Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: optical qualities of nitrate vs acetate

This is topic optical qualities of nitrate vs acetate 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=002117

Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 04-05-2001, 02:28 PM:

It's conventional wisdom among many collectors that nitrate film had a certain desirable quality -- a look to it -- that was lost when the industry changed to safety film.

However, I've also heard that the main difference between the two types of film is that the emulsion in nitrate film had a much higher silver content.

So my completely hypothetical question is ...

If one were to have a special order made of positive film stock, using the same high-silver-density emulsion as was formerly used in nitrate film, would this reproduce the desirable optical qualities of nitrate film, or is there some additional quality/attribute in the nitrate film base that would still be missing.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-05-2001, 02:58 PM:

Yes -- silver forms the image in film, even for color films when the silver is fixed out to leave dye. In general, more silver means more speed (for negative films) or the ability to have higher densities (for print films).

Today, Kodak offers two "flavors" of film for release prints:

VISION Color Print Film from Kodak has the same great look you associate
with Kodak films, but blacks are richer, the film is more durable and more resistant to
scratches and dirt.
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2383.shtml

KODAK VISION Premier Color Print Film / 2393. A film with a different look. Richer blacks. More saturated colors.
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2393.shtml

For silver image black and white prints, contrast can be controlled by modifying the process.

KODAK Black-and-White Print Film SO-302 is an ESTAR Base, low-speed,
high-resolution print film. The proprietary, new polyester base of SO-302 improves
physical performance throughout the motion picture system, providing benefits to
archivists, laboratories, exhibitors, creatives, and distributors. It is a cleaner, more
durable print stock with improved sharpness, and has clearer, longer lasting sound
performance. This film continues to offer the process flexibility of previous
black-and-white print films to achieve the desired look.
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/so302.shtml

------------------
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 Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-05-2001, 04:33 PM:

John, I have actually seen the difference between Nitrate and Safety with same image comparison. The nitrate looks far better for reasons that I don't know. I saw an I.B. Technicolor comparison at a collectors home a number of years back. I don't think it necessarily has to do with silver or dye content. Something about the optical properties of the Nitrate base itself.
Also, when it is in good condition it is also allot stronger than acetate film ever was or is.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 04-05-2001, 05:39 PM:

I've seen the difference with black and white nitrate. The crispness of the picture has a noticable improvement over acetate.

I'm in WAY over my head, but I've wondered if some of the following could be factors:

1. Many prints on nitrate were shot with ortho emulsions rather than pan emulsions. The difference in color balance could reduce the blurring effect of the blue portion of the spectrum. This would increase the perceived sharpness.

2. Halation, both during shooting and projection. I don't know the relative refractive indexes of nitrocellulose and acetate, but it could be possible that safety film is more inclined to bounce light around when it gets reflected off the silver image, thus reducing overall contrast.

Those are just top-of-the-head ideas, I'd sure like to know a scientific explanation of the differences.

Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 04-05-2001, 05:47 PM:

Mark -- with IB Tech, remember that Technicolor was constantly changing the dye formulations over the years, so a nitrate print might look completely different than a safety print of the same title for no other reason then that it had been printed using different dyes.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-05-2001, 10:34 PM:

Everything about a nitrate print, for some reason, has a richer look to it. I've seen both color (animated) and B/W. I've never seen that look in safty films. I would think even the layperson if given an A/B test would go with the Nitrate film as the better image.

Steve

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

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 04-05-2001, 11:51 PM:

Same here. Nitrate is so detailed and sharp with excellent contrast.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-06-2001, 01:07 AM:

Why do all old films look like crap then? With soft focus and washed out blacks and whites? Not to mention oversaturated colors. I hate oversaturated colors. I can achieve the same effect by turning the color waaay up on my TV. I'm not talking print condition, but image quality. Everyone likes to say that things we no longer use or left behind are a hell of a lot better than whatever the hell we are using now. Take records vs CDs for example.

Quality in the old days were always better, right? No matter what we invent in the future, there will always be something in the past that just blows it away. I just think people see a difference and interpret that difference differently.

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 04-06-2001, 03:32 AM:

John,

That is exactly the same question I've had in mind. I wonder if some country like Russia could still manufacture nitrate base (I have heard that "unique" filmstock such as 16mm nitrate had come out of Russia...). Something else to think about is the optical qualities of acetate vs. polyester, and I know this has been touched on before here.

What is/has prevented film manufacturers from creating black and white films with more silver content? The high price of silver alone?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-06-2001, 06:34 AM:

I don't think anyone would even allow the use of hazardous nitrate film today in a theatre, even if it could be manufactured and shipped. Only a few film archives are properly equipped and staffed to project nitrate film. Can you imagine a platter full of nitrate igniting? (Look at Rick Shamel's videos of "small" nitrate fires in the "Videos" section of Film-Tech, and imagine 100X the amount of film

The current S0-302 and 5302 B&W print films can be processed to obtain densities well above 3.0, and have more than enough contrast to obtain "rich" blacks and detailed shadows:
Sensitometry of SO-302
Sensitometry of 5302

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-06-2001, 06:49 AM:

I agree with Joe that today's film systems can offer unsurpassed quality. Yes, you can find examples of extraordinary image quality in films of the past, but you can also find alot of grainy and unsharp images with poor color and tone scale. Film technology has improved tremendously, but sometimes the improvements have been traded for the convenience and cost savings of smaller formats, less expensive lighting, speed of production, etc., rather than improved image quality on the screen.

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 04-06-2001, 09:02 AM:

When Joe says that all old films look like crap, I think there are two issues. One is certainly the many dye reformulations and color tone changes Technicolor went through over the years (not to mention subsequent reprinting on EK or equivalent stock), but there's also the issue that virtually all black and white prints today are low silver, low contrast prints resulting from TV broadcast requirements and really don't represent the original look of the film.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-06-2001, 09:11 AM:

Jeff: You are correct that collectors may be basing their judgements on prints made specifically for television syndication. I recall that the recent Warner Bros. and Columbia retrospective 35mm re-releases that recently toured the country were praised for the image quality of the new prints.

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 04-06-2001, 09:19 AM:

I suspect it's negligible, but doesn't the fact that older color films were timed for carbon lighting and now shown with xenon have some impact?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-06-2001, 09:30 AM:

Jeff: High Intensity Carbon arc and xenon arc have very similar color temperature and spectral energy distribution, so it's likely the optimum color timing of the prints would be identical.

But there are some who definitely prefer the "look" of carbon arc on the screen, maybe because it is more of a flame, rather than just a tiny ball of plasma. The lamphouse optics are different, and may affect the "harshness" or specularity of the illumination on the screen.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-06-2001, 09:57 AM:

I think the "old films look like crap" idea is one which derives primarily from the fact that distributors often circulate poor-quality prints of older titles that were made from inferior film elements, as well as poor-quality video transfers from lousy projection prints, rather than from good-quality intermediate elements.

The WB 75th fest prints did indeed look stunning, for the most part, as did the Columbia prints. The B&W prints were on ESTAR-base stock and didn't shed, either. This indicates to me that it _is_ possible to make top-quality prints today _if_ one is willing to spend the time and money necessary to do so.

I will also say that many original prints of older films are indeed razor-sharp, particularly 35mm IB Technicolor prints. I think that part of the reason why older B&W prints tend to look better than new B&W prints is simply that labs aren't as experienced with B&W as they once were, and so aren't as familiar with the techniques necessary to produce quality B&W prints. Aside from the shedding problem, Woody Allen's "Celebrity" looked great--it was very sharp and the density was terrific. The "Third Man" reissue prints looked great, too.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-06-2001, 10:04 AM:

Carbon Arc is a continous spectrum not a line spectrum because carbon arc is a black body source ( the incadescent carbon particles in the crater undergoing sublimation
Xenon arcs are a discharge source and as such are groups of lines that are grouped togather creating an illusion of a contious spectrum. Much like the method digital sound is reconstructed.
There is some thought that the brain works harder intigrating the xenon light source compared to carbon light creating fatigue.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-06-2001, 10:12 AM:

It has always been important to properly lubricate prints for optimum performance, especially with black-and-white:
Published Kodak Print Lubrication Recommendations

Unfortunately, most prints are NOT properly edgewaxed by the labs, due to recent environmental restrictions on the solvents used.

Fortunately, Kodak has made significant improvements during the last few years to both color and black-and-white print films, making them much more resistant to projector abrasion and flaking, even without additional post-process lubrication. But print lubrication will help provide additional protection, especially in projectors more prone to abrade the film edges.

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 04-06-2001, 11:21 AM:

I remember the Fritz Lang film 'The Big Heat' from the Columbia 75th aniversary retrospective. This black and white film, in Academy ratio, looked absolutely gorgeous. Superb contrast, sharpness that was beyond reproach and highlight and shadow detail that was breathtaking. This was a great example of black-and-white 'done right', if I may.

It is rare nowadays to come across any black and white, and rarely is it handled quite this well. I've projected A LOT of black and white both in 16 and 35MM, and an amazing print such as that one is all too rare. Not all the Columbia 75th aniversary prints were as good as that; that may have been the best. Unfortunately, Sidney Lumet's excellent 'Fail Safe' did not look very good at all, marred by poor contrast and sharpness. I am sure that this was not the intended look of Lumet's film.

Another stunning example that comes to mind is the French film 'Forbidden Games' ('Jeux Interdits') that was also in Academy ratio and coincidently, like the Lang film, also made in 1953. (Not from the Columbia retrospective, of course!)

I remember a more modern example, too - a black-and-white Belgian short made in 35MM just a few years ago (can't remember the name, unfortunately) which was tack-sharp and had a tremendously extended grey scale, like an Ansel Adams print. The point here is that black and white can still be done well! When it comes to quality black-and-white processing, the European labs - especially some of the French ones such as Eclair - are superb.

Although veering a little off-topic, I cannot discuss excellent black-and-white without a mention of one of its true masters, Sven Nykvist. The films that he photographed for Ingmar Bergman in the late 1950's and early 1960's are truly unique experiences and must be seen in 35MM to fully appreciate how peerless they are. Some stunning examples are 'The Virgin Spring' (the second feature I ever projected!), 'Through a Glass Darkly', 'Winter Light', 'The Silence' and 'Persona'. He later won an Oscar for his color work with Bergman on 'Cries and Whispers'.

In regards to 'the present' versus 'the past', I believe that both offer valuable lessons and experiences. True, given today's modern film stocks and lenses it can be said that those films of the past would look even better if that level of technology was available then (although perhaps altogether different in character) but 'film done right' of the past will always beat 'film done wrong' of the present or future.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-06-2001, 11:57 AM:

Michael Barry said: "...'film done right' of the past will always beat 'film done wrong' of the present or future."

Well said! And I would add that "Film Done Right" with today's much improved technology will beat any other imaging technology, and still be very cost-effective.

Posted by Stefan Scholz (Member # 147) on 04-07-2001, 09:24 AM:

I have recently tried to follow a re-print of the Disney "20000 leagues under the sea". All I remember, and used to have in my collection beeing high school kid, looked really gorgeous in color and sharpness(IB Print c. 1955).
This 1980's reprint, was grainy below 16 mm quality with the lack of overall color schemes. You could also see 2 sets of Anty Piracy dots, so it was reprinted from a duped print, taken from an original IB with some scratches. That this could deliver no quality, and sometimes gives classic film a bad reputation is obvious.
I agree with John, that modern stock could theoreticly deliver outstanding result. Short production times, available light cinematography, time pressure at the labs and general short theatrical windows do not support the use of the quality offered.
I recently received a print of a major release from a major distributor, stated to have all 3 digital formats. Finally my dubbed version ended up beeing analoge.
A call at the distributor brought up, that prints struck in London were multiformat, but the larger number struck in Munich was not.
They even knew about the inferior color and density of theese prints, "but what could you do on Tuesday, if prints are expected in theatres on Thursday morning?"
Quite clear, without time pressure,quality would be better, in general.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-07-2001, 10:26 AM:

I personally agree with everything Scott Norwood said in his post. Most new prints of old films are really crap. There are a few exceptions to this on occasion.
Joe,
You need to get into film collecting so you can see what we are talking about as far as quality and differences are concerned. Your TV and my DTV cannot begin to replicate what a great black and white or I.B. Tech print looks like. I have been lucky enough to own original prints of many great films. Ya gotta see some of them to believe it.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-07-2001, 12:43 PM:

John,
I think it has more to do with the optical qualities of Nitrate......not the dyes. While they did make allot of dye changes a given print was not always the same as the Techinicolor standard reel was anyway. There were normally slight differences in a given batch of prints. As far as dye quality I think they hit the mark in the early 50's then lost sight of it again after that. I always felt that the early 50's Tech was the best looking of the lot. Things seemed to get more muted in the 60's. It's also interesting to note that in England they used completely different dyes than were used here in the States. There is an excelletn 1950's book called Coulour Cinematography and it has the most comprehensive write up on Technicolor of any book out there(period). There is in this book a comparison chart of the different dyes that were used in both countries. Perhaps this is one reason why British I.B. always looked better than ours.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Joe Schmidt (Member # 822) on 04-07-2001, 11:43 PM:

Nitrate base vs acetate...

Many, many years ago while the crust of the earth was still cooling... during one of my visits to LA, it was my great privilege to see a screening of an absolutely pristine nitrate print of “The Phantom Of the Opera” with Claude Rains [Universal, Technicolor, 1943.] Even more fun was that I was able to handle a bit of the film, while wearing white gloves, of course. Have never forgotten how marvelous this print looked on the screen, then, as though it had just been filmed “yesterday.”

Today, I’ve no idea where this print is other than probably in either the Academy’s or the UCLA archives. Hopefully it still exists and is being carefully looked after. I wish that everyone else here on the forum might have had my above experience, as it would settle once and for all the issue of the superiority of original IB Technicolor on the nitrate base [which never fades] over anything done today.

I have two copies of this movie in the film library; most recently Vault #36-3 having been updated off-satellite from American Movie Classics last year with an intro. This looks very good but I don’t think it originated from the IB-tech print of 1943: it would be much sharper if it had. This would be the definitive print to use for a television or DVD master if anyone here associated with the forums has any influence to track it down and get the job done. Provided, that is, if the 1943 print has held up thru today. One just never knows with nitrate, which is finicky, unstable stuff. You can have two reels side-by-side in the same vault and one will remain pristine while the other turns to powder.

And as John Pytlak pointed out, you could never run nitrate on a platter; apart from the heresy of chopping up an irreplaceable archival print. If it ever caught fire, it would not just burn up the platter and the booth, it would probably burn all the way down to the lobby and destroy the popcorn stand on its way to the Center of the Earth!

For other insight on this, look up the Byrd Theatre [Richmond VA] under Pictures, with its authentic carbon arcs all still in use, where it is remarked using the ancient generator with the arcs produces an even better quality of light than with the solid-state power supply of more recent vintage. What a fantastic place the Byrd is.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-08-2001, 08:00 AM:

Joe--I've seen the print that you're talking about. It's a reissue of Phantom from the late 1940s. It _is_ indeed stunning and was still mint when it played last February at the Egyptian in LA.

It is (or was at the time) part of the UCLA collection and apparently gets run about once a year for various festivals, etc. It is by far the best-looking 35mm print that I've ever seen.