Is movie film less archival than film specific to still photography?

[Colin O]

When I started to take my photography hobby a little more seriously - about 25 years ago - this website proved an invaluable resource. Some things I read here then have stuck in my mind ever since, and one thing I remember reading is a recommendation against using film that was derived from movie stock...

Films to avoid

• Anything derived from movie stock, e.g., Seattle Film Works. Movie film is lower quality than photographic film and it is also non-archival. Your memories will fade very quickly if you don't keep your processed negatives in the freezer (which is what movie studios do). [Note: normal color neg film will say "Process C41" on the canister. If it says "Process ***something else****" then you've got movie film. This is why the junk that Seattle Filmworks respools cannot be processed at your local minilab.]

I'm wondering if there's still some truth to this? I've shot some Cinestill 800T recently (C-41 process, but derived from Kodak Vision3 movie stock), and I've also just ordered some Silbersalz 250D which is also derived from Kodak Vision3 and needs the ECN-2 process.

[25asa]

Archival quality may refer to unexposed film in your case. Once its exposed and developed, I dont see the film fading over time any quicker than still film. After all- movie studios are still transfering color film from the 60s and getting usable results. I guess storage conditions have some affect on the film as well. Heat and humidity damages film no matter what.

[Rick Helmke]

As far as archival quantities I know of no reason to be concerned. I spent some time back in the day processing and trying to print film from Seattle Film Works and yes, it’s leftover cine film and we were never able to get any decent results. There was a reason it was so cheap. Don’t waste your time.

 

Rick H

[Alan Marcus]

The archrival properties of film is highly dependent on the adherence to the specifications of the developing process and on the storage conditions that the product undergoes.  

In the black & white process, the image is comprised of metallic silver imbedded in gelatin coated on an acetate base. The enemies are heat, humidity, moisture, and contamination. Moisture damages the gelation and promotes the growth of algae and mold. Contamination promotes chemical debasement of the silver image. Films made before the mid 20th century have a base made of cellulose acetate. This base deteriorates and becomes an explosive. Color film has the same enemies plus the dyes fade over time. 

Adherence to processing specification grants the best archrival results (100 years). Proper fixing and washing, is the key plus color film requires a proper stabilizer step. The stabilizer supplies a biocide and a gelatin preservative. Premature failures are likely due to improper fix, wash or stabilizer steps.  

Professional movie processors are less likely to make a mistake thus I think movie film has the edge when it comes to longevity. 

[Colin O]

13 hours ago, 25asa said:

Archival quality may refer to unexposed film in your case. Once its exposed and developed, I dont see the film fading over time any quicker than still film. After all- movie studios are still transfering color film from the 60s and getting usable results. I guess storage conditions have some affect on the film as well. Heat and humidity damages film no matter what.

Just on the point of movie studios and archiving colour film... I've heard said a variety of times that movie studios don't archive colour film, but rather transfer each colour film to 3 separate black&white films - with one of the RGB colour channels transferred to each roll of B&W. This is what is archived, and when a new print is required, the reverse process is followed - creating a single colour "duplicate" that's had 3 exposures, one for each of the RGB channels in the B&W films.

I don't know an authoritative source for this, but it makes sense. B&W film is supposedly more archival than colour.

[AJG]

1 hour ago, Colin O said:

Just on the point of movie studios and archiving colour film... I've heard said a variety of times that movie studios don't archive colour film, but rather transfer each colour film to 3 separate black&white films - with one of the RGB colour channels transferred to each roll of B&W. This is what is archived, and when a new print is required, the reverse process is followed - creating a single colour "duplicate" that's had 3 exposures, one for each of the RGB channels in the B&W films.

I don't know an authoritative source for this, but it makes sense. B&W film is supposedly more archival than colour.

B&W is definitely more archival than color negatives when processed and stored properly.  The sad part is how many films have been lost due to fires and corporate decisions to cut costs by disposing of old movie original materials. Most films from the silent era are long gone because of the costs involved in transferring original nitrate based films to safety based film since nitrate based film tends to deteriorate over time and can be a fire hazard.

[glen_h]

The biggest problem with Seattle Film Works film is that it is tungsten balanced.

You can sort-of rebalance the color later, but not quite.  

In the very early years of color negative film, it was believed that there didn't need to be different negative films.

It was quickly found to be wrong.

 

Did anyone use a color balance filter with SFW film?

[glen_h]

As for the original question, I would expect 8mm movie film to be less archival due to the frame size.

That is, any defect is a larger part of the frame.

On the other hand, when viewing movie film, the average over multiple frames makes defects (and grain) less obvious.

The wear of running film through a projector is likely more than still film.

[Alan Marcus]

By archival, the film image is suitable under archival storage conditions with a 100-year storage life. Modern color films are black & white films that additionally contain dyes that replace the black & white image with dye. Modern black & white films properly processed and properly stored can meet his definition.  The dyes used in color films come from organic sources thus they are fugitive (they fade).  

As to color film being preserved on black & white film. I cannot confirm or deny. That being said, the original Technicolor process of 1928 used a camera that exposed three black & white rolls of film simultaneously. The image from the lens was directed through a prism and mirror system. One beam was filtered red, one green and one blue. These individually exposed black & white film (three separate rolls of film).  These were the masters. 

Copies were made on three special rolls of black & white films chosen because they tolerated a developing process that caused the gelatin emulsion to bulge and deflate (ungulate) in proportion to density of the black & white silver image. In other words, a relief image somewhat like a rubber ink stamp. The red image film was soaked in cyan, the green image film in magenta, and the blue image film in yellow dye. These were pressed in register on a receiver roll of non-photographic film. Called an imbibition process, the result was a full color film suitable for projection. The three master films were the ones that needed to be archrival.  

The Technicolor method was very popular. It was replaced by color film called a try-pack. It has three emulsions coated on a single support. The dyes used are imbedded in the film during manufacture. Modern color film movies are made using a negative color film that is the master. Release prints are copies. made on copy film, they are positive image (transparency for projection).    

[Ken Katz]

Found this describing how Disney Studios created a process in the 1930's to expose a single strip of B&W film 3 times using an RGB color wheel.  Though given the relatively slow process, it was used mostly for animated films.  Moving to the 1990's they started reusing that process for production of all animated films and for archival storage of all others.  It is currently being used to archive movies shot using digital cameras as a backstop to the digital files.

https://www.disneydigitalstudio.com/preserving-our-movies/

For the last 20+ years, practically all commercial movies shot using film are scanned, edited & color graded via a digital intermediate.  And practically all movies are shown in theaters using a digital projector.  Prints are delivered to the movie theaters via a digital file.

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by Ken Katz

[Niels - NHSN]

With reference to the original question:

On 6/1/2023 at 10:29 PM, Colin O said:

...

I'm wondering if there's still some truth to this? I've shot some Cinestill 800T recently (C-41 process, but derived from Kodak Vision3 movie stock), and I've also just ordered some Silbersalz 250D which is also derived from Kodak Vision3 and needs the ECN-2 process.

Movie color negative film used in-camera is only needed for a short time during film production, and as such does not need to be archival.

In the past, it was probably not even kept after editing and the color-graded master was finalised; the master from which positive copies were created for theatre distribution.

I don't know if in-camera negative color film and the final master were created on material with different archival properties.
I do, however, doubt that the film industry cared much as normally most of the theatre distributed positive copies were created close to the release of the film, and post-release, these positive copies would be sufficient to satisfy the diminishing demand for the movie.

I think most movie copies kept in archives and film museums are the distributed positive copy, not the master. It is also my understanding that most restoration projects are performed based on distributed positive copies.

Today there are even less encouragement to make archival movie negative film, as it always is digitalised before editing and color grading.

I can't say if current movie color film stock is less archival than regular still film stock, but given there is no economic encouragement in doing an effort in making it so, it shouldn't be a surprise if it is less archival.
On the other hand, it is also possible that economy-of-scale of the dye components of film production makes it irrelevant to differentiate between movie and still film, and thus the archival properties could be the same.

One could search the Kodak professional spec sheets or ask them directly for a definitive answer.

Edited June 10, 2023 by Niels - NHSN

[john_shriver]

Seattle Film Works was Eastman 5247, a color negative material for camera use in motion pictures, in ECN-2 process. But it may well have been "short ends" left over after a movie was completed, so somewhat outdated. (Movies buy more than enough film from the same production lot for each film.) Plus, cinema camera films are designed with very little concern for storage life at room temperature before exposure, or for latent image keeping.

Plus, Seattle Film Works probably wasn't running the cleanest ECN-2 processing line.

Also, ECN-2 films have a color response NOT designed to match color printing paper. Different contrast and color response. So you could not get prints with as good color as from Kodacolor film.

Seattle Film Works would also make slides for you, on motion picture projection stock. Release prints are considered "expendable," so no major concern with color stability. Ever notice how badly the souvenir slide sets they sold at tourist traps in the 1960's and 1970's fade? Same projection stock.

As for color stability, Kodak said the contemporaneous C-22 and C-41 color films were pretty similar to 5247, as were the E-4 Ektachrome films. Kodachrome has always been Kodak's most stable film, in terms of fading in dark storage.

Of course, Eastman 5247 is long discontinued, and Seattle Film Works is no more. Plus all of Kodak's color films are more stable than they were 40 years ago!

[Kent T]

On 6/17/2023 at 8:51 PM, john_shriver said:

Seattle Film Works was Eastman 5247, a color negative material for camera use in motion pictures, in ECN-2 process. But it may well have been "short ends" left over after a movie was completed, so somewhat outdated. (Movies buy more than enough film from the same production lot for each film.) Plus, cinema camera films are designed with very little concern for storage life at room temperature before exposure, or for latent image keeping.

Plus, Seattle Film Works probably wasn't running the cleanest ECN-2 processing line.

Also, ECN-2 films have a color response NOT designed to match color printing paper. Different contrast and color response. So you could not get prints with as good color as from Kodacolor film.

Seattle Film Works would also make slides for you, on motion picture projection stock. Release prints are considered "expendable," so no major concern with color stability. Ever notice how badly the souvenir slide sets they sold at tourist traps in the 1960's and 1970's fade? Same projection stock.

As for color stability, Kodak said the contemporaneous C-22 and C-41 color films were pretty similar to 5247, as were the E-4 Ektachrome films. Kodachrome has always been Kodak's most stable film, in terms of fading in dark storage.

Of course, Eastman 5247 is long discontinued, and Seattle Film Works is no more. Plus all of Kodak's color films are more stable than they were 40 years ago!

Some Pro Tips: Cinestill 800T, 50D, are Eastman Vision 3 with the Rem-jet removed so they can be processed just like any other C-41 film in any C-41 lab. Disadvantages: Prone to halos in the bright highlights. Use a correcting filter for daylight. Advantages: Easy C-41 processing, Scans like nobody's business. Superb for hybrid workflows like still photographers do today.. I have to keep CineStill so spastic me can get his Exposure. The F-stops Here. 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Kent T

[eddy_d]

Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan shoot their movies on film. And The Waking Dead was shot on film.