Re: Seattle Filmworks

[P3D Derek Gee <73157.2172@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Martin Schub wrote (in Base 64):
>Derek also writes:

> c) Motion picture stocks are not as archivally stable as the new
>   standard films. 

>I've heard that before, but I've never been quite sure which stock is
>supposed to have the short lifetime--is it the negative stock, or the
>release-print stock?   For that matter, if it's the negative stocks, does
>anybody know _which_ of the negative stocks are supposed to be bad?  Dale
>has offered a number of movie negative films over the years, and I've
>got the impression that some of them are relatively new.  I guess I
>would have thought that with the incredibly huge investment involved
>in making a movie, the industry would demand that the camera original
>stocks would be as archival as money could buy.  One might guess that
>release prints, on the other hand, might be optimized for high
>longevity under projection, but not necessarily in dark
>storage.  Can any of our movie-industry gurus shed some light on this?

It's both negatives and release-print stock that have this problem.
There are archivally stable stocks available, but they're not used
much due to the increased cost.  You'd think that the film
industry would flock to a more stable camera negative, but they
haven't.  I don't know how much extra Kodak charges for their
archival negative vs. their standard negative films, but it must
be a high enough premium to deter usage.  Perhaps one of our list
members who is heavy into 35mm film stocks could give us some idea
of just how much the price difference is??
 
                                   Derek Gee



------------------------------