The point of 35mm photography

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by calcerise, Jul 5, 2005.

  1. calcerise

    calcerise Guest

    Is that the film is (or was) actually a by-product of the cinema
    industry and therefore cheap, so one not be stingy, vis-a-vis rollfilm
    or sheet.
    calcerise, Jul 5, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. If you look back into the early 20th century, yes. 35mm was adopted
    as a "standard" for movies around 1909, and the first amateur still
    cameras came out a few years later.

    Movie film and still photography film went their separate ways several
    decades ago, although companies like Seattle Film Works sold movie
    stock (and processing) repackaged for still cameras until about 1996.
    Michael Benveniste, Jul 6, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. calcerise

    calcerise Guest

    When monochrome 35mm cinema stock was available cheaply I shot a great
    deal of it. I don't shoot color negative so I have no idea as to
    whether Seattle FilmWorks was any good or not. I do have a 70mm
    Hasselblad back which I have used sporadically, and have used a
    Cine-Rollex with large format as well.
    calcerise, Jul 6, 2005
  4. I didn't find the difference in price between cinema stock and
    standard 100' bulk rolls of Plus-X and Tri-X to be worth the
    hassle of using the longer rolls.

    I have a 70mm back for my Pentax 645, but the only 70mm film
    with type 2 perforations I've been able to find is Portra 160
    and various aerographic films. Fortunately, I picked up a
    70mm bulk loader for $25 at a local bourse. Unfortunately,
    I haven't found a local lab that can process it.
    Michael Benveniste, Jul 6, 2005
  5. calcerise

    Paul Guest

    : When monochrome 35mm cinema stock was available cheaply I shot a great
    : deal of it. I don't shoot color negative so I have no idea as to
    : whether Seattle FilmWorks was any good or not. I do have a 70mm
    : Hasselblad back which I have used sporadically, and have used a
    : Cine-Rollex with large format as well.
    You didn't miss much.

    Paul, Jul 6, 2005
  6. calcerise

    Paul Furman Guest

    Shouldn't there be a bunch of awesome movie camera lenses designed for
    35mm or are those still prime dollar commanding Hollywoood items?
    Paul Furman, Jul 6, 2005
  7. calcerise

    Scott W Guest

    If I am not mistaken 35mm movies cameras use the film the other way
    around and so use a much smaller frame size then a 35mm still camera,
    the lens would be really bad at the outer parts of the frame if this is

    Scott W, Jul 6, 2005
  8. calcerise

    Gordon Moat Guest

    The two film types split many many years ago. Motion picture film
    continues with newer emulsions, but little of the technology ever makes
    it to still camera films.
    Gordon Moat, Jul 6, 2005
  9. They are indeed high-dollar items, but they are set up for a smaller
    frame size (vertical orientation, 4 perforations), and have different
    lens mounts (do any 35mm still cameras have a PL mount?) Basically
    not useful for still photography (except maybe for Vistavision lenses).
    Scott Norwood, Jul 6, 2005
  10. calcerise

    calcerise Guest

    One supplier to the feature film industry is Panavision, who have what
    they want built to spec, at great expense, and do not sell but only
    lease. However, there are cinema suppliers other than Panavision, and
    they tend to adapt still camera optics for their own use rather than
    the other way around. There were several long Nikkors in very short
    supply for awhile and it eventually emerged that the cinema guys were
    buying them up and charging more for the adaptation than the lens
    itself cost!

    It's worth noting that Carl Zeiss and Leitz/ Leica are NOT on the list
    of commonly used lens vendors nor do they do a lot of work, if any, for
    Panavision. So much for the Teutonophiles-I'll take the best Nikkors
    over any German lens ever made every time.

    When I was shooting cinema stock we were buying the small ends very
    cheaply, it was just over the silver reclamation price (silver was high
    then). That's what SFW was doing. Any cinema emulsion can be used in a
    35mm still camera-whether they are worth a premium, they are not. The
    same for Aero Ektachrome in 70mm.
    calcerise, Jul 6, 2005
  11. calcerise

    Bandicoot Guest

    Yep - in effect they are half-frame lenses.

    There was a camera that ran the film horizontally and used the 24x36 format,
    but it is a rare curiosity. I suppose IMAX lenses could be interesting

    Bandicoot, Jul 7, 2005
  12. VistaVision ran that way. Is that the one you were talking about?
    Michael Weinstein, Jul 7, 2005
  13. The requirements are quite different. There's nothing preventing 35mm
    photographers from buying and spooling the movie films, but there's
    little reason to. Grain levels that are entirely acceptable for
    1/24th of a second don't work when you can stare at them.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jul 7, 2005
  14. The main thing which prevents still camera users from spooling movie
    film these days is processing. Most modern movie films require ECN II
    processing, and I only know of a couple of labs that will accept the
    stuff in 36-exposure rolls.

    On the other hand, there have been a few times in my life where a
    high speed, tungsten balanced color film would have come in quite
    handy. If one could get it processed reliably, think anyone would be
    interested in some Vision 500T at a $2-$3 a roll?
    Michael Benveniste, Jul 7, 2005
  15. calcerise

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Indeed, most of the recent new motion picture films have been Tungsten films.
    It would be fun to try a few, since there are some interesting choices. Another
    option is bleach free processing, something not possible with still camera films
    (you could do it, but it does not produce usable results).
    They are not all grainy films. Anyway, some of the higher speed films are
    interesting, especially some of the Tungsten choices that might work well in low
    light or night conditions. Cost is more of an obstacle.
    Gordon Moat, Jul 7, 2005
  16. calcerise

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Yes, and not at any good pricing, nor fast turnaround. Shame that this
    cannot be self processed easily.
    I feel the same, and that was one of the films I would like to try in
    still cameras. I would even be willing to go up to $8 a roll, if the
    results worked out well.
    Gordon Moat, Jul 7, 2005
  17. True, that can be an issue.
    I've been annoyed at the lack of high-speed tungsten balance even
    since I started doing lots of my low-light work in color. These days,
    though, the solution for me is digital.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jul 8, 2005
  18. Which is something I'd *really* have liked to have had access to, 10
    years ago. Most of my low-light work is under tungsten light. In
    fact I'd think most low-light work oveall was in tungsten light, I
    don't see why the still film manufacturers have insisted on releasing
    high-speed *daylight* films. They're pointless.

    But digital has solved this problem for me (well, made a major
    improvement in this area anyway).
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jul 8, 2005
  19. Motion-picture films are unsuited for still photography for a number of
    reasons, not just processing difficulties. The color quality, contrast
    characteristics, printing characteristics, and exposure requirements
    all are at variance with professional color negative film
    uraniumcommittee, Jul 8, 2005
  20. calcerise

    Bandicoot Guest

    Probably - I don't know enough about movies to know all the names. My
    cousin is married to a film & TV cameraman, and most of what I know of the
    subject comes from him.

    Bandicoot, Jul 8, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.