Guest Michael Carter Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Oliver Twist This movie is how I want my 16mm movies to look. Be it reversal, negative and prints, or high Contrast 7363 processed as reversal, this is the look I long for. How is it done? (Besides using 35mm that is) I'm making a file of sample pictures for persperation. Michael Carter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted January 23, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted January 23, 2006 If I were trying to make 16mm b&w look like 35mm, I'd probably use Plus-X reversal, sharp lenses, and a lot of light. Or I'd consider using 16mm color negative. If I had to use 16mm b&w negative, I'd use Plus-X neg, maybe pushed one-stop to increase the contrast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tim Carroll Posted January 23, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted January 23, 2006 If I were trying to make 16mm b&w look like 35mm, I'd probably use Plus-X reversal, sharp lenses, and a lot of light. Or I'd consider using 16mm color negative. If I had to use 16mm b&w negative, I'd use Plus-X neg, maybe pushed one-stop to increase the contrast. David, Why the choice of Plus-X reversal, just because of the increase in contrast? I always felt it was a bit too contrasty when we used it on a film a few years ago. Then I felt the Plus-X negative we used was a little too flat. Of course we did not push it one stop, maybe that would have made it come out "Just right". -Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Why the choice of Plus-X reversal, just because of the increase in contrast? I always felt it was a bit too contrasty when we used it on a film a few years ago. Then I felt the Plus-X negative we used was a little too flat. Of course we did not push it one stop, maybe that would have made it come out "Just right". -Tim Plus X neg developed at 0.70, ~ 1/2 stop push, is a good compromise for 16mm (bear in mind some labs will consider 0.65 'normal' and some may consider 0.70 'normal' -- I'd also try sending a rolls of the pushed to the same lab a week a part and looking carefully :unsure: At 0.75 it starts getting contrasty like PXR but: Plus X reversal is just the smoothest 'n creamiest, but - as no doubt you've noticed, you've got to fight for differentiation in the midtones... Personally I think something as hi con as 7363 would not really emulate the look of a classic film, more like the look of a classic film-duped-too-many-times.... -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted January 23, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted January 23, 2006 Assuming you light to a workable contrast ratio for a telecine transfer or blow-up, Plus-X reversal is the sharpest, finest-grained 16mm b&w film stock, and thus would be a better match to 35mm. The contrast is similar to a b&w print, and many old movies are transferred to video using old prints, so the harshness may help add that dupey look of an old print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Metzger Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Great information guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael Carter Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 (edited) Great answers to take to the bank, thanks loads all. onward and upward. How would B&W neg or rev conformed to edit list and made into A&B rolls for a, what?, copy print, intermediate print, release print, answer print, fit into the equation? More dups = more contrast, yes? Anybody ever go that route? Thanks, Michael Carter Edited January 23, 2006 by Michael Carter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Andy Sparaco SOC Posted January 23, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted January 23, 2006 All of the B&W emulsions are ancient and un-improved for a decade or longer. The Ilford MP film based on their XP technology was the sharpest most grainless B&W film I ever shot. Not made anymore. You may find to get the 35mm look and have a less convoluted work flow, shooting Vision 2 stocks and pulling color in xfer a more efficient process. May cost less also. Here is a link to a vendor I used in the 90's in Canada http://www.blackandwhitefilmfactory.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted January 23, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted January 23, 2006 All of the B&W emulsions are ancient and un-improved for a decade or longer. That's not completely accurate. The 16mm b&w reversal stocks were reformulated and improved by Kodak just last year -- they even changed the speed of Plus-X reversal. It's the b&w negative stocks that haven't really been changed since the 1950's other than physical improvements. But I agree that if you want better grain and sharpness for the speed, shooting Vision-2 color neg makes more sense. However, some people like the look of true silver-grained images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted January 23, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted January 23, 2006 That's not completely accurate. The 16mm b&w reversal stocks were reformulated and improved by Kodak just last year -- they even changed the speed of Plus-X reversal. It's the b&w negative stocks that haven't really been changed since the 1950's other than physical improvements. But I agree that if you want better grain and sharpness for the speed, shooting Vision-2 color neg makes more sense. However, some people like the look of true silver-grained images. As David mentions, Kodak has even improved the B&W camera negative films over the years, mostly with regards to their physical properties related to camera transport and handling. The newer Kodak T-Max technology was considered for these films, and evaluated: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/faq/#preprod14 The decision was to not pursue further testing of T-MAX 100 or T-MAX 400 as replacement products for either EASTMAN Double-X Film (EI 200) 5/7222 or EASTMAN Plus-X Negative Film (EI 64) 5/7231 stocks. This recommendation is based on the fact we were not able to achieve the original program objective of replacing current product with off-the-shelf camera negative stocks that exhibit significantly improved granularity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor Greenfield Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Kodak 7265 Hi-contrast? You tell me :P Nevermind the added feather border mask :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor Greenfield Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 (edited) Hmm guess I cant edit the post anymore :huh: So here's another, you can see some detail in this one: Should add that I did not sharpen these at all because it needs to have that authentic 20's look to it. For somereason though, the still image does not do the film justice, the uncompressed files are a bit sharper than that. Edited January 23, 2006 by Trevor Greenfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted January 23, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted January 23, 2006 Demonstrates how spot-on you have to be with exposing b&w reversal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor Greenfield Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 (edited) That is no joke. The noise in the still with the fire chief and fireman is from Alpha Cine's telecine at max before serious noise pops up. Fortunately I did a supervised session, and if I hadn't I have no doubt some shots would have been overlooked... the telecine op having no idea which shots were important enough that I had at least some noise in and it was still OK. Undoubtedly there are other better telecine's than theirs but when I said before you have 4 stops to work with I meant it. Fortunately there were no shots that were too far gone to resurrect, and most were spot on but there is a very very small window to work with. Also, my short is meant to replicate a 1920's silent comedy so I can get away with a small amount of noise and error in exposure, as was common in the day and is even moreso now that films are being resurrected from old decaying prints for DVD. Edited January 24, 2006 by Trevor Greenfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Andy Sparaco SOC Posted January 24, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted January 24, 2006 That's not completely accurate. The 16mm b&w reversal stocks were reformulated and improved by Kodak just last year -- they even changed the speed of Plus-X reversal. It's the b&w negative stocks that haven't really been changed since the 1950's other than physical improvements. But I agree that if you want better grain and sharpness for the speed, shooting Vision-2 color neg makes more sense. However, some people like the look of true silver-grained images. News to me thanks for the update. Last reversal I shot was 16mm Kodachrome. Sad to see KM go away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boy yniguez Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 david, if you spliced together a positive and negative image of the same scene such that even numbered frames are positive and odd ones are negative, would you see anything upon projection or the will the images just cancel out each other? boy y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Hughes Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 If your print was made on a continuous printer, that is exactly what you should see. The continuous printer places the processed negative in direct contact with the print stock, a light shows through the negative, exposing the print stock, and the print is sent off for processing. Prints made on an optical printer may or may not line up with the camera original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 if you spliced together a positive and negative image of the same scene such that even numbered frames are positive and odd ones are negative, would you see anything upon projection or the will the images just cancel out each other? ---I think one would get a flickering/shimmering effect. It would be similar to viewing an anaglyph image where part of the image is made a different color in each of the left/right pairs. This is sometimes done with lettering or backgrounds in anaglyph comic books. ---LV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now