SLR 16mm Still Film

Malinko · January 28, 2005

This is topic is just a reminder that 16mm still film exists along with the cameras. Shooting tests with still film is a great way to gauge exposure levels and experimenting with lighting schemes. The film and cameras are plentiful and cheap. Kodak makes 16mm still film that is called "110" film. You can buy this film at most Targets and the like. Unlike film, there are many different types of 16mm 110 cameras, most of wich are junk. The best 16mm SLR camera is the "Pentax 110". A fun camera that has interchangeable lenses, the Pentax 110 is a real gem. It is also cheap; They typicaly sell for thirty dollars on Ebay. Check out the camera here http://www.cameraquest.com/pentx110.htm You can get the film processed at any drugstore.

The Pentax 110 is the 16mm equivalent to the 35mm Pentx K1000. Both cameras are designed for practice. Though Im not sure if the 110 allows for manual controls.

"System 10 lenses are so fine and so precise, that they can render a proper razor-sharp image on the 110 negative itself. They are fully capable of producing color images of outstanding quality. Not just at 8x10, but at 11" x 14" also. In terms of image quality, System 10 is the first 110 camera that can honestly be favorably compared to a 35mm SLR." Pentax Advertising, March 1979

"Pentax 110's are fantastic little SLRs, in fact the smallest interchangeable lens SLR with TTL metering ever made. Styled like a very small 35 SLR, a body and three lenses can easily be held in the palm of your hand." Pentax

Edited January 28, 2005 by Malinko (not my real name)

Chance Shirley · January 28, 2005

As far as doing tests for 16mm motion picture shooting, would 16mm print film be better than 35mm slide film? Even with the difference in size, I would think that the slide film would better approximate motion picture film than print film.

That being said, I'll try to pick up one of those Pentax cameras anyway, just because I'm all about the look of smaller-format films.

Off-topic, but why do people have problems using their real name on this forum? Afraid some cinematographer is going to start stalking them?

Malinko · January 28, 2005

Heh, no my real name is Dale Suggs. I figured that so many people go under obvious fake nicknames in the forums that it would be ironic to say (not my real name). I guess it didnt go over too well. Anyway I think Kodak makes the only 110 film available, its easy to find though. I went to the Kodak website but I couldnt find any specs regarding 110 film.

Chance, do you know someone named Jason O'Brien?

Edited January 28, 2005 by Malinko (not my real name)

Chance Shirley · January 28, 2005

> Chance, do you know someone named Jason O'Brien?

I don't think so. Is he an Alabama guy?

John Pytlak RIP · January 28, 2005

I'd really recommend shooting tests with the 16mm motion picture camera and lenses you intend to use. If budgets are tight, you really don't need to shoot much film for each test condition, as you could evaluate them on telecine in a still frame mode. A few seconds at each condition should be plenty.

Kodak no longer sells films for the 110 format, that was discontinued years ago.

Chris Keth · January 28, 2005

Kodak no longer sells films for the 110 format, that was discontinued years ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's what I thought.

Anyway, even if they did still sell 110 film, it would be different than 16mm motion picture film, it'd be make to make prints from rather than to be printed onto positive stock The lenses would be different, as well.

It wouldn't be a very good test because of all the different variables you introduce.

I think (and John Pytlak can correct me if I'm wrong) that kodak sells most if not all of their stocks in 100ft lengths. These are probably daylight spools but maybe cores, too. That would be a pretty nominal fee to pay if you get the benefit of good reliable tests on the equipment you plan to use.

Ryan Puckett · January 28, 2005

If we are discussing 16mm film tests in the extremely low budget range. What I have done is just shoot 100 ft. spools of the 16mm stock I want to test on my K3. You can then scan individual frames from the negative on a regular flatbed scanner that can handle negatives and transparencies. Far from a perfect or elegant system. But reletively cheap, and you are actually testing the particular film stock in question. It will give you extremely good scans to judge the grain and exposure too. You won't be able to visualize the "boiling" of the grain in actual projected or telecined versions though.

Malinko · January 28, 2005

My local supermarket and target has been selling kodak 110 though. I dont understand. It is still intresting to shoot 16mm still film and compare the image to the 35mm photo. The 110 cameras are fun little cameras despite the fact you can only get prints off the negative. And yes, Mr O'Brien lives Birmingham, he is making a film.

thanks for taking that thing off my name! :)

Edited January 28, 2005 by Malinko