Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Vote NOW ----> Kodak or Fuji (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Vote NOW ----> Kodak or Fuji
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99


 - posted 07-18-1999 08:31 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Which film stock do you prefer, and why?

I prefer FUJI stock because it does not shed or leave gunk, it runs smoother and quieter, and is alwys much cleaner. Kodak prints shed and are a pain to deal with. I also believe that Fuji prints look much better onscreen.

 |  IP: Logged

Stephen Jones
Master Film Handler

Posts: 314
From: Geelong Victoria Australia
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-18-1999 09:47 PM      Profile for Stephen Jones   Email Stephen Jones   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I also prefer Fuji for the same reasons as Joe has mentioned

------------------

 |  IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-18-1999 11:10 PM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
What are people's thoughts on the Ilford B&W stocks? I've only dealt with Eastman B&W prints, and can say that the ESTAR material is generally quite dreadful (though some prints didn't shed at all), though the B&W acetate stock is fine, although it lacks silver content. The rumor mill says that the reissue prints of "The Third Man" that are circulating now are on Ilford stock; can anyone confirm or deny this? The print of this title that I saw looked quite good, with great contrast and density.

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 07-19-1999 01:29 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
FUJI all the way! Joe explained the reasons in a pretty straightforward manner.

I haven't worked with the Ilford B&W stock yet. It will be interesting.


 |  IP: Logged

Erika Hellgren
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 168
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-20-1999 03:00 AM      Profile for Erika Hellgren   Email Erika Hellgren   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
No brainer!!!! FUJI, baby! Yeah!

 |  IP: Logged

Bruce McGee
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1776
From: Asheville, NC USA... Nowhere in Particular.
Registered: Aug 1999


 - posted 07-20-1999 06:38 AM      Profile for Bruce McGee   Email Bruce McGee   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Its Fuji all the way for me!

Bruce

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-21-1999 02:01 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Another vote for Fuji here! (although I'm pleased anytime I get a print without scratches on it.)

 |  IP: Logged

Brian Paymer
Film Handler

Posts: 31

Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-23-1999 04:41 AM      Profile for Brian Paymer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Fuji. Accept no substitutes.

 |  IP: Logged

Aaron Mehocic
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 804
From: New Castle, PA, USA
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-23-1999 12:21 PM      Profile for Aaron Mehocic   Email Aaron Mehocic   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Fuji film stock saves me time and energy at our theater. No powder, no static, and crisp colors are what I EXPECT and GET. Fuji Forever!!!!!!!!!!!

 |  IP: Logged

Tim Spencer
Film Handler

Posts: 9
From: CA
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-24-1999 08:35 PM      Profile for Tim Spencer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
until i came across this web site i had not payed too much attention as to a pattern of which movies shedded. after learning about which companies use which filmstocks i must strongly cast my vote for fuji. nowadays that is the first thing i check when i get a new movie in and it is always the fuji prints which run smooth and clean.

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 08-04-1999 09:59 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Kodak --- my job depends on it ;-)

Seriously, my job is to understand these concerns, and there obviously are some. Most of my information has come from the rec.arts.movies.tech newsgroup, and from surveys run by NATO, and they seem to indicate that the polyester flaking/dusting issue affected all films, and were very dependent upon the projector type (Joe Redifer had continual problems, Scott Norwood almost none). Have Kodak prints gotten better or worse than a year ago? Or do you feel the other films have recently improved? Is there perhaps a correlation with the lab, as some labs have been trying to lubricate prints again? What about humidity? Some recent reports seem to show high humidity plays a role. Has the nature of the debris changed (emulsion vs. base)?

------------------
John Pytlak

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 08-04-1999 02:45 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Here's your answer as to why Scott doesn't have problems while Joe does...projectors! Scott runs Century SA projectors which are extremely gentle on the film while Joe runs Christie projectors. I have extensive experience with many systems and the Christies are by far the worst on prints! I have seen prints which shed every show on a Christie and then seen the same prints ran through a Century with no shedding whatsoever. The reverse is also true. I have received prints which have a slight variation to the edge slitting and a Christie will weave violently while that reel will play steadily on a Century, Simplex, etc. The sad part from what I've heard is that Christie is disinterested in improving their product and everyone is buying their "package" deal for new theaters. This should be the projector for which all R&D at Kodak is done, as it is what I consider worst case senario.

Another commonly found machine which seems to promote shedding and dirt attraction, although nothing like the Christies, is the Simplex. Although this is an excellent machine, gate/trap tension is too high straight from the facotry and the soundhead relies on a little rubber/felt ("dirt embedder") roller. I have explained this in the past somewhere here on the forum, but this little roller collects dirt and presses with a good amount of tension right into the emulsion of the film, just after it has been softened by the heat of the lamp! It is for this reason that in a 50% Simplex and 50% Century booth, the Simplex prints will look extremely dirty in no time. I have another $5 solution for this, but haven't had the time to take pics and sit down to write it out. (Will do soon.)

Have Kodak prints gotten better or worse? That depends. The best years of Kodak stocks were the last half of the 1980s and early 1990s with the "LPP" prints! I think most anyone will agree with me there. Of course, these prints were also on triacetate stock. (Could you please explain for the record why this switch to polyestar took place? Cost?)

As to the polyestar Kodak stocks, the more recent ones (but not all...will start taking notes for you) are far better in regards to static (I don't get shocked inspecting nearly as bad lately). I have heard many people are having worse problems with shedding from the Vision line of prints for some reason. (I use FilmGuard myself and this is not a problem as it neutralizes static and stops shedding.)

Can you tell me what's up with the "London" prints of Notting Hill? I have heard horrible things about these with the London tag on them. Apparently they are easily burned by the heat of the lamp, have had emulsion flaking off and I've even heard of colors smearing. Obviously these theaters do not want their names to be known, for fear they will be charged or I would post print numbers. They claimed to be using PTRs and dry media cleaners for cleaning the print and alcohol and XeKote for the projector heads. They didn't get the print stock, so I couldn't tell you if it was Kodak or Fuji. I ran this film and had no problems myself. I will note in past testing of XeKote years ago I have found "color smearing" to be a problem. The edges of white objects (such as a T-shirt) will start to turn green. I found this to be exaggerated with polyestar stocks. (Yes, these were "torture" tests...but I always do that with any product to find it's limit.)

I got two prints of "Eyes Wide Shut" and both were scratched from the lab. Are the labs not running scratch strips as frequently? The scratches went right into the leaders, which were of course cut to load onto a platter. Trying to get some of the studios to admit a print "can" come scratched from the lab is a nightmare. Fortunately, Warner was very concerned about the presentation of the film and shipped me two complete new prints, despite the fact I only needed certain reels. The prints I received came from Europe and were OUTSTANDING! Best prints I've seen since the days of Kodak's LPP stock! I believe they were on Agfa stock. Is Agfa still available? (I was rushed to get the scratched prints off the screen and only gave it a quick look.)


 |  IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 08-04-1999 03:10 PM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hmm...could it be that older projectors (like the Century C's and SA's that I'm used to) have fewer shedding problems because the trap and gate have been slightly worn down over time? That's just a theory, anyway...I haven't worked with any machines built since the early to mid 1960s, so I don't really know. Also, I agree that the Simplex X-L's seem to have more shedding problems than Centurys; I have a reel from the IB Tech reissue of GWTW last fall; it sheds pretty badly on any projector, but when I ran it for a friend in his home theatre on X-Ls, the entire inside of the machine looked like it had been left outside in a snowstorm. And this was just one reel! I'd never seen anything quite like it.

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 08-04-1999 03:20 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Yes you are definitely correct. This is why I find it so humorous when people say "change the gate bands" at a certain projector company. Older (worn) bands are definitely gentler on the film.

As to your IB print, the actual film base is B&W. B&W as you know sheds like crazy! It is magnified with it being on polyestar stock. (But FilmGuard will put an end to that and clean it up for your friend.)

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99


 - posted 08-04-1999 05:05 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not going to try this until I get some opinions, but what about sanding the gate with a very very fine grade of sandpaper? Do you think this could help or worsen the shedding problems?

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.