For those overly interested in lab history in the late 70s, I just stumbled onto this:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=7242420 Only geeks need apply. > On Jul 13, 2016, at 6:55 PM, Jeff Kreines <[email protected]> wrote: > > Color negative in 16mm was used in Europe, especially the UK, before it > caught on in the US. The stock from 1968 - 1973 — 7254/5254, the last of the > ECN-1 stocks, was quite lovely. Kodak replaced it with the hideous > 7247/5247, and really pushed 16mm “producers” to switch to it because it was > more “professional.” It was easy to expose (just overexpose a stop) but you > lost many of the advantages of color reversal — easy supers and fades with > A&B rolls (if you like that sort of thing), fewer problems with > dirt/dust/scratches, and the ability to push film and shoot in very low > light. (The right lab could push 7242 three stops to EI 1000 — whereas 7247 > did not push well, which begat chemical flashing processes like TVC’s > Chemtone.) > > One big advantage of reversal stocks was the ability to make dupe negatives > and release prints in two generations (interneg and release print) — color > neg required an interpositive, a dupe neg, and then a print — adding expense > and reducing quality. (CRI is another tale — good idea poorly done — so save > a step by essentially using ECO to dupe negatives, but it was a disaster and > didn’t last. But I digress.) > > Pretty much all color theatrical documentaries, starting with Monterey Pop, > were shot on glorious Ektachrome, often a mix of 7255/7252 (ECO), and 7242. > Woodstock, Gimme Shelter too. Color negative invaded this world around ’73 > or so, slightly earlier in the UK. (Gray Gardens was an early color neg > documentary.) > > Kodak worked hard to shoot themselves in the foot (their area of expertise) > and kill off color reversal. They lost the world of TV news after the Hunt > Brothers’ Silver Bubble — using it as an excuse to raise prices even after > the bubble burst — and TV embraced clumsy expensive video rigs earlier than > they would have. Of course they also killed off all reversal print stocks… > don’t get me started. > > There were other stocks, too. Anscochrome, as Mark mentions, was a cheaper > alternative to Kodak stocks, and Geva’s color reversal stocks were > interesting because they were low contrast — their 16mm color print stock > Gevachrome 9.06 was great for printing Ektachrome 7242. Kodak did not have > an equivalent low contrast color print stock until they did a little > industrial espionage at DuArt, a major Geva lab at the time. > > And then there was a much larger world of B&W stocks. Agfa, Ansco, Dupont, > Ilford, Ferrania, and many more. Back then, they slathered on the silver > with a trowel. Today, not so much. > > Jeff “remembers a lot of useless information” Kreines > > > > >> On Jul 13, 2016, at 5:51 PM, Mark Toscano <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> My one counter to David's comments (if I'm reading you right) would be that >> the vast majority of artists working in 16mm from the '40s through the '60s >> did in fact use Kodachrome and Ektachrome, among other stocks. Color >> negative didn't even exist in 16mm until 1964, and very few "experimental >> filmmakers" used it much until the later '70s or even early '80s. And >> throughout some of this period, you could get your stocks edge numbered if >> you wanted, and plenty of people did. Even Gimme Shelter was shot on >> Ektachrome. Plenty of other filmmakers didn't bother workprinting, or did >> so without using edge numbers for matching (Brakhage never workprinted, for >> instance). >> >> The basically forgotten Anscochrome was a popular stock in the '50s and '60s >> too. Brakhage shot Window Water Baby Moving and several of his other early >> color films on it. Kodak introduced a lower contrast stock called >> Kodachrome Commercial in 1946 specifically to target people wanting to shoot >> color more professionally. Curtis Harrington shot The Assignation on it. >> It was replaced by Ektachrome Commercial (ECO) in 1958, which was a >> lower-contrast, slow Ektachrome designed to be printed rather than >> direct-projected. ECO was absurdly widely used until the early '80s. >> >> Mark T >> >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Dave Tetzlaff <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I'm writing about the use of 16mm in experimental filmmaking of the 1970s >>> and am looking for texts that deal with the history of film technology, >>> scholarly sources that look, for example, at the emergence of 16mm as an >>> amateur/documentary/artists' medium. >> >> Hmm. If we distinguish 'amateurs' from 'artists' 16mm emerged as an amateur >> medium decades before the 70s, and was all but submerged for amateurs by the >> 70s, in favor of Super-8. You'd be hard pressed to find any artists who >> worked with the 'amateur' 16mm cameras that were made at least through the >> 1950s: Kodak K100, B+H 240, Reveres… and only spare use of 'amateur' >> Kodachrome and Ektachrome stocks that didn't come back from the lab with >> edge numbers. >> >> The history of documentary tech is a whole 'nother creature -- all 16mm up >> to the 70s -- but marked by advances in blipping, sound sync, battery power, >> coaxial magazines, reflex finders, etc. etc. (I have an AC-power only >> Yoder-style chop-top in my closet, if anyone wants one…). Only in the 70s >> did portable video emerge as a documentary medium, e.g. in the ½" open-reel >> 'Four More Years' by TVTV. >> >> Experimental filmmaking was not articulated to 'amateur' filmmaking as much >> as industrial/educational filmmaking. Experimental filmmaking was dependent >> on the wide availability of cameras, projectors, stocks, labs etc. primarily >> used by the 'A/V' market. Once that market moved to video, those sources >> began to dry up, posing ever-increasing difficulties to photo-chemical >> experimental work. A tech history of experimental film in the 70s should >> also look at it's intersections/oppositions to technologies used in 'video >> art', e.g. in Scott Bartlett's 'Off/On', and computer graphics, e.g. John >> Whitney. >> >> All that said, for the history of 'amateur' film, it would be remiss not to >> mention the work of FRAMEWORKER Patti Zimmerman, noted on the CHM site Buck >> linked. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> FrameWorks mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >> >> _______________________________________________ >> FrameWorks mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > > Jeff Kreines > Kinetta > [email protected] > kinetta.com > > Jeff Kreines Kinetta [email protected] kinetta.com _______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
