8mm Forum: Eastman Stocks

This is topic Eastman Stocks in forum 16mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000253

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on November 28, 2007, 05:53 PM:

I always thought that Eastman stock became labled as Kodak when they went over to LPP in 1982.

Today I got a 16mm feature from Derann which is edge signed as Eastman x+x Saftey Film. The colours are really nice. I checked the date code from the x+x and it turns out to be a stock produced in 1991.
When did they drop the Eastman edge signing and is it possible that some of the later 8mm prints on Eastman are in fact the later LPP stock just like this 16mm print.

Kev.

Posted by Steven Sigel (Member # 21) on November 28, 2007, 06:56 PM:

Kevin - All the LPP stock I've ever seen was "Eastman".. The stock that was marked Kodak was "SP" stock...

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on November 29, 2007, 04:12 AM:

I thought it was the other way round?

Kev.

Posted by Steven Sigel (Member # 21) on November 29, 2007, 08:07 AM:

Nope...

It's "Kodak SP" and "Eastman LPP"....

I've never seen a print that was marked the other way...

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 549) on December 19, 2007, 07:42 AM:

Today on 35mm release prints it is just KOD*AK or Fujicolor. There are a whole series of numbers too, but Kodak does have the year in plain numerals i.e. not code.

It has been years since I actually saw LPP on the edge of the film. Ever since the SDDS tracks covered the film edges the writing has gone to a feint purple script.

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on June 22, 2008, 05:55 PM:

I know it's a while since this thread but I watched a print of "The Italian Job" this weekend and its going well magenta with not a black in sight. Its clearly marked as Eastman Safety Film but the rest of the markings are not too clear.
Any thoughts on this.

Kev.

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on June 25, 2008, 05:28 PM:

Bad lab work?

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on June 25, 2008, 05:53 PM:

Yes I wondered if this was the case [Frown]

Thanks Bill, Kev.

Posted by John Whittle (Member # 22) on June 26, 2008, 02:58 PM:

Kev,

I'm guessing this was the first "Italian Job". It was released in the US by Paramount and the prints were made by Movielab Hollywood. I have a scope print but haven't looked at it in some time and it dates back to the 70s.

I wonder if your print was US or made from a dupe negative sent overseas. I recall at the time there was a lot of Fuji stock around as well as Eastman, not much Agfa here at least.

But there are so many things that can go into fading, it would be interesting to know what the date code of the print is and whether it was from the initial print order back when the feature was released or a later order for 16mm rental companies. If it is later, then it could have been done almost anywhere and trying to determine as lab QC would be impossible.

Movielab really got the Hollywood lab in order after they bought out Perfect Pathe. That lab had a terrible reputation for quality and they did a lot of the Screen Gems 16mm color tv work in the 60s up until Movielab bought the lab. Then all the Columbia work moved to Metrocolor.

Paramount split mostly TV to Movielab and features to Technicolor, but Italian Job was an exception since it was a negative pick up for Paramount.

John

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on June 27, 2008, 04:41 AM:

John, I'll have a good look at the print tonight and see what I can make out from the edge markings and leaders. I cant remember right now if it has it's original leaders. I do know it's edge signed Eastman Safety Film but some of the other symbols are obscured by the sprocket holes etc. I'll pull a load out and see what I can find and report back. Some of it is much better than others it's certainly not consistent through the whole feature.

Kev.

Posted by John Whittle (Member # 22) on June 27, 2008, 03:06 PM:

Kev

While you're checking, see if the variations occur at splices. Also check and see if the pieces are all the same stock and same date code. You might have a print that was assembled from various parts either by the lab or the library. I know that Movielab would hold overprints and wait for reorders and then inspect and reprint what was necessary.

If your print doesn't have the Paramount logos, maybe it was a print made for the UK distributor (I don't know if Paramount had worldwide on this title).

John

Posted by Clive Carmock (Member # 347) on July 15, 2008, 05:27 PM:

I've got an ex US TV 16mm print of the original Italien Job - mostly teh colour is superb, however there are soem dark scenes where blacks are a slight magenta and then the next scene is perfect again.

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on July 17, 2008, 03:32 PM:

John,

Back to the film markings. First there are no Paramount logos but then someone could have removed them. The film doesn't have the original leaders unfortunately.

Reel 1 is quite warm to magenta but reel 2 although warm does have all the others colours and looks much better. Towards the end of reel 1 it changes to the same stock as reel 2 so looks much better. About the last 400ft or so.

Here is the info on the edge of the 2 reels:

Be interested to hear what you say. From my Ilford days I seem to remember the dot in the word SAFETY denotes the country the film stock was made in.

Kev.

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on July 17, 2008, 07:14 PM:

For those who are new to this, if you go to the 'front side' of film-tech.com, Brad has a really great chart posted there under manuals/instructional documents/"Kodak film edge code chart (8mm-16mm)", which, in spite of its labelling, can apply to 35mm as well. (See also Kodak's page at http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/support/datecode.pdf).

But this would explain the improvement in color, because reel one is from 1979 (only the circles count) and reel two from 1982. The asterisk between the s and a indicates the film was manufactured in Rochester (see Jeff Joseph's chart at http://www.sabucat.com/?pg=datecodechart).

When I suggested bad lab work above, I'd assumed it was the NEW version of the film, not "normal" fading.

Posted by John Whittle (Member # 22) on July 17, 2008, 08:54 PM:

Kev,

Is this a scope print? The flat version was the tv edit. Since it's US stock then I'd guess it's a Movielab print and the problem is the age of the first reel. These aren't from the first print run which was back in the late 60s. Someday I'll run across my print again and put it up on rewinds and take a look at it.

You didn't mention, but was it on acetate or estar?

John

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 18, 2008, 12:15 PM:

I'm not a 16MM collector per se, but this series of posts is quite interesting.

I have an optical sound Super 8 feature of "Shout At The Devil, and I know that this print was manufactured all at the same time ...

and yet, I note that there are different varieties of Eastman stock used, some "23" some "28" and the last in the thirties.
The color does vary in quality from reel to reel.

I always been a little baffled about these numbers. Are these merely the "batch" number (as in that particular run of film) or are each number given to a particular type or mix of color, a specific difference in color type (for instance, SP or L.P.P.)

curious ...

Posted by Steven Sigel (Member # 21) on July 18, 2008, 02:09 PM:

Kevin - Your first reel is '79 and the second reel is '82 (pre-lpp)... Sounds like normal Eastman fade to me...

the dot after the S indicates USA. (SAF * TY is UK)

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on July 18, 2008, 05:53 PM:

Steven, This is why I have been confused over all this. You said Kodak SP and Eastman LPP! So was there stocks marked as Eastman which were in fact SP?

There are a lot of posts on the 16mm forum saying that that they have xyz for sale on Eastman which is fading which means that all Eastman is NOT LPP.

John, It's Acetate stock and a Flat print.

Looks like I was sold a print which is fading. This pee's me off no end especially as the seller said it was in great condition with good colour. The seller is a member of this forum as well [Frown]

Kev.

Posted by Steven Sigel (Member # 21) on July 18, 2008, 07:03 PM:

Hi Kevin,
You lost me.

Your first reel is 1979 Eastman (not SP or LPP) and your second reel is 1982 Eastman (not SP or LPP)....

What would make you think it was SP?

FYI Eastman and SP co-existed for quite a while. SP stock is labeled "KODAK SP" . SP was around from about 1974 to 1981 or so (not sure of the exact years).

Normal Eastman stock (the fading kind) was around from 1954-1982.

LPP stock started being produced in late 1982. So in 1982 you can have regular Eastman (just marked EASTMAN) or LPP (marked EASTMAN LPP).

From 1983 (to the best of my knowlege) all of the stock produced by Eastman was LPP.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on July 18, 2008, 09:36 PM:

Following on from Steven's post, am I right in saying that some years after 1983 (can't recall when), Kodak dropped the 'LPP' from stock markings, just leaving 'EASTMAN', although it continued to be LPP?

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on July 19, 2008, 03:00 AM:

Yes, Adrian, you're quite right. I think from around 1992 or so the LPP was dropped from the edge markings.

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on July 19, 2008, 01:35 PM:

Not to worry Steven I think I got confused as well. It was just that you mentioned in an earlier post:

It's "Kodak SP" and "Eastman LPP"....

But its obvious to me now from other posts that there was non LPP Eastman which fades and this is what I have here.....bugger!

Kev.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 19, 2008, 10:24 PM:

What about me question?

The repose it, do those numbers (Eastman 23, 28, 32), deal with specific stock numbers, specific batches, (in other words, a one time run through the developers), or a number that deals which a specific kind of Eastman, (perhaps one is better for night scenes, some not, ect.

What about it lads?

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on July 20, 2008, 02:21 AM:

Osi,

My feeling is that these are indeed batch numbers. I have some prints with the same.

These numbers are not of any importance to collectors, to the best of my knowledge.

-Mike

Posted by Steven Sigel (Member # 21) on July 20, 2008, 09:37 AM:

Hi Kevin,

Ah, I see the confusion -- I meant that when you see LPP stock, it's marked "Eastman"... Not that when you see "Eastman" stock, it's automatically LPP...

To Adrian: Mike is right -- they started dropping the LPP on some stock as early as the mid-80s, and completely dropped it by the mid 90s (I think I've seen stuff from later than 92 that was still marked LPP)... However, it's all LPP no matter how it's marked...

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on July 20, 2008, 05:50 PM:

There are definitely some sellers out there that need to get their eyes checked for colour blindness if you ask me [Mad]

Excellent condition and colour...indeed [Mad]

I don't think I have ever sold a film with a description other than how the film really is. Some people have no conscience at all!

Kev.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on July 20, 2008, 08:05 PM:

Did he mention ANYTHING about colour loss Kevin?

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on July 21, 2008, 03:30 AM:

Did the seller state that this was a low fade print?

-Mike

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on July 21, 2008, 06:00 PM:

No he just said excellent condition and colour.

Kev.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2