Re: [Frameworks] Kodak 7212?

From: Mark Toscano <>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 22:29:06 -0700 (PDT)

Apparently, Kodak is planning to discontinue 7272/3272 interneg within the year, to be replaced by a polyester version of 7201 (50D). If you want to ever do anything with 72 interneg stock in 16mm, buy a bunch of it now. Last I heard, they have enough to continue supplying through the end of the year, and have already had labs (or just one lab I know of, at least) testing the 7201 (presumably to be called 3201 in its polyester version). And although from what I hear, the tests have been very successful and the lab and timer I spoke to very pleased with the results, some folks out there may still be bummed about the loss of 72 interneg. So consider yourself warned! Grab it while you can.

I've known many folks who've preferred to use 7201 instead of 72 for internegative production anyway, so this will be nothing but a good thing for some. I remember Laure Sainte-Rose telling me she never uses the 72 interneg for her avant-garde preservation work, much preferring the camera stocks. I've preserved some films using 7201, sacrificing the presumably more stable polyester base for the much better color reproduction for these particular pieces. The Great Blondino Preview was preserved this way. 72 was often capable of weird color crossover that could be hard to control, depending on the source material you'd print from.

Currently, Kodak has produced the new polyester 7201 in 400ft loads max, but I understand the plan is to increase the roll size, which would definitely be necessary for my kinds of projects, and anybody making a film in reversal that's more than 11 minutes long. I don't think you can actually buy it yet, maybe it's still in the tryout phase...?

Not sure if this applies to 35mm too. I've always assumed that 72 interneg is much more commonly used in 16mm than 35mm, since it's meant to come from non-orange positive, i.e. reversal, usually.

Finally, another option is to print through orange mask to 7244/3244, if you want to bump up the contrast a bunch. The last film I finished was partly (a '60s found Ektachrome sequence) printed this way thanks to the genius of former FotoKem timer Josh Rushton, and it looked amazing.

If anyone has more info on this, by the way, please post it!

Mark T

--- On Thu, 5/5/11, Jean-Louis Seguin <> wrote:

From: Jean-Louis Seguin <>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Kodak 7212?
To: "Experimental Film Discussion List" <>
Date: Thursday, May 5, 2011, 2:39 PM

Hey man, I know the difference between 7212 and 7272.
The question is: why aren't you using 7272  in the first place for your optical printing instead of 7212 ?

On 2011-05-05, at 3:57 PM, Beebe,Roger W wrote:

72-twelve.  Here's the official notice from October:


FrameWorks mailing list
Received on Thu May 05 2011 - 22:29:15 CDT