8mm Forum: Kodak Lpp polyester print ? ?

This is topic Kodak Lpp polyester print ? ? in forum 8mm 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=1;t=000824

Posted by Richard Clark (Member # 63) on October 19, 2004, 02:49 PM:

Hi can anyone tell me if this is a bad thing or a good thing to have a film on this type of stock( Kodak Lpp polyester print).
I dont know if that means it will fade or is bad in some way or even a good thing.
Best Regards to all
Richard...

Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on October 19, 2004, 04:08 PM:

Hi,

Well I am certainly by no means an expert in these matters but it is my understanding that a LPP stock is low fade and therefore it is probable the colours will be intact for some years to come. Ultimately every film will fade but LPP takes much longer.

Now, some people do not like to see black and white films printed onto colour stock and I assume there are LPP black and whites around. I believe some may result in their being a tint and therefore not being pure black and white etc.

I think (and this is where it gets shaky!) that the LPP stock is physically stronger than acetate and less prone to stretch and breaking.

After that I leave it to the truely enlightened!

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on October 19, 2004, 06:20 PM:

I will have to jump in here on that reply Tony.
Polyester stock does stretch but your right it wont break. Acetate doesnt stretch but will of course break very easily. I have seen damage done to a machine from poly stock which would not have happened with acetate film as it would have just snapped. Poly is great as its generally thinner so you can get more running time on a spool and yes its Low Fade. BTW I have a Red Fox print of L&H's Fra Diavolo which is on Genuine Kodak B/W stock and poly base not the normal B/W acetate base.
Some people say that poly based films when comparred to acetate base have less sharpness but I would say that after seeing CHC's realease of Spiderman and some of Derann's releases that this is questionable.

Kev.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on October 19, 2004, 10:40 PM:

LPP has to do with color fading. There have been no known issues of color fading on LPP prints since it was introduced in 1982 (even when stored under poor conditions).

Polyester base stock has nothing to do with picture resolution. Kodak's current polyester base filmstocks are more scratch resistant and will never turn VS. Best to get films on polyester. Any Kodak stock after 1982 IS LPP, even though it does not always say.

Posted by Tony Milman (Member # 7) on October 20, 2004, 12:52 AM:

Thanks guys....like I say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!!!

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on October 20, 2004, 01:40 PM:

In summery...
The best is IB Technicolour (imbition)black soundtrack, clear sprocket holes
Next best; Kadachrome,Eastman Rev1 and 11,Ansachrome,
Next best;LPP,Agfa,Fuji.
Then;pre 1982 Eastman 4b,4F,4L,25,Kodak SP
the Worst is Pre 1982 Eastman colour Non 4b)

this ifo from www.film-centre.com. An excellent site with everything on here for film care and storage. [Wink]

Posted by Steven Sigel (Member # 21) on October 20, 2004, 03:18 PM:

Repeat after me: there is no such thing as "4b" - the marks that people call "4b" actually look more like "-: :." -- these markings refer to the slitter machine that was used to cut the stock and they have NOTHING to do with color stabiility at all.

Also -- IB Tech has a gray (silver) Soundtrack - not black.
Sprockets may be clear (double rank), dark about 1/2 way in (single rank), or black and marked "Technicolor Safety" (British IB). There's also blue-track Technicolor (1945-55) which has a pale blue soundtrack. (Cinecolor also has a similar pale blue soundtrack)...

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on October 20, 2004, 04:53 PM:

Sorry Brad but you are wrong on that point of sharpness. I worked for a UK film manufacturer (Ilford Films) and I can tell you that there is a diff in sharpness. Some of the Ilford emulsions which were used on acetate based films (FP4 & HP5 motion pic)had to be reformulated for use on Polyester based film stock. Some of the reformulation was concerned with sharpnes and is to do with the way the light scatters within the base itself. I remember some coating trials done with different back layers to the reverse of the film to see the effect of light bouncing back into the base. Also it has to be remembered that beacuse of the thinner base the emulsion layer has to be slightly thinner to stop curl. Because of this there is an effect on sharpnes or as we used to call it "Micro Sharpness"
It was also thought that Acetate based film had better "Edge effects" which occur during processing, comparred to Polyester, which also led to a slight drop off of definition.
This science is too involved to go into here but I spent many many hours measuring different micro sharpness charts on motion picture tests on both B/W and Cibachrome products coated on different bases and emulsion make-ups.

Kev.

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on October 20, 2004, 06:50 PM:

Hi Kevin,
That's an interesting insight, especially as I think it has been quite widely thought that polyester stock can give sharper results. I recall Derek Simmonds saying this at a Derann Open Day around the time (approx 1984) their releases started to generally be printed on polyester stock.
One advantage that I would say polyester has is that it seems to stay flatter, whereas with acetate you more often have to adjust the focus due to a slight curl emerging towards the end of a reel.
Adrian

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on October 21, 2004, 11:51 AM:

As i said, [Big Grin]

Does anyone have a new link to the e mail i gave, it doesn't seem to work anymore. [Confused]

It was an excellent site

Posted by Richard Clark (Member # 63) on October 21, 2004, 02:14 PM:

Hi Guys,
I just want to say thanks for all of your information on the film stocks, Im learning more all the time!
It seems that i wont be affraid of getting any films on LPP stock now
Best Regards
Richard...

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on October 21, 2004, 02:16 PM:

LPP is one of the very best around as far as i can see. [Wink]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on October 22, 2004, 03:39 AM:

I'll take your word on it Kevin, but working in the 35mm world I had the opportunity several years back to compare acetate base vs. polyester base on the same picture content and none of us could tell a difference in resolution. The subtle differences may come into play moreso since we are talking 8mm though.

Personally given the choice, I will opt for polyester every time. It's tougher, harder to scratch and cannot turn VS.

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on October 26, 2004, 04:14 PM:

Adrian, I would agree with you on that one. I think Poly stays a lot flatter in the gate and on the reel. It also seems less upset by heat etc and still remains flat and without the problems of warpage and shinkage that you get with acetate as it ages.
Static is another story though!!!

Kev.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on October 27, 2004, 12:57 PM:

On ployester what do you rhink of its strength with regard to how hard it can be on a projector should a problem accure. Have to say i suppose the obvious answer is to ALWAYS check films before projecting. What imean is on older stock if a problem occured the film would just break without too much stress to the machine, polester as you know cant be pulled apart by hand so if it got caught within the projector i would imagine there would be a lot of stress on the claw and other parts. [Wink]

A strong case to ensure we all check our 2nd hand prints

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on October 27, 2004, 05:06 PM:

Thats spot on Tom. I once had to sort out an ST1200D which had a bad snarl up with some poly stock. The claw took the brunt of the trouble & had to be removed to sort it out. The bottom claw tip had got slightly bent. Also the pull of the film had loosened the top sprocket wheel.

Kev.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on October 27, 2004, 05:59 PM:

Hi Kev,
Maybe then it's a good idea NOT to tighten the top sprocket too much, so it can spin on the shaft in the event of a threading disaster, and so take a lot of high loads off the claws . It needs to be tight enough to pull the film off the supply spool, and to not spin in reverse running, and maybe not too much more than that?

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2