Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning



Richard,

Thanks for the updating of my information on the subject and for filling in
some of the holes while correcting the errors.  From what you have said I
take it that the movie film is no longer used by these processors; does this
mean that they are now using standard still films which any regular C-41 lab
can process?  How does the current film scan, resist scratching, etc. - if
you know.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Richard N. Moyer
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 10:09 AM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning


You are talking about Eastman 4247, 5248:
Not aware that 3M used Eastman 5347, 5248 - both ISO 100 tungsten
balanced movie films, which is CN processed (I think). 3M had their
own manufacture. But Seattle Film works does process 5247/48, as well
as a number of labs throughout the country - not necessarily movie
film labs, including Dale, in Florida. Still do. At one time these
labs bought tail-ends, spooled it, and sold it - or almost gave it
away. But, as far as I know it was *always* referred to as Eastman
424X. It does have a protective backing which needs to be stripped
via processing, and no minilabs can handle it. You got back slides
(by contact duping - which was the movie film if used as such),
negatives (much heavier filmbase than store bought film - 6 or 10
mils, I think), and pictures. You can also get PictureCD scans, which
are PhotoCD format, cost about $7 extra per 36 roll, and give you
16-bit RGB and LAB image files.

Neighborhood chemical film labs do have trouble with E524X because
they don't have custom settings for prints, and because E524X was
produced in lots, and then qualified by lot number by the movie
studios. So, if varied slightly, defeating picture making machines
which operated on fixed profiles. Plus the backing issue.

You bought virgin 400 foot (refrigerated) rolls directly from Eastman
(Not Kodak - - Eastman is exclusively film industry oriented, and
separate from Kodak operations). And custom spooled, keeping rolls
and spools refrigerated (or frozen) similar to and consistent with
handling of professional films. It has outstanding archievability.

The (scanning) profiling for 5247 (if you do scanning yourself) is
absolutely neutral in my experience, meaning very little needs to be
done via scanning, or within Photoshop to get outstanding prints from
Eastman 524X film.

Both films are not manufactured anymore, so filmlabs have gone
offshore for their house film. I use a lot of it, and have a lot of
reels frozen (30F) for future use.

IMO, compared to the Portra VC/NC (400) films, and even compared to
Fuji NPH 400 professional, Fuji NHG II 800, these Eastman (524X)
movie films give outstanding results - because they were/are
unsurpassed IMO on skintone fidelity (closeups of actresses faces on
movie sets drove the design of the film); skintones that nearly
eliminated the contrast "fall-ofF" so common with today's "punch"
"bounce" films. Contrast is what amplifies facial wrinkles, "crows
feet", etc. 534X is what I call extremely low contrast combined with
excellent film light latitude.

>Aren't they the ones who bought 35mm movie film tails, respooled the 35mm
>movie film ends into canisters of 24 and 36 exposures, and then resold the
>35mm canisters to the public via the mail.  The net result was that you had
>to use them for processing because no other knowledgeable lab would
>knowingly process the film because it has a backing that would come off in
>their processors and was damn near impossible to clean off.  The film had
to
>be processed by cinema labs who had special lab machinery to strip the
>backing off the film prior to processing.
>
>If I remember correctly, they would send you back prints and slides from
the
>same role.  I do not recall that they would send back negatives.  They were
>also known for being one of the first to send the images back via the
>internet if requested and put them on CDs.
>
>If I am correct, the movie film that you would get back in the form of
>transparencies would have had a hardened emulsion so as to resist
scratching
>which might come from its original usage in movie projectors at commercial
>movie houses.  I somehow think you will have a hard time discovering a
>canned profile for this film and will have to either produce such a profile
>yourself or have a custom one made.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Gordon Tassi
>Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 10:13 AM
>To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning
>
>
>Mark:  Re:  3M film.
>
>According to the people at Photo Works (used to be Seattle Film Works)
>their
>negative color film is made by 3M.  I have used them for some time with
very
>good processing results.  (The are one of the US houses that develops and
>prints film and if you wish will return a roll with the negatives and
>prints.)   After I bought VueScan, I asked the company so I could match
>their
>film to the VueScan profiles.  I found out that the film was 3M, and since
I
>also receive slides from them, I found that their slide film is made by
>Imation.
>
>Gordon
>
>"Mark T." wrote:
>
>  > I didn't think 3M were still in the 35mm film business.
>  >
>  > MT
>  >
>  >




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.