Just realized I made a small error in my previous post - where I say 7244/3244 below, I meant 7242/3242. Sorry for any confusion!
Mark T
--- On Thu, 5/5/11, Mark Toscano <fiddybop_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Mark Toscano <fiddybop_at_yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Kodak 7212?
> To: "Experimental Film Discussion List" <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Date: Thursday, May 5, 2011, 10:29 PM
> Apparently, Kodak is planning to
> discontinue 7272/3272 interneg within the year, to be
> replaced by a polyester version of 7201 (50D). If you
> want to ever do anything with 72 interneg stock in 16mm, buy
> a bunch of it now. Last I heard, they have enough to
> continue supplying through the end of the year, and have
> already had labs (or just one lab I know of, at least)
> testing the 7201 (presumably to be called 3201 in its
> polyester version). And although from what I hear, the
> tests have been very successful and the lab and timer I
> spoke to very pleased with the results, some folks out there
> may still be bummed about the loss of 72 interneg. So
> consider yourself warned! Grab it while you can.
>
> I've known many folks who've preferred to use 7201 instead
> of 72 for internegative production anyway, so this will be
> nothing but a good thing for some. I remember Laure
> Sainte-Rose telling me she never uses the 72 interneg for
> her avant-garde preservation work, much preferring the
> camera stocks. I've preserved some films using 7201,
> sacrificing the presumably more stable polyester base for
> the much better color reproduction for these particular
> pieces. The Great Blondino Preview was preserved this
> way. 72 was often capable of weird color crossover
> that could be hard to control, depending on the source
> material you'd print from.
>
> Currently, Kodak has produced the new polyester 7201 in
> 400ft loads max, but I understand the plan is to increase
> the roll size, which would definitely be necessary for my
> kinds of projects, and anybody making a film in reversal
> that's more than 11 minutes long. I don't think you
> can actually buy it yet, maybe it's still in the tryout
> phase...?
>
> Not sure if this applies to 35mm too. I've always
> assumed that 72 interneg is much more commonly used in 16mm
> than 35mm, since it's meant to come from non-orange
> positive, i.e. reversal, usually.
>
> Finally, another option is to print through orange mask to
> 7244/3244, if you want to bump up the contrast a
> bunch. The last film I finished was partly (a '60s
> found Ektachrome sequence) printed this way thanks to the
> genius of former FotoKem timer Josh Rushton, and it looked
> amazing.
>
> If anyone has more info on this, by the way, please post
> it!
>
> Mark T
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 5/5/11, Jean-Louis Seguin <seguin_at_alcor.concordia.ca>
> wrote:
>
> From: Jean-Louis Seguin <seguin_at_alcor.concordia.ca>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Kodak 7212?
> To: "Experimental Film Discussion List" <frameworks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Date: Thursday, May 5, 2011, 2:39 PM
>
> Roger,
> Hey man, I know the difference between 7212 and 7272.
> The question is: why aren't you using 7272 in the first
> place for your optical printing instead of 7212 ?
> http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Products/Lab_And_Post_Production/Intermediate_Films/5242/tech5242.htm
> Cheers,Jean-Louis
>
> On 2011-05-05, at 3:57 PM, Beebe,Roger W wrote:
>
> 72-twelve. Here's the official notice from October:
>
>
>
> http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/PCN0090510_Q.pdf
>
>
>
> FYI,
> RB
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks_at_jonasmekasfilms.com
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Received on Thu May 12 2011 - 18:25:25 CDT
