Recans and short/med/long ends

[J. Anthony Gonzales]

Does anybody have experience shooting projects with recans and/or short, medium, long ends? I understand the possible issues regarding non-factory stock, but how often do such problems arise? And what about 16mm vs. 35mm? Is one format safer than the other in terms of using recanned/ends stock?

 

This question arises out of making choices in format for independent films. If getting to a neg stage comes out to about the same cost when comparing a Super16 project using factory fresh stock or a 35mm project using recans/short ends, which would you choose?

 

 

John G.

[Malinko]

It's really just a gamble.

 

Most times you will be alright. Depends greatly on the source.

Most of "Brothers McMullen" was shot on recans. You just dont

have the security if somthing goes wrong.

 

Come to think of it "Brothers McMullen" looked pretty

grainy didnt it? Well why did that look so grainy but a

show like Buffy or Dawsons Creek look so sharp and sleek?

Both shot on 16.

[Randy Havens]

I'm sure there are people out there who get burned once in a while,

but never happened to me.

 

I've shot both Kodak and Fuji shortends (30,000 feet so far)

and they always looked good as brand new. I get kodak from

shortendz and fuji from tape company (they may have stopped

doing film, dont know).

 

I cant tell you about 16mm because I never used them, but

they should be the same thing. However, there are not a lot

of 16mm shortends around, so it might be hard actually finding

enough for a short.

 

If it was between factory sealed 16mm and 35mm shortends,

I have to go with the latter. 16mm is looking real good these

days, but 35mm beats it hands down. Although if your doing a

short you may want to use long ends so you dont have to change

mags every 2 minutes.

 

when film is stored for a very long time they get grainy,

but all you have to do is ask the sales rep when and where the film came from

and you should be fine.

 

good luck

[Brad Grimmett]

I know David Mullen got burned on a feature last year with some bad short ends. May have been mis-labled or something....I can't remember. I'm sure he'll chime in and let you know what the problem was.

[Mitch Gross]

Check the archives from previous years. We've discussed this extensively. I was burned a couple times with shortends and I think David was as well. But George is shooting his feature on 35 instead of 16 because he's using shortends.

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

You can always have it snip tested at a lab to be sure. I haven't run into any real trouble yet with 16mm recans but I had two rolls of double perf that had been fogged along their entire length in the perf area. I don't know how it got that way but it never intruded into the image. It's pretty scarry to have the lab call and say there is a problem with your neg. Of course you should avoid it like the plague on anything serious, but that's for you to decide.

 

Some places like Film Emporium in NY sell factory sealed at near recan cost. Some of it might be outdates.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I've used short ends a lot. With 16mm it's less of a pleasant situation, any film that has been stored for a long time will be grainier, and the chances of mishandled/poorly stored film is greater. I have gotten burned with 16mm film, but so far my experiences with 35mm have been quite satisfactory.

 

I have to be honest that I haven't gotten any of my material printed yet, that will really be the time to tell how well it actually went.

 

The big annoyance is of course frequent reloading, especially a problem with 35mm (which is why 200 ft of 35mm ends and 200 ft of 16mm ends cost the same per foot). You roll out on shots (which is why short ends exist in many cases - a camera op doesn't want to roll out on a long shot), so you may end up shooting more.

 

But the economy per foot is terrific. One fifth to one sixth the price of new film is really worth the suffering in my opinion, unless you're on a big show where you can't gamble as much and where time is very expensive. You can always rent more mags but that also costs more money, and it will keep your loader boy busier.

 

- G.

[Dominic Case]

High speed stocks will age-fog much more rapidly than normal speed stocks. Probably a good idea to avoid them. Also if it's travelled and been x-rayed or been stored warm, fast stock will go off quicker. Old stock is also more of a problem with night shoots and other situations where you have a lot of shadow detail. The blacks become milky and grainy. All bigger problems on 16mm of course.

 

Get samples dip tested at the lab. (We call it dip tested, others call it snip or clip testing.) If there's any uncertainty, ask yourself how important the look of the film is to you. If it looks good, go for it.

[Jarin Blaschke]

I've always considered recanned 35mm to be much safer than 16, because of where it's likely to come from. Recanned 16 is much more likely to come from students and amateurs who were probably less carefull with loading/canning/cleanliness and storage. There have been many occasions where I've been able to shoot 35 instead of 16, because of the existence of recans. In fact, the majority of my 35mm projects have been recans and I haven't had problems yet. Have I just been lucky? Maybe, but I think it's worth it. There's also the middle option of going to an alternatiove stock provider and just ask for 'factory sealed.'

[David Mullen ASC]

We were using supposedly snip-tested recans last year and we had a couple of rolls that were x-ray fogged on one edge, so it came and went. Maybe the bit they snipped off didn't have the fogging...

 

It ruined a couple of scenes but we were able to reshoot some of it. The trouble is that on most low-budget films, if ANY footage doesn't come out, it's a major problem.

 

I've shot maybe a dozen features on recans with minimal to no problems, but the question is how many problems do you want to be dealing with on a film shoot? The stock is sort of the one thing I want to rely on the most.

 

On the other hand, if it's the only way to get the feature made within its budget, I'd take the risk no doubt. But the more critical the elements are in front of the camera (expensive talent, locations, etc.) the more it doesn't make sense to take a chance on the film stock.

 

Most of the problems with recans are not disasterous though -- they tend to be of the annoying mismatching problem, i.e. some rolls are a little grainier and foggier than others. Subtle problems that won't really show up in a video transfer (or can be fixed in the transfer) but are more apparent in the print. Sometimes using a more contrasty print stock can hide or minimize some of those mismatches.

 

One thing that helps a lot is to rate the stocks slower than recommended -- the extra density, allowing you to print down, will help keep the blacks, grain, and contrast at a decent level.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Here's the Kodak information on film storage and x-ray exposure:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/.../storage1.shtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml

 

Cold storage in the original sealed packaging greatly slows any change in film characteristics from age, but ambient radiation (e.g., cosmic rays) and x-ray exposure (e.g, airport security) will affect any film (especially high speed ones) regardless of cold storage.

 

With short-ends and recans, "caveat emptor" -- you are dependent on how the reseller has handled, shipped and stored the film. And the reseller depends on the honesty of the production company supplying those short ends to verify the film was not stored or handled improperly.

 

A lab "clip" test will spot an obvious increase in fog level (D-min), but full sensitometry is needed to document any change in speed or contrast. For critical work, shoot a short gray scale test and evaluate any grain buildup.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

If short ends make the difference between shooting on film and tape, or even 16 new versus 35 short ends, go for the short ends all the way. Grain mismatches are something I'd live with, definitely preferrable to scan lines, softer overall images, motion artifacts, and blown out whites, or the grain of 16mm.

 

- G.