Buffalo '66

AmatEscalante · February 1, 2004

Hello,

Does anybody know on what Ektachrome stock "Buffalo '66" Directed by Vincent Gallo was shot on?

I was thinking about the possibility of shooting Super16mm color reversal for blow-up to 35 mm.

Any examples of this that might come to mind?

Would this even work properly?

David Mullen ASC · February 1, 2004

It was shot on 35mm 5239 (160 ASA daylight) normally processed (i.e. not cross-processed into a negative). It's the only Ektachrome motion picture stock sold in 35mm other than the modern E6 stock, 5285.

It was optically printed to an internegative, which was flashed to reduce contrast.

The question for you is how you are going to blow it up to 35mm. Should you make a zero cut original and blow this up to a 35mm internegative? Do the blow-up digitally?

AmatEscalante · February 1, 2004

I would do a zero cut original and optically blow it up to internegative.

From the little research that I have done it seems the 7240 EI 125 (Tungsten) would be a possibility.

To bad they don't make 5285 for 16 mm.

Thanks for the details on Buffalo '66!

Mitch Gross · February 1, 2004

To bad they don't make 5285 for 16 mm.

Kodak actually did a test run of this very quietly last year and distributed it to DPs through Bono Labs. I shot some and it did make for a pretty wild look, but I found it of limited use. If you wanted to shoot an entire feature this way they might be willing to accomodate you, but beware that the processing was a fortune--about twice normal negative rates. Again for a feature you might be able to work out a deal, but this will definitely be a more expensive way to go.

AmatEscalante · February 1, 2004

Yes reversal film would be about twice more expensive than negative to process but then there would be some savings on the Blow-up to 35 mm stage, because one can go directly to the 35 mm internegative, correct?

Can grain become more of a problem when blowing up a Super 16 reversal stock than with a negative stock of around the same ASA?

What are the reasons there are not many reversal feature films originated in Super16? Besides the fact that it has less latitude than negative.

Phil Rhodes · February 1, 2004

Hi,

This may be totally wrong as I don't know what I'm talking about in the slightest when it comes to printing 35mm, but doesn't the already-contrasty reversal suffer really horrible contrast buildup during the duplication process? The ability to overlook a conventional IP, as our correspondent notes, will help here, but does anyone do a low-con print stock to ease this problem? I would assume not as it wouldn't be a large market.

Phil

David Mullen ASC · February 1, 2004

The old VNF Ektachrome reversal stocks are all much more grainy than modern color negatives. That only leaves the E6 Ektachrome 100D (5285) or Fuji Velvia, which are not available in 16mm anyway. So definitely don't shoot VNF Ektachrome reversal if you think you're going to get a finer-grained image in the blow-up.

Like I said, "Buffalo 66" had to flash their internegative to reduce the contrast. Of course, if you do that, you lose much of the color saturation of the reversal original.

"Blow" also shot the early sequences on 5285 and optically duped them to an internegative -- I believe they had to flash that I.N. as well.

You could skip the flashing if you don't mind a lot more contrast, which might be the point of shooting reversal. Reversal originals already are at projection-level contrast, so duping and printing them basically doubles the contrast.

Digital intermediate is the only way of duplicating or blowing up a color reversal image and preserve the saturation and control the contrast, but then, you might as well shoot color negative and boost the saturation digitally.

Honestly, shoot color reversal for the look, not to save money or get a better blow-up.

Mitch Gross · February 1, 2004

Everything David mentioned is true, and you'll really be struggling to control the image when blowing up reversal. And it will be much more expensive as well. While you save some money by skipping the IP stage, that cost is overshadowed by the increased processing fees. And if you see this movie to a distributor they will often require an IP as part of the deliverables, which means you'll need to make a safety IP off of the IN (a step I'd recommend anyway as a protection master). Flashing the IN, increased handling costs on the negative cut and other fees associated with the special handling working with reversal will incur means that in the end you're likely to spend a good deal more by working with reversal.

Generally the common tried and true methods are in the end the least expensive and offer the most control. Special processes and workarounds generally increase costs and pose roadblocks to controlling your image.

Sam Wells · February 2, 2004

I've seen very good blowups from ECO 7252 via 5272/2272 IN.

But there is really no equivalent 16mm color reversal stock.

Flashing 7239/40 would be the closest, but a trip through grain city I suspect.

The ECO blowups had great skin tones (as good as I've seen in a blowup from 16mm) and beautiful evironmental colors. But, grain looked different than what I've seen lately from

Vision neg originals - an overall wash of grainyness as opposed to blowups from V neg where the grain is accentuated in midtones, hides a bit in deep shadow & hot highlight.

-sam

Paul Marschall · February 3, 2004

To bad they don't make 5285 for 16 mm.

Kodak actually did a test run of this very quietly last year and distributed it to DPs through Bono Labs. I shot some and it did make for a pretty wild look, but I found it of limited use.

Funny this should come up. I was just at Kodak this morning looking at some demos of the '85 reversal stock and was told that it will soon (within the next couple months) be available in 16mm. According to Kodak, most of this stock's use is for music videos, so they must see a demand worthy enough to supply it in 16/S16.

As for S16 reversal I've been considering the same thing for a while in regards to a trailer I'll be shooting soon. Ultimately what I would like to do is shoot some footage on both reversal and negative and see how close I can get the negative to match the reversal in a telecine bay. If I can get it to a point where I am happy with it I would push for a 35mm DI on the feature (if that ever happens!). As for the trailer we will most likely be shooting S16 and may choose reversal simply to embrace the gritty, pushing-the-envelop spirit of the project. The price is virtually the same for negative/reversal in S16 anyway. Reversal stock is cheaper than negative, but the processing is more expensive.