Kip Kubin Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 Does anybody know or can they guess which stock they used to Godards "Sympathy For The Devil?" The sequences that I'm interested are the studio scenes wih the Rolling Stones. Thanks Kip Kubin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted August 6, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted August 6, 2006 Your thumbnail is the same size as the photo... When was this shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Kubin Posted August 6, 2006 Author Share Posted August 6, 2006 Your thumbnail is the same size as the photo... When was this shot? Sorry about the photo... I just pulled it off google images to give everybody a general idea. The film was shot in 1968 in London. Thanks Kip I found a better photo... here it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 It would have been Eastman 7254 ,100 asa . john holland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted August 6, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted August 6, 2006 It would have been Eastman 7254 ,100 asa . john holland. Was it a 16mm shoot? Since '54 came out in 1968 and the movie was released in 1968, it may have been shot in 1967, which means '51 (50 ASA color neg) or one of the color reversal films. If it was shot in 35mm, odds are high that it was color neg; 16mm color back then was a mix of neg and reversal, reversal being more popular in the U.S., neg starting to become common in Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Kubin Posted August 7, 2006 Author Share Posted August 7, 2006 Was it a 16mm shoot? Since '54 came out in 1968 and the movie was released in 1968, it may have been shot in 1967, which means '51 (50 ASA color neg) or one of the color reversal films. If it was shot in 35mm, odds are high that it was color neg; 16mm color back then was a mix of neg and reversal, reversal being more popular in the U.S., neg starting to become common in Europe. Thanks guys Could either of you suggest a stock/methos to get close to this look with available stock today? Kip Kubin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Was it a 16mm shoot? Since '54 came out in 1968 and the movie was released in 1968, it may have been shot in 1967, which means '51 (50 ASA color neg) or one of the color reversal films. If it was shot in 35mm, odds are high that it was color neg; 16mm color back then was a mix of neg and reversal, reversal being more popular in the U.S., neg starting to become common in Europe. Yes it was 16mm NPRs used ,and neg , may have been '51 .john. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oron Cohen Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 I think what is making the look of this photo first of all is the art and costumes, and less the film stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Last post is correct ,plus loads of light bounced of the ceiling , use a high speed low con stock , maybe under expose a touch ? dont know how your project is going to be post prod, or how it will it will be seen ? john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.Oliver Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Hi, well i watched the dvd ( free with a uk sunday paper) it dont look like 16mm to me. Far too sharp. Surely it was 35mm? If it was 16mm, why does the majority of 16mm look so soft from the same era? Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted August 7, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted August 7, 2006 I'd overexpose and print down (or color-correct down to normal) a low-con neg stock like Kodak '29 or Fuji Eterna 400T if shooting in 16mm -- but in 35mm, I'd shoot either of those two stocks normally but push them one-stop and then print / correct back down. I'd find older lenses too because that contributes a lot to the look. The stocks and lenses were softer back then but often (though not in this case) the lighting was harder, sharper to compensate somewhat. The zoom lenses of the 1960's in particular were not that sharp. Plus you may also be looking at an older transfer. Just saw some of "Equinox" on Criterion DVD, a low-budget 16mm horror film shot outdoors mostly, with stop-motion efx by a very young Dennis Muren, David Allen, and Jim Danforth. It was interesting to see the look of the stocks and lenses back then transferred on a modern telecine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 hi i said under expose to try bring up the grain , if you saw this movie projected , you would see loads of grain , not on a digitally cleaned up dvd . john 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