 1940s on 16mm Kodachrome which look brand-new. The Anscochrome also looks nice with a similar color quality. For some reason, Kodachrome home movies seem to be more stable than other acetate-base film prints...at least, I've never seen a vinegar Kodachrome reel. This might be because most of the Kodachrome stuff was stored in cardboard boxes rather than tight-fitting cans that had a tendency to rust.

Reversal film in general seems to fade less than prints from negative film. Even 1960s Ektachrome slides and 16mm reversal original film looks good, while prints from negative that were made in those eras have usually faded. I don't know why this is, but maybe John P. can explain it or post a link to something that does.

Posted by Christos Mitsakis (Member # 143) on 02-22-2001, 07:40 AM:

I prefer Kodachrome over Ektachrome film for slide photography (even though the processing and delivery time is substantially longer for kodachrome).
Color saturation surpasses any other type of reversal film. -My 8mm home movies from early '80s are still in perfect color condition (Most of them in Kodachrome).

You may have noticed already that 35mm slides "tourists souvenirs" fade also and much sooner than a 35mm or 70mm motion picture film, even if properly stored (low cost stock obviously).

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 02-22-2001, 10:00 AM:

I believe it was restricted to 16mm, but Kodachrome was used for release prints back in the '50's. It was generally used as a lower cost alternative to IB Tech for short print runs. I have several 1940's features printed on Kodachrome, and the color is flat-out spectacular to this day. Unfortunately, however, it doesn't take an optical track as well as other processes, so the sound quality is sometimes "iffy"--much like a blue-track IB when they experimented with eliminating the silver track in the late '40's.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-22-2001, 02:03 PM:

Jeff: KODACHROME technology enjoyed many years of use for 16mm and 8mm print applications.

The Chronology of KODAK Motion Picture Films shows that in 1938, Kodak introduced KODACHROME Duplicating film, 5262 (16mm). It was also used as a camera film.

In 1940, Kodak introduced KODACHROME Duplicating film, 5265 (16mm).

In 1950, Kodak introduced EASTMAN Reversal Color Print film, 5269 16mm.

In 1966, Kodak introduced EASTMAN Reversal Print film, 7387. Improved. Non-incorporated couplers.

All these reversal print films used the KODACHROME technology, with the dye-forming couplers contained in the three color developer solutions, rather than the film.

You are correct that it was difficult for labs to produce a good 16mm silver soundtrack on these reversal films, so after the early 1950's, larger print orders were usually printed on ECP from an internegative.
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/about/chrono1.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/about/chrono2.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/about/chrono3.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/about/chrono4.shtml

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 02-22-2001, 04:17 PM:

Kodachrome is simply..the best. you cannot beat it. Kodachrome in 16mm motion photography will take your breath away. I highly recommend everyone out there go get a 16mm camera and buy a fresh 100' roll of Kodachrome 25 and shoot it.. take pictures of the sky or water or trees or plant leaves.. it will blow your mind. i love Kodachrome. My true love of Kodachrome lies in the regular (double-8) medium. Yes, fresh Kodachrome is availabe in regular 8 (though not supplied by Kodak) EVERYONE needs to shoot KODACHROME, so kodak will keep manufacturing it!!! (sorry for the plug in a public forum. but it is necessary!)

-sean

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-22-2001, 04:52 PM:

Is there any lab that can make decent optical track prints from Kodachrome originals without charging $1/foot or more to make an internegative? The problem with printing Kodachrome (particularly with a track) and the expense of reversal workprinting is the primary reason why I've stuck with the current Eastman color negative stocks (and some Tri-X reversal) for my "home movies." Not to mention the fact that color neg can be processed and workprinted in a a couple of days, while Kodachrome apparently has to go to Switzerland...

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 02-23-2001, 05:27 PM:

What's in my refrigerator right now?

Kodachrome 25 16mm

Eastman 7240 16mm

7240 Super 8

Kodachrome 40 Super 8

Kodachrome 40 Super 8 Sound!

I shoot all of these products regularly and literally have my life on film from 18 months of age. The colours are vibrant, rich and saturated. My son is one of the few of the next generation that will have his life and times documented using all the products listed above.

I want a forward and backward compatible, stable recording technology that will last lifetimes.

(How can I tell a story in 6 mins on film that takes people with a handycam 56 mins?)

I guess I changed this topic from 70mm to 8mm.

David

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 02-23-2001, 11:48 PM:

Scott, the only lab that I knew of that could print tracks directly without an interneg was W.A. Palmer films of Belmont which sadly does not exist anymore. You might want to call DeWayne's and see what they can do for you. www.k14movies.com

-sean

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-24-2001, 09:00 AM:

Our family was big into home movies...we went through both Regular-8 and Super-8 (with and without sound).

I beg to differ with Mr. Norwood on the longevity of Ektichrome (or however it is spelled...the "blue label" film)....it has held up VERY poorly with respect to color. Most of our home movies have turned progressively blue (like shooting tungstun film outdoors).

As others have noted, Kodachrome looks as good today as it did in the '50s. Kodachrome is truely a wonderful film and process!

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-24-2001, 12:05 PM:

I too grew up with a family of 8 super 8 and 16mm home movies
I found both the kodachrome and the anscochrome sood up very well but the worst was ferraniachrome from 3m

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-24-2001, 12:55 PM:

Steve -- all I can say is that I've seen (and own) a reasonable quantity of VNF Ektachrome reversal film from the late '60s/early '70s that looks pretty good. It's not Kodachrome and it is turning blue slightly, but it still looks way better than any of the pre-LPP Eastman stocks. Most of the SP stock that I've seen from the late '70s has gone totally brown, unfortunately.

Posted by Jeff Stricker (Member # 224) on 02-24-2001, 02:51 PM:

Can't say enough about the stability of Kodachrome. I've shot slides with it for 40 years. Our family has 8mm Kodachrome home movies dating to the mid - 40's and still look good. I recently saw some Kodachrome slides taken in the late 30's - no special storage - still brilliant colors.

Like Paul Simon says in his song, "mama don't take my Kodachrome away..."

Posted by Ari Nordström (Member # 288) on 02-25-2001, 01:26 PM:

Yeah, I agree with you all. Kodachrome is wonderful. My old Super 8 films are still perfect (in colour if not in content...)

I shot some of my films on Agfa stock, though. It was cheaper and sometimes I had to buy it instead or forget about the film I wanted to make. Too bad, really. Some of my remaining Agfa films have faded noticeably.

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 02-26-2001, 07:54 AM:

One more testimonial for good old Kodachrome...I've got 16mm Kodachrome dating back to the 1938 NY World's Fair which my father shot, along with thousands of feet of others up to the early 1970's. With the exception of being a little brittle, the color on the oldest footage is still spectacular.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-26-2001, 09:54 AM:

I was married in 1972, and high speed EKTACHROME Super-8 film was used to capture the moment "available light". We projected the film again last Christmas, and the colors are still very good. Storage has been in our home, at about 70F and 50% RH. We project the film once or twice a year, so that lets it "breath", preventing vinegar syndrome.

I have several VHS tapes I made of the "Royal Wedding" of Princess Diana and Prince Charles. Like the marriage, the tape gradually deteriorated, and has quite a few dropouts. Somehow, old VHS tapes also seem to loose sharpness and pick up noise with age --- is this due to loss of signal and spread of the high frequency information?