Jump to content

When Will Kodak 5254 Come Back?


JosephKHansalik

Recommended Posts

Well, there are evaluations based on measurable response, and then there are those that really aren't. The former I get, the latter I don't.

The basis of an opinion should be observable fact.


As with many things, a lot of this experience has to do with the lab and the chemistry with this stuff. I've developed it myself, clip tests in D-76 still developer (originally designed for motion pictures though, so perfect evaluative test) and it's significantly finer than any Double-X. Prints just fine, fine-grained. No problem.

If you want to criticize someone criticize Kodak, or maybe more appropriate, criticize B&W shooters for *not shooting enough.*




As to ECN-2, it was designed to be faster so labs could process more, quickly. Before that, it was a room-temperature (almost, think it was 70-some Fahrenheit) process, that was far slower.

At the beginning, there was more grain, more consistency issues, but they solved it, maybe thirty years ago.


Cinematographers would have killed for the 50D and 200T stock of today. If they aren't contrasty enough, and are too fine-grained, push them a stop.

It isn't really fair to criticize a film for becoming too fine-grained and too sharp, when the cinematographers who SHOT 5254 complained about these things, prompting the improvements that you now dislike. Nostalgia is fine, but it has to be rooted in practicality.

The people who shot 5254 were STUCK with only 5254. Imagine having to shoot everything on 100-speed film, like an interior, candle-lit scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can say is that when I saw 5254 on a huge screen in a theater, 4th generation print, there was utter magic, something touching your soul.

 

In contrast, you go to many modern movies and it's showing on a very small screen in straight digital projection and it's been artificially tinted, and it's like you're watching a live cam or something. I don't mean to disparage films like "Skyfall" that worked in digital and really impressed me, and certainly the industry is full of talent...nonetheless, I feel something big has been lost and there's really no explaining that one away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, first off, it was a 2nd generation print back in the day. It was only with the era of multiplexes that they went to 4th gen. copies.

You're saying all of that is due entirely to 5254?

It, along with the ECN-I process was a good stock, good process, but all of that is more due to digital intermediates, digital projection, than a specific emulsion or process or print stock.

Something has been lost, and they're catering to younger, arguably dumber typical theatre-goers, but that's a huge stretch blaming this all on the replacement of 5254.


So an Agfa movie, a Fuji movie lacks the magic you describe, automatically?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, first off, it was a 2nd generation print back in the day. It was only with the era of multiplexes that they went to 4th gen. copies.

 

You're saying all of that is due entirely to 5254?

 

It, along with the ECN-I process was a good stock, good process, but all of that is more due to digital intermediates, digital projection, than a specific emulsion or process or print stock.

 

Something has been lost, and they're catering to younger, arguably dumber typical theatre-goers, but that's a huge stretch blaming this all on the replacement of 5254.

 

 

So an Agfa movie, a Fuji movie lacks the magic you describe, automatically?

No no, I'm not saying it wasn't a downhill slide after 5254. It didn't happen immediately. For example, I watch the cinematography for "Alien" and I get very excited...it's perfect (to me of course!). But something is going wrong, and I'm glad you brought up digital intermediates.

 

I have used Fuji film for still photography and thought it was interesting. Just because a film is not shot on my favorite film doesn't make it bad, but what I am saying is that I think they struck gold in the late 60s, and having compared both that film and current movies extensively up close, I get the sinking feeling that either the people in charge of things don't care, or the people who go to see movies these days don't care. It is truly a combination of screen size, film projection in the theater, lack of DI, better labs doing coloring (as many have testified to from back then), better film in my opinion, and different styles of cinematography. This last I think is not a disappointment...if anything cinematographers may be more versed now than ever before in various methods of lighting a scene. There's lots of competition and everybody is keeping up. This forum is an example of something that is very non-disappointing to the extreme.

 

I am just disappointed as an aspiring director when I see something so obviously good left behind for something so obviously not as good and hopefully things will turn around soon. JKH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you prefer about 60s and 70s film ("Alien" was on 5247)?

 

5254 has a very soft look and responds very well to being pushed and hard-lighting looks great on it. All this makes close-ups of leading ladies look great on it. I'm kidding...kind of!

 

5251 (the predecessor) looks nice but has a more artificial feeling and I'm not advanced enough (yet) to be able to explain it.

 

Alien being on 5247, what I like is the coldness of the cinematography, and I think it's just a masterful piece of art. How that would look different on something other than 5247 or 100T, I am still studying, but as it is, there is something alarming about it which works perfectly for that movie.

 

Obviously we are here talking about negative films only and not print stocks...print stocks from then would also have to be rolled out again because I understand it's a combination of the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am curious what "Star Wars" was shot on-it is a big mystery to me because the DVD release doesn't resemble the original at all, and even the '95/'93 masters were color-adjusted (which is what I am most familiar with) so it is difficult to tell.

 

Based on my memory of 80s home video releases (not the most reliable, but better than the DVDs), it looked like different film was used for Tatooine (maybe 5254) than for the Death Star stuff, and I seem to remember 70mm was used for the special effects, although I could be wrong on that.

 

???

 

Edit: By Star Wars I mean 1977

Edited by JosephKHansalik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, was it already garbage when they shot "Aliens" in '86?

 

That was essentially the beginnings of T-grain, modern film stock. They were only a third of a stop slower than they are today.

Hold on; didn't say anything about garbage!

 

Disclaimer: Still studying all this stuff.

 

I will say I suspect that many elements of the 5254 look I like are unique to 5254. My primary interest is, in the absence of that film, what to do to get in that 100T, 1970s ballpark and I think the best teacher in that case is personal experience. I would go to great, great lengths to get results that actually legitimately look like like "The Godfather" and its sequel to a discerning eye on a huge screen (edit: Not the "restored version" which looks nothing like the film that I saw that is represented very well in the initial DVD release)

 

I have a lot of way to go, but what I am hoping is that there are things that can be done, and I suspect that in this day and age, assuming I could get a very, very high quality and very, very lossless scan every step of the process (I don't know what that would be, 8K or higher?), then computers might nowadays be able to deliver a chemical-looking color grade that's more similar to 70s labs than today's labs. Grain could be manipulated. etc. etc. etc.

 

It just seems like a lot of effort when they could just bring the film back.

 

EDIT: And of course this is about the format, or aesthetic...obviously the cinematography and lighting itself has to be great. That is a whole other discussion, and it is the main reason I am on this forum: read, and learn.

Edited by JosephKHansalik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you used to shoot the current 100-T film, until they discontinued it. Absent that, shoot 200T, instead. Use lights and lenses from that era.

You could pull it a stop if you had money and wanted to really nitpick.


Also, you could shoot 50D with 5500K illumination and get perfectly comparable "fun" with really hot, high-wattage lights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For 35mm, a 4K is a very good scan, although some people go up as high as 6. Honestly, that's way better than what you got in the theatre.

A 4th generation print is probably around 2.5K or worse (this is assuming it's not a copy of a digital intermediate done at 2K to begin with).

With a second-generation, maybe around 3,000 lines, something like that. The original negative doesn't have 8 with 35mm 4-perf.


You're never going to get perfect matches to what was in the '70s with either film OR digital. Also, what existed in the '70s doesn't exist today due to fading. We can guess and get very close, but never get identical results.

However, that being said, if you use the equipment they had then, and a comparable film, maybe 5203 with a one-stop push for similar speed, contrast and grain to 100T of that day, you will get very, very close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, you could shoot 50D with 5500K illumination and get perfectly comparable "fun" with really hot, high-wattage lights.

 

The basis of my confusion is that oftentimes, people will say, "Just use these smaller lights and a faster film and it will come out about the same" and in reality, it doesn't come anywhere close. I am tempted to think that the slower speed and the very high wattage lights have a very specific impact on the final image.

 

On the other hand, you have people who mindlessly adhere to a certain lens or a certain way of doing things without being open to a LEGITIMATE alternative that, to a discerning eye, would look just as good as these particular films that one admires.

 

My attitude is that there's something about many, many films I have seen on 5254 ("The French Connection", "The Godfather", "Sisters", "Soylent Green", "Dirty Harry", "Jaws", and the list goes on) that is very intriguing. All shot very differently, but it's the similar qualities I am honing in on. Am I closed off to doing it in digital? No-but I am very clear on what I want and it would have to look significantly different than most any film shot on digital that I've ever seen. And of course the disclaimer to go with that is that I'm not a zealot and I have seen great looking films shot on digital-but not like 5254.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well some of that is the '70s and you can't have that back, LOL. You aren't even in the right millennium for that.

Again, I think you're being too generous in giving all the praise to one particular film emulsion. What about that which preceded it? Some people hated the ECN-II process when it was introduced.

You're giving credit to a mindless, faceless photographic film the hard work and stylistic decisions of myriad cinematographers, cameramen, hair and makeup artists, costumers, gaffers, actors, directors. All of that plays into the mise en scene you describe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well some of that is the '70s and you can't have that back, LOL.

 

You would probably be amused to find out that I do want it back for artistic reasons, and that crosses over into the territory that I am comfortable with: directing. I zone in on small things, like soft Mancini music playing in "The Pink Panther Strikes Back", or colored lights, or a scarf around the neck, or someone wearing sideburns, and then I want to make the whole movie like that. I think there were a lot of great 70s dystopia movies that were never made and should have been, and I want to fill out the decade before I get started with any mdern stuff. But that's off-topic and also makes me sound like a lunatic when really all I want to do is make a good film from my POV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...