Double-X 7222

cal godot · June 5, 2004

I'm thinking of shooting a film in B&W negative using Kodak's 7222 Double-X film stock. I was wondering if anyone here had experience with the stock and could share advice, tips, tricks, or anecdotes.

I've shot B&W negative 35mm stills and a lot of B&W Super8, some 16mm color negative and reversal but no B&W 16mm (neg or rev) yet.

I'm also curious about telecine and B&W film. But that may well be another thread, n'est ce pas?

Dan Salzmann · June 6, 2004

Very very grainy if that's the look you're going for. My experience with the lab was not good because they treat so little of it that the results were not top notch.

There is no problem with BW stocks in TC.

You might consider shooting color neg. and removing the color in TC.

cal godot · June 7, 2004

I am going for a very specific look, similar to early French New Wave - Breathless & Band of Outsiders in particular.

I had begun by thinking of shooting a grainy color film (like Fuji Reala 500D) and desaturating to the point of almost being B&W. But the purist in me suggests, Why shoot color when you want B&W? (Seriously: aside from more ISO range in stocks, what are the significant advantages of this?)

I'm also considering Plus-X, perhaps even pushed a stop. Soon as the camera is back from the shop, I'm shooting tests.

Sam Wells · June 7, 2004

DX is rather grainy but you can get a nice midtone, probably more "New Wavish" than pushed Plus-X (I like contrast, shoot & reversal, but pushing Plus X neg looks quite similar) at least as far as the filmsyou mention.

In any case Coutard liked to shoot Double-X. But 35mm "helps" grain wise.

I'm not sure what he used on Bande A part but likely it was Double X.

(Looks pretty nice in the Criterion DVD :D

My observation is that with Double X, shooting 16 especially, it's the tradeoff between grain & gamma. I found 0.65 typically flat but that's me perhaps (some labs will consider .65 "normal" others 0.7 as "normal"); 0.75 and it really gets snappy but is quite grainy now.

Tests are a good idea.

-Sam

John Pytlak RIP · June 8, 2004

Here is the "Time-Gamma" curve:

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...ves/ti0299b.pdf

Longer developer time increases both grain and contrast.

cal godot · June 10, 2004

Longer developer time increases both grain and contrast.

Does it follow that pulling or underexposing would reduce grain and contrast?

In the curve graph you posted, is 6 minutes (the solid blue line in the middle) the "proper" or average time in the developer bath?

From the little I know about curves, gamma, granularity, etc. (I am still, and always hope to be, learning), I think the blue line or perhaps even the red (5 min) reflect where I want to be in terms of negative density.

John Pytlak RIP · June 10, 2004

You need to work with your lab on choosing the gamma that most suits the "look" you are trying to achieve. They probably have conditions they consider "normal" for their customers.

F Bulgarelli · June 12, 2004

Hello.

I did a music video in which we shot 7222 pushed 1 stop for the storyline and combined it with 7218 dialing all color out for the footage of the band. Furthermore we reduced the contrast on the 7222 in FCP. I think it intercuts interestingly from grainy (7222) to clean (7218).

You can check it out at prettypictures.com/franciscobulgarelli

The name is Budhi Brown -death is a flower-

Sam Wells · June 12, 2004

I'm curious, you say you "pushed [7222] for the story line" and then reduced contrast in FCP.

Did you push to get more grain ? Or because you wanted the stop match to 7218 ?

Otherwise, why increase contrast in processing and then bring it down in post ?

-Sam

cal godot · June 13, 2004

Hello.

I did a music video in which we shot 7222 pushed 1 stop for the storyline and combined it with 7218 dialing all color out for the footage of the band. Furthermore we reduced the contrast on the 7222 in FCP. I think it intercuts interestingly from grainy (7222) to clean (7218).

You can check it out at prettypictures.com/franciscobulgarelli

The name is Budhi Brown -death is a flower-

Nice images, Francisco! Were you shooting 35mm or 16mm 7222?

The effect you got from the 7218 is nice. You reduced contrast in post on the 7222 but did you require any tweaking in post on the 7218 to get that look, or did you just zero the color and leave it at that?

F Bulgarelli · June 13, 2004

Hi Guys,

Well, the push was a matter of incresing the speed of the stock since we were working under very low light. In other words I rated it at 400 ASA as supposed to 200 ASA and then pushed 1 stop. After we timed the footage we realized that it was too contrasty for what we wanted and so we brought it down.

7222 is the 16mm format equivalent of 35mm 5222.

What really impressed me about 7218 was how clean it is. I think it has brought super16mm to a different level. The days of grainy 7279 are over unless that's what you are looking for.

Francisco

Dirk DeJonghe · June 13, 2004

We are now in the process of making release prints for the feature film "Aaltra", entirely shot on Super 16 7222 and printed via optical blow up to Super 35 IP and then to a squeezed Cinemascope DN. Prints are B&W positive with fairly high contrast and grain, just what the customer wanted.

During the optical blow up of any B&W material, the contrast picks up very quickly, on direct blow ups it is even difficult to hold it down at a reasonable level.

Pushing development will increase the gamma but will give you very little gain in film speed (re-read Ansel Adams' The Negative).

Pulled processing may be indicated if you want to mix B&W stocks with color negative stocks.

Dirk DeJonghe

www.color-by-dejonghe.com