Did nitrate film projection actually look better than later safety film?
Asked 4/10/2017
3 views
2 answers
0
I’m asking about image quality, not fire risk. Nitrate film was the original motion-picture base before cellulose acetate “safety film” replaced it. Some archivists and projectionists describe nitrate prints as having deeper blacks, brighter whites, and especially beautiful color. Is that because nitrate film itself had optical or chemical properties that improved projected image quality, or is the reputation mostly due to other factors such as print condition, projection, or historical processes like Technicolor? Was any difference ever objectively measurable?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
9y ago
2 Answers
10
Cellulose nitrate film material was the first successful transparent, flexible stock. It made roll film and motion picture (cine) film possible. The bad news was cellulose nitrate self-combusted at about 300°F. The movie houses of that era used carbon arc as the projection light source. If the film were to break during a movie, the stopped film would likely catch fire. I think a movie theater burned down every day, somewhere in the world. This changed in the 1950’s when the formula changed to cellulose acetate. This new film base will burn, but it self- extinguishes. This material is labeled “safety film”.
An informative and entertaining read on the development (no pun intended) of the use of cellulose in photography. Exploding Photographers, Disappearing Clothes, and the Development of Film
In my opinion, the same film emulsion coated on either will be visually the same. The likely reason someone would admire black & white movies of the earlier era is the fact that early photo film was sensitive only to violet and blue. As film making progressed, films gained sensitivity to green (orthochromatic) and then to red (panchromatic). This progression improved the monochromatic rendering, Blue only and the blue-green sensitive films presented an image with lots of contrast. The latter panchromatic materials were more subdued. Some might say the older materials were better, but others like me would disagree.
As to the first successful motion picture color film process, Technicolor, the camera exposed three black & white films simultaneously. Each was uniquely exposed to one of the three light primary colors via strong red, green, and blue filters. The three black and white films were each printed on a special film emulsion called a matrix. The matrix displayed a positive image (black & white transparency). The matrix film was developed in a “tanning” developer and the result was a relief image. By relief, I mean the image had depth. The depth of the image (thickness) of the emulsion varied in proportion to the amount of silver in any given location.
The three matrix films were soaked in dye. Cyan dye for the film that recorded the red image, yellow dye for the film that recorded the blue image, magenta dye for the film that recorded the green image. The dyes soaked into the film in proportion to the swelling of the emulsion.
A release print film was made for projection at the theater. The release film was a gelatin coat on the cellulose nitrate base. The three matrix films were pressed against the release film. Under pressure, the dye in the matrix film was squeezed out and transferred to the release film. This dye transfer was made three times. Because the release print film was a non-photo chemical material, the choice of dyes that could be used was vast. Today’s color films are super restricted as to what dyes can be used. This hinders their final appearance.
Some will say the Technicolor process was the grandest of all the color cine film methods. Some will say its yield was too contrasty and too vivid. I say, “a tip of the hat to those who devised this marvelously wonderful photographic tool”. By the way, it had a still picture counterpart called Dye Transfer. Most would say, the colors of the Dye Transfer process top anything you have ever seen on photographic paper.
Originally by user44949. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user44949
9y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
The key point is that nitrate refers to the film base, not the image-forming emulsion itself. Its main historic significance was that it was the first practical transparent, flexible motion-picture support—while also being dangerously flammable. Later acetate “safety film” was adopted primarily because it self-extinguishes more readily.
So nitrate’s famous look is not simply because it was nitrate. Any perceived superiority is more likely tied to the overall film materials and printing/projection practices of the era, plus the condition of surviving archival prints, rather than the base alone. In other words, nitrate itself was essential historically, but the image qualities people praise were not just a direct result of its combustibility or base chemistry by itself.
From the provided answers, no objective measurement or quantification of a special nitrate-only visual advantage is established. The clearest supported conclusion is: nitrate made early cinema possible, but its replacement by acetate was about safety, not an intentional downgrade in image quality.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI9y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
No related questions yet.