Black and White - reversal or negative?

eggart · January 23, 2005

Hello,

I'm thinking about shooting a low budget film with Kodak 16mm black and white stock, but I'm not sure whether I should use negative or reversal film. It's mostly woods exteriors in daylight with a few interiors and night scenes. I would probably be trying to use as much natural light as possible, and I know that Kodak's new reversals are faster than their negatives, but how do they compare in contrast, detail and grain size? I might try to have a blow up made for festival screenings, and I'm interested in hearing what anyone has to say about what I should expect one way or the other (including cost differences). And any general thoughts (about lab costs, telecine or personal opinion) would be greatly appreciated.

I don't know if this has been discussed a million times before, but I haven't really found any specific examples. If it has, please feel free to kick me in that direction.

Sam

GeorgeSelinsky · January 23, 2005

With reversal you always get more contrast because the original is intended for direct projection. If you make exposure mistakes, it's very tough to correct it in reversal (especially overexposure - if you do that, you're stuck with what you have).

Kodak's reversal films are sharper than their negative counterparts. I haven't compared the grain on the newer stocks with the negative, but Double X was always grain city.

If you're going to stay on video, reversal might look nicer to you with stronger blacks and slightly better sharpness. But if you want to survive a printing stage then negative is really the best way to go, its more flexible (unless you want to experiment with preflashing your reversal - then you're still stuck with the same exposure issues again anyway).

- G.

eggart · January 23, 2005

Thanks George!

Sam

Dominic Case · January 23, 2005

I'm not sure whether I should use negative or reversal film

If you plan to finish on film then negative is a lot more straightforward - doubly so if you expect to blow up to 35mm.

But before deciding, check out (a) what festivals you might try for, and whether they only accept 35mm: increasingly material is submitted on a wide range of formats, (even half the projects at Sundance are screened in a digital format). Also talk to your lab about the cost of a blow-up.

Negative has a lot more latitude than reversal, so if there is any risk that you might not have total mastery of your lighting and exposure, it would be a lot more forgiving.

eggart · January 24, 2005

Thanks for the advice!

Sam

Rik Andino · January 24, 2005

I echo Dominic's advice

Check the festivals you're trying to apply to first.

If cost is your concern developing Reversal is cheaper than negative

At least 100 bucks cheaper

Many people (myself included) love the rich dark blacks reversal provides

But it's just difficult to do much with a reversal print

Since you only get one...

There are ways to Telecine a print but it gets expensive.

Reversal is not really a professional format

It's more for students learning filmmaking

If you're just trying to pull something together for fun

And will cut it hands on with a splicer (that's a fun way to cut)

And don't really care about making prints or losing your print

And cost is a concern go with Reversal.

Otherwise try negative.

GeorgeSelinsky · January 25, 2005

Reversal is not really a professional format
It's more for students learning filmmaking

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think that's an appropriate label to give. Reversal is as "professional" as negative, it's just that given today's methods of working negative is usually more preferrable. There was a time when in 16mm reversal was more predominant with professionals, especially in color. There was a low contrast color reversal Ektachrome Commerical 7255/7252, and a line of regular contrast Ektachromes.

If I had to shoot 16mm in B&W and I had a decent lighting package, I'd probably give the newer Plus X reversal a good testing. Its predecessor 7276 was as grainless as a B&W film could get, it could even pass for 35mm with a good telecine job. I know they raised it a stop and it may not be as grainless but I'm pretty sure it's still a bit less grainy than the old Plus X 7231 negative.

- G.