Wolfen Color 200 16mm Film Test

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

Hello all,

As promised I am posting my film test on the NC200.

 

Personal impressions:

• FIlm looks like from 70's, so nice and weird but alot of grain.
• Film has a "blue" tendency?
• A lot of color "breathing".
• Stability is good, haven't noticed any back and forth.
• Compared to something like 50D, or 250D it is of course as if coming from the stone ages.

Overall, I'd definitely use it again and probably will order some more as I really enjoyed how it looks it that context.

Apologies for alot of shakey, non-focused shots it really was done in difficult circumstances.

Edited April 9 by Aristeidis Tyropolis

[Jon O'Brien]

I like it! Thanks so much for posting. Good to see it's with the Tokina 11-16 too.

I think for some projects it will be great. The music is good too. In a lot of film clips and tests I have to turn the sound off as I detest the music tracks a lot of people use but I didn't have to do that this time.

I like how in this short clip film has turned a fairly ordinary scene into something special. It has brought the 'poetry' out of it. Which as we know is one of the special qualities of shooting on film. Film makes everything better to watch.

[Tyler Purcell]

Looks like whoever scanned your film, didn't balance it properly in the scanner. I found with NC500 and NC400, the scanner needed to be setup entirely differently than Kodak. Every other NC200 test I've seen, is BY FAR the best version of their color stock, but your footage doesn't look anything like the scans I've seen. 

I've also included my NC400 test which looks way better. 

https://umbrella.style/blog/2025-10-16-orwo-wolfen-nc200-first-impressions/
 

 

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

11 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

the scanner needed to be setup entirely differently than Kodak.

Probably, since I also have NC500 footage, It needed a bit of extra color balancing as well (not as much as the NC200), but it's ok really, this is just like a quick color grade, so in the end if you sit and balance it yourself it doesn't matter all that much.

No need to put the scanning people through all that trouble for maybe minor improvements vs balancing myself, I didn't even tell them anything = my grade still has a bit of turquoise in the sky, which I found interesting, but you can tweak that further to your liking as below:

I think it's a film that doesn't try to be exact in any way, so it kind works itself out.

 

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

This is how it looks in a Davinci YRGB Color Managed timeline completely ungraded

 

Edited April 9 by Aristeidis Tyropolis

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

And then the grade:

So now that's different again - whilst being similar in some fundamental ways.

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

I updated the video to reflect that color management, as I think it's a bit more "neutral" overall to what the stock wants itself to look like.

[Tyler Purcell]

The turquoise color was baked into the original scan. They must have set the color based on the first frame and walked away. 

Edited April 9 by Tyler Purcell

[Tyler Purcell]

2 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

I updated the video to reflect that color management, as I think it's a bit more "neutral" overall to what the stock wants itself to look like.

Much better! 

[Ross Yeandle]

Which ever way you slice it, it still looks atmospheric. Love it!

[Jon O'Brien]

5 minutes ago, Ross Yeandle said:

Which ever way you slice it, it still looks atmospheric. Love it!

I agree.

[Mark Wiggins]

I think the ORWO/Wolfen stocks offer a nostalgic look. A look many people want nowadays. After all, if people want something to look like it was shot on an Alexa, shoot on an Alexa. If someone wants something to look like it was shot with Kodak stock, shoot on Kodak stock. If someone wants to shoot something that looks different: why not ORWO/Wolfen? There would be no point in ORWO producing motion picture stock if it just looks like Kodak.

[Joerg Polzfusz]

18 minutes ago, Mark Wiggins said:

There would be no point in ORWO producing motion picture stock if it just looks like Kodak.

There would be many good reasons: price, independence from warmongering Trumpistan, …

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

10 hours ago, Ross Yeandle said:

Which ever way you slice it, it still looks atmospheric. Love it!

Absolutely it's really nice to work on,

Will be testing the NC400 soon and this comes after shooting with NC500 footage that I didn't really like all that much.

5 hours ago, Mark Wiggins said:

If someone wants something to look like it was shot with Kodak stock, shoot on Kodak stock. If someone wants to shoot something that looks different: why not ORWO/Wolfen? There would be no point in ORWO producing motion picture stock if it just looks like Kodak.

I agree - but that said, I would also see a benefit on having a "generic" good quality, relatively low-grain, good dynamic range, daylight stock produced from our side of the continent - my understanding is that the level of technology culture, expertise and machinery is simply not there - one can hope for the future and we should support these people anyway! 

13 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

I like how in this short clip film has turned a fairly ordinary scene into something special. It has brought the 'poetry' out of it. Which as we know is one of the special qualities of shooting on film. Film makes everything better to watch.

Thank you for the kind words.

[Mark Wiggins]

10 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

my understanding is that the level of technology culture, expertise and machinery is simply not there - one can hope for the future and we should support these people anyway! 

14 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Absolutely support them. ORWO had been out of the Motion Picture Filmstock game for 50 years so they have a lot of catching up to do to be on a par with Kodak.

[Ross Yeandle]

I think what is interesting is if more of these independent 'film makers'...(sorry couldn't resist) start making alternatives to Kodak then it's going to make shooting on film a very rich and colourful experience...and that's before you even start pushing and pulling. 

My personal approach to film is not to colour 'grade' it but more to colour time it, the way we used to when making a print. Let the natural look of the film shine through even with its imperfections. 

After all you wouldn't autotune Pavarotti now would you?...he might end up sounding like Cher.

[Ross Yeandle]

Sorry to double post but yesterday on YouTube I discovered Harmanphoto, they are based in England and make both 35mm and 120 roll film. There's a video they posted yesterday all about their passion for film, and by that I mean actually making the stuff! Very Inspiring.

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

48 minutes ago, Ross Yeandle said:

Sorry to double post but yesterday on YouTube I discovered Harmanphoto, they are based in England and make both 35mm and 120 roll film. There's a video they posted yesterday all about their passion for film, and by that I mean actually making the stuff! Very Inspiring.

Their films are all the rage right now (alongside the Wolfen stuff of course, or their re-badges) in the stills world, as I am quite prolific on still photography, I am quite eager to test their Phoenix series.

I've posted this elsewhere in other words but I truly believe we are living through a very promising and optimistic period in film photography and cinema - we get to utilize the best digital scanning technology with so many film stock options to choose from (in the stills world at least) - a growing family of products from Orwo can only be a good thing.

1 hour ago, Ross Yeandle said:

Let the natural look of the film shine through even with its imperfections. 

Agreed, unless you want to really push toward an artistic direction for some reason.

 

Edited April 10 by Aristeidis Tyropolis

[Jon O'Brien]

In the first scene it is early morning light? Also, how did you get the dreamy, slow movement to the handheld shots of the snowy field? Is that slow motion? Did you use any extra support or was it just handheld? The snowy field shots are great, too, btw. Looks like it could fit into another remake of 'Far from the Madding Crowd.' Gives me the energy to film my next project. Thanks again. Yes, ORWO/Wolfen is looking promising.

Edited April 10 by Jon O'Brien

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

First scene is at 5pm roughly but two months ago, I feel it has a bit of an early morning vibe I agree.

Ok, so the handheld shots I applied a bit of stabilization in Resolve, cause I actually tripped in the woods funnily enough, a few times. 

The post stabilization effort I did mostly to prevent that silly jerkiness - in fact, I actually hate doing it cause usually it's like a "floating" thing that I  generally despise. -  This time though the magic of absolute chance made something that actually looks nice and appropriate (for what it is), but it was the result of indirect stumbling and a pinch of incompetence really. I am referring to the wide shot of the winter woods only, what happens before or after has no stabilization applied.

It's so funny because most of the shots I was like testing ten different things, including live audio whilst capturing - what you hear as ambience is the actual sound from a hidden mike five meters away - minus the last two shots - that I didn't have time recording it, so I just copy pasted the previous ones to keep a continuity.

Edited April 10 by Aristeidis Tyropolis

[Tyler Purcell]

11 hours ago, Ross Yeandle said:

I think what is interesting is if more of these independent 'film makers'...(sorry couldn't resist) start making alternatives to Kodak then it's going to make shooting on film a very rich and colourful experience...and that's before you even start pushing and pulling. 

I don't even consider this ORWO stock an "alternative" because it's more expensive than Kodak and delivers an inferior image. Not only is it perforated poorly, but I have yet to shoot a roll without inconsistent coating. 

On 4/9/2026 at 11:03 PM, Mark Wiggins said:

I think the ORWO/Wolfen stocks offer a nostalgic look. A look many people want nowadays. After all, if people want something to look like it was shot on an Alexa, shoot on an Alexa. If someone wants something to look like it was shot with Kodak stock, shoot on Kodak stock. If someone wants to shoot something that looks different: why not ORWO/Wolfen? There would be no point in ORWO producing motion picture stock if it just looks like Kodak.

For negative, most people want the cleanest thing possible, so they can muck it up in post. 

If you're going for "nostalgia" you're for sure using a reversal stock anyway, something that's more akin to what would have been shot back then. 

It's one thing to grab a roll of 35mm stills and have at it, low cost investment. It's another to shoot 800ft of 16mm and get mixed bag results. Sadly, nobody is really doing that these days and they can't survive off a random bloke shooting a single 100ft or 200ft roll of film. They probably make more profits from 35mm stills at that point. 

Funny enough, every test I've seen of NC200 in 35mm still format, looks great. So the film appears to finally work, all be it grainy like the other film. It's just down to the perforating and packaging for motion picture that I feel they're still struggling with. 

[Mark Wiggins]

2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I don't even consider this ORWO stock an "alternative" because it's more expensive than Kodak and delivers an inferior image. Not only is it perforated poorly, but I have yet to shoot a roll without inconsistent coating. 

For negative, most people want the cleanest thing possible, so they can muck it up in post. 

If you're going for "nostalgia" you're for sure using a reversal stock anyway, something that's more akin to what would have been shot back then. 

It's one thing to grab a roll of 35mm stills and have at it, low cost investment. It's another to shoot 800ft of 16mm and get mixed bag results. Sadly, nobody is really doing that these days and they can't survive off a random bloke shooting a single 100ft or 200ft roll of film. They probably make more profits from 35mm stills at that point. 

Funny enough, every test I've seen of NC200 in 35mm still format, looks great. So the film appears to finally work, all be it grainy like the other film. It's just down to the perforating and packaging for motion picture that I feel they're still struggling with. 

We’ve had this debate before.🙂 And we had different results from our testing I seem to remember.

I think ORWO are a work in progress. I think they are moving in the right direction. I particularly like their black and white stock UN54.

Also the stability issue seems to be more about the fact that the stock is thinner than Kodak stock (and I’m talking microns) which is what was causing the stock to weave in the gate.

 

[Ross Yeandle]

I have to agree, the great thing with Kodak is you know where you stand. That said I shot a feature last year and the director wanted something really unusual for the childhood flashbacks. So I suggested we shoot on 16mm 4:3 ratio because it feels like the old pictures that, that generation would have in a shoebox as keepsakes. Anyway it definitely feels like a memory in the movie. So the question is would I have taken a chance on anything other than Kodak...well probably not. However for some of the TV stuff I do the answer would be yes I think I would ring the changes and try something different. Also it's great to support these other companies...you know, spread the love.

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

3 hours ago, Mark Wiggins said:

We’ve had this debate before.🙂 And we had different results from our testing I seem to remember.

I think ORWO are a work in progress. I think they are moving in the right direction. I particularly like their black and white stock UN54.

I agree 100% - Yes, they are a long ways from achieving the level of consistency and performance that Kodak has, hence they represent 0.0000001% of any film production out there (if that), but theirs is a valiant and worthwhile endeavor!

The really very nice people at Wittner cinetech gave me a free NC400 roll alongside an original NC400 roll (The NC200 was also free) where they are doing their own slitting and it's possible their effort produces better stability, I will post results here and also provide them with raw footage to compare the two different methodologies.

 

I find the whole thing very exciting alongside the new Portr..sorry Verita film.

I don't think it's so much nostalgia that makes these interesting, they're simply different in their own way - plus shooting reversal isn't the only legitimate way to pursue "otherness" (nor is it that cheap).

Pricing here in Europe is pretty close to Kodak stuff.

Edited April 11 by Aristeidis Tyropolis

[Tyler Purcell]

7 hours ago, Mark Wiggins said:

We’ve had this debate before.🙂 And we had different results from our testing I seem to remember.

Yea, the film manufactured on their coater in Germany, seems to pretty good. I don't believe they are coating everything on that machine, only small batches for testing. So the pre-release stock, seems to have a totally different feel to the final release stock as a consequence. Also, if the film is getting X-Ray damaged when shipped outside of Europe, that's a major problem. 

7 hours ago, Mark Wiggins said:

I think ORWO are a work in progress. I think they are moving in the right direction. I particularly like their black and white stock UN54.

Coating black and white vs color is like going to near earth orbit vs going to the moon. 

7 hours ago, Mark Wiggins said:

Also the stability issue seems to be more about the fact that the stock is thinner than Kodak stock (and I’m talking microns) which is what was causing the stock to weave in the gate.

Na, we measured the film, the width changes. That's why it works on pin registered 35mm cameras, but not non-pin registered 35mm cameras that use the side edge for registration. 

16mm pin registration doesn't account for left and right weave, so SR's will still struggle. 

The thin film should only have more float, which means a bit more nose. 

I've run 2 x 400 of NC500 and 2x 400 NC400 through my XTR Prod and Beaulieu R16. Results of both stocks had similar issues. 

Edited April 11 by Tyler Purcell