Double-X 5222

[Mike Williamson]

I'm getting prepared for a 35mm feature that will be starting just over a month from now and I'm curious if anyone has experience with 5222 pushed a stop. The film has a sort of "flashback" reveal at the end, wherein we revisit earlier scenes and reveal what's really going on. I suggested shooting B&W, however, I would be grabbing one or two shots at the end of some of regular scenes lit for 500/640 speed stock. Some of these would be urban night exteriors probably lit to T2.0 at 500/640 to keep some of the ambience of the city, so it would be difficult to light them deeper and open up for the 200ASA stock.

 

Anyhow, I've already spent the testing budget comparing 5277 pushed one (640) and 5279 (500) and doing some lighting tests, and I haven't shot any of the Kodak B&W negative before. The goal, of course, is to make a print for festivals, don't know whether it will happen, but I'm trying to be prepared for it. From what I've seen of other people's work, I also prefer the look of B&W negative to color neg printed B&W, so I'd rather not shoot color stock.

 

Any advice is appreciated, also any advice on 5222 processed normally would be appreciated too. Thanks!

[John Pytlak RIP]

I'm getting prepared for a 35mm feature that will be starting just over a month from now and I'm curious if anyone has experience with 5222 pushed a stop.  The film has a sort of "flashback" reveal at the end, wherein we revisit earlier scenes and reveal what's really going on.  I suggested shooting B&W, however, I would be grabbing one or two shots at the end of some of regular scenes lit for 500/640 speed stock.  Some of these would be urban night exteriors probably lit to T2.0 at 500/640 to keep some of the ambience of the city, so it would be difficult to light them deeper and open up for the 200ASA stock.

 

Anyhow, I've already spent the testing budget comparing 5277 pushed one (640) and 5279 (500) and doing some lighting tests, and I haven't shot any of the Kodak B&W negative before.  The goal, of course, is to make a print for festivals, don't know whether it will happen, but I'm trying to be prepared for it.  From what I've seen of other people's work, I also prefer the look of B&W negative to color neg printed B&W, so I'd rather not shoot color stock.

 

Any advice is appreciated, also any advice on 5222 processed normally would be appreciated too.  Thanks!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Kodak website has data for this film, including the effects of a push process:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...1.4.4.8.4&lc=en

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...4.4.8.4.4&lc=en

 

 

These five curves are for 4.0, 5.0, 6.5, 9.0, and 12.0 minutes development time. So, expect to see a contrast increase, some speed increase, and likely some increase in granularity.

[Mike Williamson]

Thanks, John, that's very helpful. I would essentially be pushing for speed, and the increase in contrast and grain may be acceptable in this situation. Curious to hear anyone's experiences shooting it...

[David Mullen ASC]

Pushing never increases the speed (sensitivity) of a stock, just takes what got exposed and increases the density, which is why what's left is more contrasty.

 

That being said, b&w film pushes "better" than color film, with a better increase in density without a lot of increase in grain (which is good since Double-X is already a rather grainy stock.) I've often thought the pushed version of these b&w stocks looked better than the normally-developed versions.

 

Just be warned that since color print stock has a higher gamma than b&w print stock, printing b&w neg onto color print stock will get you a more contrasty image ON TOP of the contrast increase from pushing. This may look fine for your needs or you may want to add more fill light or some foggy-type diffusion filtration to lower contrast.

[Mike Williamson]

Thanks, David, please excuse the inaccurate language. I've heard that it used to be much more common for cinematographers to "customize" their development times back in the B&W era to change the gamma to suit their taste, so I guess it doesn't surprise me to hear that it pushes well. Have you shot Double-X for any of your films? If so, did you push it?

 

Interesting also to hear that color print stocks are more contrasty than B&W, I suppose I should read up on "Raging Bull"...

[John Pytlak RIP]

The D-97 process used for B&W print film can be adjusted to affect contrast somewhat.

 

You cannot compare sensitometric curves of a B&W print film and a color print film directly -- since a projector illuminant is usually more specular than a diffuse densitometer, a silver-image B&W film will appear to have a higher contrast when projected rather than viewed or read with a diffuse light source, due to the light scattering Callier "Q" factor of silver images:

 

http://www.sinepatterns.com/S_EngNts.htm

 

http://public.lanl.gov/kmh/publications/applopt82.abs.html

 

http://photo.cis.to/pipermail/contax/2001-August/000617.html

[Sam Wells]

scattering Callier Q factor, you better believe I'll be dropping that phrase from now on whenever I get the chance !!

 

Mike - you really must test here, with your lab; some will "normally" process to 0.65; some to 0.70 etc - so before you push you have to define what a push is and from there what contrast / grain is acceptable.

 

-Sam

[Mike Williamson]

You're right, Sam. It's such a small part of the film that I wish I didn't have to spend more money on testing, we're already stretching the budget pretty thin as it is.

 

Have you shot any Double-X in your work, Sam?

 

Thanks for the additional links, John, I believe we are now officially "getting technical"...

[Sam Wells]

Yes but unfortunately only in 16mm, where the grain *is* an issue. I started a film on 7222 but switched to tri-X reversal instead, also grainy but tighter, sharper.

 

But I missed some of the midtone I was getting (0.7 gamma) with Double-X though. Printed on the now discontinued Agfa 561 it was *very* nice. Although if I'd continued I'd have pushed the print stock slightly.

 

I wouldn't hesitate much in 35 though; use your highlights to "sell" the grain and the blacks.

 

(I saw yet another shot-on-DVX100 feature last night, so I'm in a total grain is beautiful mode today and may not be quite objective :D )

 

I really do think your T 2.0 scenario is contingent on what happens say 2 stops under key in your lighting. If the highlights are strong (they don't need to dominate) you might be fine.

 

-Sam

[Jon Rosenbloom]

"Pushing never increases the speed (sensitivity) of a stock, just takes what got exposed and increases the density, which is why what's left is more contrasty.

 

That being said, b&w film pushes "better" than color film, with a better increase in density without a lot of increase in grain (which is good since Double-X is already a rather grainy stock.) I've often thought the pushed version of these b&w stocks looked better than the normally-developed versions.

 

Just be warned that since color print stock has a higher gamma than b&w print stock, printing b&w neg onto color print stock will get you a more contrasty image ON TOP of the contrast increase from pushing. This may look fine for your needs or you may want to add more fill light or some foggy-type diffusion filtration to lower contrast."

 

Well, what would happen if you flashed your double-x and pushed? The flashing would help you see into the low levels, and the pushing would help you out from zone 6 on up. Also, the flashing would mute the contrast gained from pushing, which would help when it came time to print on color stock. Or would the two manipulations just cancel each other out?

[Mike Williamson]

(I saw yet another shot-on-DVX100 feature last night, so I'm in a total grain is beautiful mode today and may not be quite objective  :D  )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, I know what you mean, love love love the film... One reason I suggested doing the flashbacks in B&W is because I miss shooting monochrome stuff, and a nice contrasty B&W sequence seems like it would work well in the film.

 

Anyhow, as far as underexposing goes, I'm planning to underexpose the normal color stuff pretty aggressively, trying for a "Fight Club" look, hopefully I'll have a nice hot edge going on. Maybe I can up the fill light a bit, I know already I'm going to be running and I'm just going to want to throw the new mag on, scribble "push one" on the side and shoot.

 

So of course this is exactly the type of situation where I should be testing ahead of time, maybe I'll just go out of pocket and do it. I suppose these would be good references to have around, Kodak probably won't be changing the stocks anytime soon.

[Max Jacoby]

My Dop shot some tests on Kodak and Orwo recently to try different developments. We found that if you print on regular B&W stock the pushed stock looks nicer. It has a bit more grain and is more contrasty but mostly it has nicer texture.

 

In the end however we decided to go with regular development printed on high-contrast B&W which gives even nicer contrast (better blacks and whites) and texture. Grain won't be much of an issue since we will be shooting anamorphic.

[Mike Williamson]

I'll be shooting some tests later today comparing 35mm Double-X processed normally (gamma .65) and pushed one stop, I'll post my impressions next week probably to follow up on all of this. I'm working with Movielab out of Maryland.

 

Due to a very generous grant from Fuji, the feature I have coming up has switched over to Fuji stock, so I'm also testing the new Eterna 500T, again comparing normal processing and push one. I'm planning to shoot the Eterna (8573) for nights and interiors and F-250D (8562) for the day exteriors and interiors, along with a little Double-X for flashbacks and maybe a slow Fuji stock for the final scene, either the 125T or 64D.

 

Shot some lens and filter tests on the 8562 the other day also, tested some different warming filters including 81EF, 81A, Tobacco, Chocolate, etc., so we'll see how those turn out. I'll be getting all this stuff back transferred to Mini-DV and workprinted on color stock (including the B&W), gotta get it projected somewhere...

 

Thanks for all the advice so far everybody, it's been very helpful and much appreciated.

[F Bulgarelli]

I shot a test in which we pushed 5222 1 stop rating it at 400asa and then printed on color stock.

I thought it looked great for what we are trying to do.

grainy, contrasty and with lots of texture and shadow detail. It also had a sort of bluish-greenish hue to it, which I'm still not sure why that is, perhaps the dyes in the color print stock.

Can anyone elaborate on that?

 

Francisco

[John Pytlak RIP]

I shot a test in which we pushed 5222 1 stop rating it at 400asa and then printed on color stock.

I thought it looked great for what we are trying to do.

grainy, contrasty and with lots of texture and shadow detail. It also had a sort of bluish-greenish hue to it, which I'm still not sure why that is, perhaps the dyes in the color print stock.

Can anyone elaborate on that?

 

Francisco

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

When printing a B&W silver image negative onto color print film, even a one printer light variation in color balance of the printer will add a bit of hue. The tone scale of color print film is optimized for printing color images, and will tend to have slightly "warm" highlights and "cool" shadows, even if you balance to achieve a perfect gray in the midtones. Many B&W pictures have been released on color print film, but don't expect to achieve the perfect neutrality of a silver image B&W print film.

[L K Keerthi Basu]

Dear John,

 

Is only the lights values are producing these blue tint in the color print? Will others factors like developing, and temperature can affect them? One more doubt, I have printed a negative with slight bluish tint in it, while projecting it is looked totally like a perfect B/W print from a B/W print films. What is the reason?

 

L.K.Keerthibasu

[John Pytlak RIP]

Dear John,

 

  Is only the lights values are producing these blue tint in the color print? Will others factors like developing, and temperature can affect them?  One more doubt, I have printed a negative with slight bluish tint in it, while projecting it is looked totally like a perfect B/W print from a B/W print films. What is the reason?

 

  L.K.Keerthibasu

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, the ECP-2D processing of the print stock can cause some variation in the speed and contrast match of the red, green, and blue. Speed variations can be compensated by the printer lights.

 

The B&W image on the color print looked "bluish" on a light box, but looks nearly neutral on projection because your eye quickly "accomodates" to the change in color. Just like indoor tungsten lighting looks yellow when viewed from outside at dusk, and then looks white when you go inside, and look out at the dusk, which now looks bluish.

[L K Keerthi Basu]

Dear John,

 

May I follow this blue tint for the future printing works, or it will cause any difficulties? Is it recommended to print like this?

 

L.K.Keerthibasu

[Mike Williamson]

I got my tests back today of the 35mm Double-X (as well as some Fuji color stock), got to see everything projected on the big screen as well as Mini-DV video transfers. I had the lab process some normally and some with one stop push, also should note that I had it printed on color print stock.

 

Looking at the workprint, I felt that the Double-X was grainy in both cases, though the push process increased it. Also the contrast increased quite noticeably, I probably noticed that before anything else. I was pleasantly surprised at the amount of detail that the negative held when underexposed, three stops under was still a workable exposure. Being an older stock, I expected it to lose detail faster I guess.

 

My director liked the normally processed footage better than the pushed stuff, mostly due to graininess. He felt the grain was just right in the regular footage, and I agree with him, now I'm wishing I didn't feel like I need the extra speed.

 

Overall I really liked the footage, the stock has a very nice texture to it and it's great to see black and white on the screen.

[Rolfe Klement]

I just shot some stills as a favour for someone on 1600 B|W - normal process and I LOVE that B and W look - a reminder about how emotions can be conveyed as opposed to technical accuracy - like the old days

 

What would be the recommendations for ASA ratings for 5222 pushing

 

5222 and 1 stop push = 400?

2 stop = 500?

 

check out the stills here

 

The Ball

 

thanks

 

Rolfe

[Mike Williamson]

What would be the recommendations for ASA ratings for 5222 pushing

 

5222 and 1 stop push = 400?

2 stop = 500?

 

I didn't test ASA ratings, I just went with one stop push equals 400ASA (tungsten). I forget what the gamma ended up being, but maybe .75 or so for push one? So I got pretty good results and didn't see any signs of underexposure.

 

You could also read the AC article on "Young Frankenstein" shot by Gerald Hirschfeld, ASC. If I recall correctly, he was processing Double-X to a gamma of .75 and rating it at 500ASA. So I think you can get some speed out of it, but you'll have to do your own tests for a 2 stop push. There's also the whole grain thing...

 

I'm also a big fan of Fuji Neopan 1600 still stock, I love how it looks and I really wish I could get motion picture loads of it. I keep wondering if I could feed 100 ft. bulk loads through a Konvas or something, don't know if the perfs will work or not. Your stills are nice too, I like the first two (non-flashed?) photos the best.