Really Fast Film

[Alexander McCarron]

Hi,

 

I just wanted to know if there was any 16mm film out there with an ASA higher than 500. I'm having trouble finding it.

 

And if not, could I cut up some fast 35mm? Is there anyway to do that?

 

Thanks

[Scott Fritzshall]

The fastest motion picture stocks that both Kodak and Fuji make are 500ASA. People are saying that Kodak's '19 stock responds well to being pushed a stop, which could effectively give you 1000ASA, but you'd have to try that out for yourself and see how happy you are with the results.

 

You cannot cut up stills film and put it in your motion picture camera; there are a lot of differences.

[Alexander McCarron]

The fastest motion picture stocks that both Kodak and Fuji make are 500ASA. People are saying that Kodak's '19 stock responds well to being pushed a stop, which could effectively give you 1000ASA, but you'd have to try that out for yourself and see how happy you are with the results.

 

You cannot cut up stills film and put it in your motion picture camera; there are a lot of differences.

 

 

Thanks a lot.

 

And I meant motion picture 35mm, but I guess it's the same issue? Is the issue the perforation when trying to stick cut down 35mm film in a 16mm camera?

 

I'm very much in love with the idea of shooting without lighting at night and am willing to take a silly, round about route in making it work.

[Paul Bruening]

If you can stand the aesthetic qualities of pushed film, then it's not a bad way to get that night time stuff on a low/no budg. I've seen caps of footage posted here about a year or so ago that was shot 3 under and pushed 2. I've heard of folks getting another stop out of DI on top of that. If KV3 comes across like some are saying, you could under 3, push 2, DI an additional 2 and still look like only marginally pushed VII/500. A little math- 500 X 5 stops = ASA 16,000. My Spectra goes to ASA 8,000. My farts generate enough light energy to illuminate an exposure at ASA 16,000.

[Scott Fritzshall]

And I meant motion picture 35mm, but I guess it's the same issue? Is the issue the perforation when trying to stick cut down 35mm film in a 16mm camera?

16mm stock is already 35mm stock that was cut in half at the factory. It's the same exact stuff as what you get for 35mm except smaller. All of the stocks that are available in 35mm are also available in 16mm, which was why I assumed you were referring to stills stocks. The fastest motion picture stocks that anyone makes for any format are 500ASA.

[Alexander McCarron]

16mm stock is already 35mm stock that was cut in half at the factory. It's the same exact stuff as what you get for 35mm except smaller. All of the stocks that are available in 35mm are also available in 16mm, which was why I assumed you were referring to stills stocks. The fastest motion picture stocks that anyone makes for any format are 500ASA.

 

Can't I use still stocks though if that's true? Isn't that what Godard did in Breathless? Join still 35mm to motion picture 35mm?

 

Also, what's DI?

 

 

Thank again.

[Charles MacDonald]

Can't I use still stocks though if that's true?

MOtion Picture 35mm film has different perforations than still film. Unless you obtained unperforated still stock and had it perforated for 35mm motion picture camera perfs you mould probaly get an unsteady image.

 

You could cut a 16mm wide strip out of the middle and have it perforated for a 16mm Camera of course. - as long as you have a way to have it processed. and either printed or computer scanned... You could get 2 16mm strips out of Unperforated 35mm stock.

[Tim Carroll]

MOtion Picture 35mm film has different perforations than still film.

 

Charles,

 

In my experience this isn't really true. I use 35mm still camera film in 35mm motion picture cameras for quick tests all the time, and it works fine. I have a black & white darkroom, so I can process the black & white still camera film myself, and a high end film scanner, so I can scan the results, and it works great. The perfs seem to be in the exact same place.

 

I think it would still be pretty impractical to try to make a motion picture using still camera film. Even if you buy 100 ft rolls of still camera film (some of it is sold that way for people who want to load their own film cassettes) you still have the issue of who is going to develop it for you. Alot of still camera film uses different developers that motion picture film. And I don't know of a still camera film lab that can handle 100 ft rolls. And if you are going to do it five feet at a time (which is about how much film is in a 36 exposure cassette) you're never going to find a cast and crew that want to wait around while you reload the camera every two or three seconds.

 

Best,

-Tim

[Nate Downes]

Thanks a lot.

 

And I meant motion picture 35mm, but I guess it's the same issue? Is the issue the perforation when trying to stick cut down 35mm film in a 16mm camera?

 

I'm very much in love with the idea of shooting without lighting at night and am willing to take a silly, round about route in making it work.

I shoot without lighting at night with 500ASA film. The key is to get a really fast lens (I use an f1.4 for mine)

[Charles MacDonald]

In my experience this isn't really true. I use 35mm still camera film in 35mm motion picture cameras for quick tests all the time, and it works fine. I have a black & white darkroom, so I can process the black & white still camera film myself, and a high end film scanner, so I can scan the results, and it works great. The perfs seem to be in the exact same place.

The difference is "slight" (about one thousand of an inch per frame) and might be worked out on a scanner setup when running a short test. the perf on the still film are also bigger and so again might afect steadyness.

 

I think some of the russian 35mm cameras were designed for still perfs.

[Zachary Vex]

I've shot Vision 2 500T stock as 4000T, which is 3 stops underexposed, and then pushed it 3 stops at Delden Film Labs in the Minneapolis area with good results. I was shooting a music video at 7th Street entry where the par cans in front had been re-lamped with 60W standard bulbs. The footage was slightly grainy but looked great.

[John Brawley]

Charles,

 

In my experience this isn't really true.

 

 

It is. They are in the same place but of a differing shape. (the hole bit) Which will likely lead to image instability...

 

http://www.nfsa.afc.gov.au/preservation/au...rm=Perforations

 

and of course wiki...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_perforations

 

 

jb

[Will Montgomery]

Kodak made a Vision 800T stock for a few years but every colorist I know who worked with it disliked it immensely. The latest Vision3 500T should handle pushing very well and is great in low light with a fast lens.

 

Spectra Film & Video made a 16mm version of Fuji Velvia at one point. Anything can be recut and re-perfed for 16mm, but there would have to be enough people interested in it to make it financially viable. Velvia is probably a good idea since there's only one color reversal available in 16mm these days.

 

16mm stock is already 35mm stock that was cut in half at the factory.

I'm not sure about that, I think motion picture film is cut from much larger sheets... just makes more sense at the factory.

[Nate Downes]

Kodak made a Vision 800T stock for a few years but every colorist I know who worked with it disliked it immensely. The latest Vision3 500T should handle pushing very well and is great in low light with a fast lens.

 

Spectra Film & Video made a 16mm version of Fuji Velvia at one point. Anything can be recut and re-perfed for 16mm, but there would have to be enough people interested in it to make it financially viable. Velvia is probably a good idea since there's only one color reversal available in 16mm these days.

 

 

I'm not sure about that, I think motion picture film is cut from much larger sheets... just makes more sense at the factory.

35mm is cut from larger sheets too. from what I was told, a single sheet will be cut into multiple formats, depending on where. Super8's usually on the edge IIRC, then 16mm, then 35mm, with 65mm in the center.

[Tim Carroll]

The difference is "slight" (about one thousand of an inch per frame) and might be worked out on a scanner setup when running a short test. the perf on the still film are also bigger and so again might afect steadyness.

 

I think some of the russian 35mm cameras were designed for still perfs.

 

 

I stand corrected. Good to know.

 

Best,

-Tim

[Nate Downes]

I stand corrected. Good to know.

 

Best,

-Tim

 

The B&H perfs can be used in a normal KS setup, but not vice-versa as a friend of mine found out the hard way. If you load the movie-film perforated film into a standard-film perf camera, the claw will rip the perforations up as the holes are just slightly too small. But you can use standard film in the movie-film perf camera, but there will be some flutter as the pins to hold it in place are smaller than the holes now.

[Tim Carroll]

The B&H perfs can be used in a normal KS setup, but not vice-versa as a friend of mine found out the hard way. If you load the movie-film perforated film into a standard-film perf camera, the claw will rip the perforations up as the holes are just slightly too small. But you can use standard film in the movie-film perf camera, but there will be some flutter as the pins to hold it in place are smaller than the holes now.

 

I've used the "still camera" film on a number of different ARRI IIC cameras for quick tests, and have never had a problem. It's not like you're going to do a registration test on five feet of film (which is how much film you get out of a "still camera" film cassette). But Charles is right, the perfs are slightly different.

 

Best,

-Tim

[Freya Black]

I think some of the russian 35mm cameras were designed for still perfs.

 

AFAIK all of them were.

Some of them have since been modified to use B&H perfs like we have over here.

 

Kodak style perfs were the standard in the soviet union and all their movie film was made that way.

With cameras like the Konvas, they seem to be okay with either kind of film and nobody seems to notice any unsteadiness, however the kinor 35mm cameras are another matter as they have a registration pin and so those cameras need to be modified first to B&H perfs.

 

Hope that clears that up! I'm guessing an old Konvas could be a good match for using still film. :)

 

love

 

Freya

[Tim Carroll]

AFAIK all of them were.

Some of them have since been modified to use B&H perfs like we have over here.

 

Kodak style perfs were the standard in the soviet union and all their movie film was made that way.

With cameras like the Konvas, they seem to be okay with either kind of film and nobody seems to notice any unsteadiness, however the kinor 35mm cameras are another matter as they have a registration pin and so those cameras need to be modified first to B&H perfs.

 

Hope that clears that up! I'm guessing an old Konvas could be a good match for using still film. :)

 

love

 

Freya

 

Was just thinking, I have a large quantity of AGFA black & white film from before they went out of business. It is what I always use when I need to do a quick test on an ARRI IIC. AGFA being a (now defunct) German company, and ARRI being a German company, wonder if that has something to do with the film working so well in the cameras.

 

:D

[Sam Wells]

Coutard used an Eclair Cameflex - which - as he points out on the Criterion "Breathless" DVD has a claw which does not go very deep. (but would, it seems, position at an angle to register the film well enough).

 

 

-Sam

[K Borowski]

Fastest films currently made are: Kodak TMZ P3200 (~ ASA 800-1000), Ilford Delta 3200 (~ASA 800-1000), Fuji Neopan 1600 (~ASA 1000), Fuji Superia 1600 (~ASA 640-800), Fuji Pro 800 (ASA 500-640), and Kodak Portra 800 (ASA 500-640). There's also a fast fuji E-6 film IIRC an 800 speed, making it a true 800 film. I'd say 5219 is a true 500-speed T, which is impressive considering film is natively more sensitive to the ultraviolet-blue end of the spectrum. Kodak could probably make a true 1000 ASA daylight stock if they took Vision3 500T base and just didn't filter it for tungsten lighting.

 

If you haven't noticed, film speed plateaus around 1000. Color tends to be a bit slower because grain, err, dye clouds, are more noticeable with three layers of information, so you get more grain, er dye, per given speed.

 

There used to be a 3200-speed color film made by, I think, Konica-Sakura, that supposedly had grain the size of cannon-balls, that was a true 1000 or faster.

 

There were also rumors two years back that Kodak had a true 25,000-speed, direct B&W reversal film with the grain of 400 film with a special development process that didn't see the light of day due to lack of interest. I got in touch during the proposed test-marketing period for this film with someone at Kodak, but I remain skeptical if it ever existed because who wouldn't market a B&W film that would have revolutionized film photography as we know it.

[K Borowski]

Sorry, double post. . .

Edited June 23, 2008 by Karl Borowski