Home of Professional Cinematography since 1996

style="margin-bottom: 0">Films On 5254

Published : 28th August 2004

The comment was made that ...I think 5254 is the only obsolete product I'd like to see Kodak bring back!!!

Me too. Best flesh-to-neutral balance ever. As long as I don't have to process it (in the old, cold, ECN1 process).

Dominic Case
Atlab Australia



>I think 5254 is the only obsolete product I'd like to see

Are there any prime examples of films using this stock for us 'young-uns' that have been weened (sp?) on Vision and Super-F stocks to have a look at??

Cheers

Kim Sargenius
Sydney



Kim Henning Sargenius wrote:

>Are there any prime examples of films using this stock for us 'young->uns' that have been weened (sp?) on Vision and Super-F stocks to have >a look at???

Godfathers 1 and 2, McCabe and Mrs Miller (to name a couple of polar opposites), and almost every American film between 1969 and 1974 (and many non-American films, too).

Jeff Kreines



Almost any film made between 1968 and 1974 (when the first version of 5247 came out, used more in Europe than the U.S.) or 1976 (when the 600 series version of 5247 came out and Kodak obsolete 5254.) Famous examples of movies shot on 5254 would be "The Godfather", "Barry Lyndon", "Cabaret", "Bound for Glory", etc. Kodak replaced it with the Series 600 5247 in August of 1976. You have films of that period using both - for example, "Close Encounters", which was shot on 5247 in 35mm anamorphic and 5254 in 65mm Super Panavision for efx photography.

Basically, it was smoother, creamier, had a wider latitude, and push-processed better than 5247, which was sharper and finer-grained, more contrasty. Vision 320T rated at 160 ASA and printed down, to me, has a 5254 look.

David Mullen
Cinematographer / L.A.



It sounds like it's time for Kodak to reintroduce 5254.

Cheers,
Jeff Barklage, s.o.c.
US based DP
www.barklage.com



Dominic Case wrote :

>Since it was the only stock available in its time, then you could look at >almost anything shot between 1968 and 1974 (when the first ECN2 film >5247was introduced) and a few films even up until 1977.

What was the original 60's StarTrek shot on?That started shooting around 1966. The DVD's are just "knock your socks off" gorgeous to look at. Around the same time, what where optical houses using for blue screen work? I would love to see a 35mm print of the 60's StarTrek on the big screen just once.

Tom McDonnell
DP
New Orleans, La



Hi Tom and CML,

WOW!! You & I 100% on the original 1960's Star Trek series.

The colors were incredible!

When the Sci-Fi Channel did a new telecine on that show 3 years ago, I believed they went to a full blown HD transfer. I once met & spoke with Jerry Finnerman, ASC at some IA600 affair about his work in shooting that show...he was very nice and said that the producers & the network wanted "color, color & more color" since it was really the introduction of color TV sets for the masses and NBC [with it's Peacock] represented the latest in color broadcasting.

I also remember Martin Hill trying to sell one of the Mitchell BNC's from that show a year ago...5254 should be brought back!!

Cheers,
Jeff Barklage, s.o.c.
US based DP
www.barklage.com



The original "Star Trek" was shot on 5251 (50 ASA tungsten).

David Mullen
Cinematographer / L.A.



Tom McDonnell wrote :

>What was the original 60's StarTrek shot on? That started shooting >around 1966.

Never seen the show, but that would be 5251, which was EI 50. Not a terrible stock, but slow.

Jeff Kreines



>Are there any prime examples

Since it was the only stock available in its time, then you could look at almost anything shot between 1968 and 1974 (when the first ECN2 film 5247 was introduced) and a few films even up until 1977.

But bear in mind that what you look at may well be a faded print, or from a dupe negative on the less-than-perfect 5253 or even from a CRI on 5249, all of which would put a different characteristic on the whole thing these days. Or a new transfer from any of the above, with someone unidentified colourist's idea of what it should look like.

Maybe you'll just have to rely on the discriminating reminiscences of the old'uns. They don't make stock like that any more...

Dominic Case
Atlab Australia



Check out 1973 Dick Lesters The Three Musketeers shot by David Watkin processed by Technicolor London absolutely stunning.

John Holland DoP
London.



If one wishes to examine the transition from Technicolor to Eastmancolor and other color coupler type neg-pos color processes you have to go back to the work of Rudolf Fischer in 1911 who discovered that 'certain dyes can be formed when silver bromide is developed with p-phenylene together with coupling substances' (for more information see COLOR CINEMATOGRAPHY by Adrian Cornwell-Clyne, 3rd edition, 1951, pages 355-388)

This was developed into a successful color process, at the behest of Joseph Goebbels, by Dr William Schneider of Agfa just before WWII. During the war 13 feature films were made using the process, together with many documentaries and news items. The feature film 'Baron Munchausen' was considered to be the

During the occupation of Germany technical groups with the invading forces kept up with the front line troops and investigated all the centres of technology, including Wolfen where Agfa color film was made and processed One of the investigators was Lt. Col R.H. Ranger of the U.S. Signal Corps who wrote a detailed report. (Wolfen was in the Russian zone and continued to manufacture the product as Orwocolor.)

After the war all the German patents were opened and made available to the Allies.

The speeds of Agfa color were 8 Weston for the daylight type and 12 Weston for the Tungsten type. Both were on a Nitrate base. (The book also notes that in 1940 the speed was increased fourfold) There was also a positive version.

I do not carry any torch for Agfa, for after all, their then parent company I.G. Farben also manufactured the gas used in Auschwitz, but history is history and anyone pertaining to know about the history of color negative film should have read Cornwell-Klein or a similarly well informed contemporary book. To ignore the contribution of Agfa is selective history.

And, probably, Lawrence of Arabia also!

Sincerely

David Samuelson