RE: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning

["Richard N. Moyer" <dickmoyer@mail.earthlink.net>]

>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.

AFAIK the film industry continue to use this type of film, although 
it now has advanced to (in 1994) a finer-grained EXR 500T stock, 
5298/7298 and "ultra-latitude" EXR 200T film, 5287/7287. All are 
tungsten balanced. As an incidental, since I was focused on skintone 
fidelity and low contrast - - when Kodak invented the "T" type 
crystal allowing them to go to finer grainsize, they correspondingly 
increased the contrast. A law of physics. So, I preferred the 
original non T type versions; .i.e. 5247 rather than the 5248 T type. 
Sorry, drifting off topic.

So a great many labs (here in the US) continue to handle and process 
5247/8 type film (CN). As I said, I love it - and managed to secure 
quantities of the 5247 version as it was phased out. But you can call 
Eastman and inquire about 400 foot reel purchases of current types. 
Dale will custom spool, so will Seattle filmworks,

I am assuming that the same ruggedness is built into the current 
versions, aka 5298 et al. All because of the need for high speed 
processing, and the obvious huge economic penalty imposed if a 
re-shoot of a scene had to be made because of a lab imposed scratch. 
Can't speak for scan ability, but would assume the same.

This type of film must be handled by Dale, or Seattle. A few local 
labs will handle it, but they don't like to because of set-up costs 
and the protective backing. Dale prices development/processing, etc. 
same as regular C-41, etc. types. So does Seattle.