- To E.B.K. (Errol Bruce-Knapp, UFO Updates
Host-Editor)
-
- I'm not a subscriber to the UpDates listing
however, as a professional cinematographer, I do have some factual information
concerning the TV show about the 'KGB Files' on UFOs. While I personally
believe in the existence of alien life forms and the probability of them
visiting our world, I find the "secret footage" to be false for
several very good reasons.
-
- The show featured an "expert"
on Soviet film stocks. He presented, for the viewing audience, a stack
of 35mm film cans and called attention to their various labels to verify
the type of film that would be available in the late 60's.
-
- Then a strip of the film was shown on
a tv monitor so that the information on its edge could be seen, also for
verification purposes.
-
- And here's were the rub comes in:
-
- The film presented was clearly 16mm color
NEGATIVE film; something not available in 16mm, even in the United States,
until the late 70's and early 80's.
-
- In addition, the show included a technician
holding up a strip of the 16mm film to the light for inspection, despite
the fact that all of the cans on display were for 35mm film.
-
- The only 16mm film stock available in
the 60's was known as reversal, which is a POSITIVE film stock that can
be viewed directly after processing without having to have a print made.
-
- In addition, the footage shown was clearly
derived from color negative as it was void of the dense blacks and high
contrast that is indicative of color reversal film, whether 16mm or 35mm.
-
- Just think back on what news footage
in the 60's and 70's looked like on color film. Pretty bad, remember? The
Soviet footage looked waaaay too good, no matter how accurate the uniforms
and props might be.
-
- So, unless the Soviets had Kodak beat
by over a decade in the development of 16mm color negative, and unless
the Soviets were in the habit of storing 16mm film in 35mm cans, then the
film presented was no doubt a fake.
-
- On the other hand, if the Soviets' 16mm
film was that good in the 60's (regardless of their storage habits), then
their current film stocks must be spectacular.
-
- Perhaps they should go into the film
business and give Kodak and Fuji some competition! Might do wonders for
the Soviet economy!
-
- Thanks for the time,
-
- Roger
-
-
- On The Other Hand....
-
-
- Dear All,
-
- I'm not doubting Rodger's knowledge in
these matters but I would like to point out that I and my late father were
using Russian colour film stock for 'home-processing' in the mid 60's.
-
- I gather it had been available well before
this in the SU. We were using 16mm stock double punched for std 8 double
run cine on 25 foot rolls which we hand sliced down to the 8mm guage after
processing in a 16mm tank.
-
- Their process was very obscure, required
in excess of 25+ process stages and was a "reversal" process
ie you first developed a partial "negative" image which was then
"lost" the remaining "positive" was then developed
on to give the final "positive" colour image.
-
- This system did produce a "negative"
image as the first stage of the film process but was sacrificed in the
reversal process, I don't see why the system could not have been tailored
to produce a negative if needed.
-
- There may have been some dark chemestry
that disallowed this but the neg image was there to be seen when the film
was re-exposed to white light ready for the reversal development.
-
- As I recall the film system was marketed
here in the UK as "Technopan", it did take forever to process
the stuff but the results were remarkably good on the whole, they also
sold a 35mm version for slides.
-
- Neil
From Roger Evans
<moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com
9-23-98
-
- Neil,
-
- You are quite correct about the Soviet
reversal film you and your father processed in the 60's.
-
- In fact, any direct reversal film such
as Kodak's Ektachrome (either slides or motion picture) using E-6, E-4
or E-3 style chemistry will produce a recognizable negative image after
the first stage of developing. (Kodachrome won't because it's a die-transfer
process and can't be processed at home; very toxic, also)
-
- However, recognizable isn't the same
thing as usable.
-
- As I'm sure you've found through experimentation,
any type of print from the resulting negative you described would be pretty
wretched. Technically possible? Yes. Practical? No.
-
- I don't see the Soviets risking an important
image to such an arcane process. And, make no mistake about it, the Soviet
film looked damn good; too good for the process described above. It makes
as little sense as the presentation of 35mm film cans when the film on
display was clearly 16mm!
-
- I am an ardent believer of UFO visitation.
However, the Soviet film - just like the Santilli Roswell film - is a pretty
poor attempt to take advantage of those in the market place that will,
literally, buy anything that smacks of UFO proof.
-
- However, I am very interested in the
Soviet film you were home-processing in the 60's as it would predate Kodak's
Ektachrome by many years.
-
- Hope to hear more...
Roger Evans
|
