Fomapaaaaaaaaan......

[Samuel Berger]

I'm very impressed with Fomapan. Not because I saw it in 16mm, but because I saw it in Regular 8mm and had no idea it was R8 until I read the video descriptions.

 

 

This 2K scan looks almost like 16mm:

 

 

These were made with a Bolex H8 Reflex. Mr. Carter was experimenting with syncing sound to 8mm film and apparently recorded it all at 16fps! He also hand-processed his film by himself.

 

Are there any US-based sources for Fomapan? I need this in my life. If I were saving money to move I'd be getting a Bolex H8 Reflex right about now.

 

 

[Todd Pinder]

Plenty of 8mm and Double Super 8 in small reels through B&H and the like. 16mm or 100ft in 8mm are hard to come by in the States, could order through Macodirect.

 

https://www.macodirect.de/en/film/cine-films/1721/fomapan-r-100-perforated-on-one-side-16mm-x-30.5m?c=616

[Samuel Berger]

Thanks, Todd. I also see it for sale in 100ft 35mm spools. I wonder if I can run that in my Arri IIc straight out of the package, or if I'd need to re-spool it.

 

Seems it's been done on a Konvas.

 

 

 

From the comments:

 

 

How it would work with a Arri 2c, I don't know very well because it is camera based how well the movement handles incorrect perforation profile (KS perfs instead of the normal BH) and pitch (long pitch instead of the normal short pitch) so the only way is to test it. there is however not much difference in this regard between still films so you can test the perforation profile and pitch with any still film and if it works correctly with your camera you can then try Foma knowing that your camera can transport it without braking the movement or tearing the perfs. I believe that it should work but the only way is to test. But the certain thing is that these still films DO NOT WORK with pin-registered cameras, the long pitch and different perforation profile is too much for pin registered systems and you can break your camera. But as said I believe that it should work with the Arri 2c, just test it first with any still film by slowly turning the movement by hand, then doing running tests, and if it sounds fine and does not jam etc. then the Foma should also work. Shiny pressure plates are another issue which can cause problems with b/w films, these films don't have remjet backing so it may be possible to see pressure plate's "ghost" over the image in some lighting situations if the plate is shiny

Edited January 20, 2018 by Samuel Berger

[Mark Dunn]

IIRC 35mm. long rolls for still use are not supplied on a spool, they're usually on a core. The pitch isn't relevant for stills so it's not quoted, but the manufacturer would know it presumably.

Some Arris, not the 2C, have pitch adjustment, if only for noise reduction, so presumably differences are tolerable, even expected.

[Doug Palmer]

My 2c seems happy with 35mm still b/w film. Nice steady image.

Samuel why sell your impressive 2-perf 2c ? Keep it and rent out to us sad types and recoup the money that way. I'd rent it if I lived in US ;)

[Samuel Berger]

 

IIRC 35mm. long rolls for still use are not supplied on a spool, they're usually on a core. The pitch isn't relevant for stills so it's not quoted, but the manufacturer would know it presumably.

Some Arris, not the 2C, have pitch adjustment, if only for noise reduction, so presumably differences are tolerable, even expected.

 

 

It seems the 35mm Fomapan is supplied on a spool. Interesting (and convenient) choice. And it seems I wasn't the first to have that incredibly original idea:

 

 

 

 

My 2c seems happy with 35mm still b/w film. Nice steady image.

Samuel why sell your impressive 2-perf 2c ? Keep it and rent out to us sad types and recoup the money that way. I'd rent it if I lived in US ;)

 

Because I need the money in order to move someplace where the sun actually shines more than one month out of the year. ;-)

[Timothy Fransky]

Thanks, Todd. I also see it for sale in 100ft 35mm spools. I wonder if I can run that in my Arri IIc straight out of the package, or if I'd need to re-spool it.

 

Seems it's been done on a Konvas.

 

 

 

Resurrecting this thread. I like the idea of R8 for the price. I'm not sure if it's actually cheaper in the long run, but I do want to shoot in b&w a good deal. The artifacts of the smaller format are also useful for the stories I want to tell.

 

I wonder if someone could explain to me what's causing the flicker in this clip? Is it the shutter speed or frame rate? Fogging?

 

I don't love it, I'm afraid. I can handle a bit of dirt or grain, but this sort of flicker is tough to look at for me. The more I dive into celluloid, be it motion picture or stills, the more fogging bothers me.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Timothy Fransky

[Mark Dunn]

Because it's not uniform across the frame, I'd say uneven processing, probably due to insufficient agitation. I haven't processed ciné, but I expect it's more of a problem in 35mm because of the sheer amount of real estate.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Mark Dunn

[Timothy Fransky]

Because it's not uniform across the frame, I'd say uneven processing, probably due to insufficient agitation.

 

That's good to know. I found a Bolex B8 in Toronto that might be worth making an offer on, then.

[Martin Baumgarten]

Fomapan R-100 is a really nice old world silver rich film, with deep blacks, clear highlights, crisp whites, and fun to use. However, unfortunately, there is a perforation pitch problem, small, however it is there when compared to KODAK standard films. The Double 8mm does tend to extend out and is noticeable after more than a dozen frames. In practice, it's nominal and the film is very usable of course. This pitch variation is also noticeable on their 16mm films, but due to the larger frame size and longer perf spacing compared to Double 8mm, it's less of an issue. The 35mm versions, made more for still film have different perf shapes, but from various others shooting it in cine cameras, their results seem workable. You'd have to do your own tests of course before committing this to a project.

 

And yes, I have mentioned the perforation issue to FOMA some years ago, and received a polite letter and email to the effect that the punch dyes are older and they can't afford to spend the amount it would cost to redo them just to fix this variation.

 

The film is also available in Double Super 8mm, as well as having been custom loaded into Super 8mm cartridges. Owing to the thicker film base support, sometimes there are transport issues, something to check first of course. Since most of the small DS8 and Double 8mm 25ft/7.5m loading cameras do not use a sprocket to drive the film rather a spring roller on feed and a rubber snubber prior to takeup, a wipe of the film gate and pressure plate with silicone, wax, or movie film cleaner with lubricant will help the film advance...IF there is a transport issue with this thicker film base material.

 

Lastly, owing the built in anti-halation remjet equivalent in a dye form, there is no issue of polished film pressure plate ghosting. This reversal film is unique in that this anti-halation dye is dissolved out during the bleach stage of the B&W Reversal process. Despite a few odd issues with this film, it is a pleasure to use and it also does very well being processed in Sepia Tone Reversal having nice rich deep browns and tinted highlights and rich blacks (owing to the silver rich density they appear black where no detail is present).

 

Plenty of those fine BOLEX H-8 cameras around. The non-reflex ones have an advantage of no light loss due to a prism, or dirty or cloudy prism, use the less costly D-mount lenses, do have reflex viewing lens unit options if needed, tend to be more robust due to lack of variable shutter issues, and they generally can be purchased far less than their reflex counterparts. Best ones to consider are those with the frame counter built in and with serial number sequence range after 100,400 which had a major change to the claw mechanism, known as the film registration claw. These tend to be steadier and the backwind claw is steady enough to film in reverse using the small hand crank if you want to. In my experience, as long as the cameras are well lubricated and cared for and work well, even very old ones will produce nice steady images. The later H-8s also had an 18fps speed setting between the 16fps and 24fps marked range on the knob. Those H series cameras run well enough to use as small film contact printers if need be! Also, the small B and D models are very nice to use as well.

[Timothy Fransky]

Wow, Martin, that's a beautiful essay! No sarcasm, I really appreciate it! :)

 

I missed out on that B8, unfortunately, but I'm sure there will be other opportunities.

 

I'm a really big fan of the silver nitrite look of the early Chaplin and Keaton shorts. Obviously, that'll never be duplicated, so I'm pawing through as much true b&w stock as I can to find a suitable alternative.

[Randy J Tomlinson]

i have shot fomapan on my D8 (bolex) as well and im happy with it. i did not telecine yet but i will post it soon

[Roberto Colapietro]

Samuel, would you be able to upload again your examples shot with Fomapan?

I just purchased a Bolex H8 Rex and would be great to see some of these references. Especially if scanned in recent years

If anyone has any content it would be cool to see

Thanks

[Aapo Lettinen]

On 8/22/2018 at 10:02 PM, Timothy Fransky said:

 

Resurrecting this thread. I like the idea of R8 for the price. I'm not sure if it's actually cheaper in the long run, but I do want to shoot in b&w a good deal. The artifacts of the smaller format are also useful for the stories I want to tell.

 

I wonder if someone could explain to me what's causing the flicker in this clip? Is it the shutter speed or frame rate? Fogging?

 

I don't love it, I'm afraid. I can handle a bit of dirt or grain, but this sort of flicker is tough to look at for me. The more I dive into celluloid, be it motion picture or stills, the more fogging bothers me.

Oh someone is watching my film tests after all!  😄

the flicker is uneven diy processing and diy scanning. most of it caused by uneven processing (different parts of film getting different strenght of developer at different times, challenges with stirring it evenly, etc). Much weaker developer solution with much longer developing time would probably solve most of the flicker even if all other conditions were the same. I get most of stuff developed in lab and mainly developing camera tests diy with normal strength developer and as quickly as possible, thus the results often has lots more defects than would be possible to archieve in best case. Most of my b/w test stuff uses from 5 to 8 minutes developing time depending on what it is and what kind of developer. If making very weak solution and upping the developing time to like 30 minutes would definitely get much better results

[Dr. Thomas Faehrenkemper]

Here is some Fomapan R100 footage (Super 😎 home processed in Dokumol 1+7  with KSCN 5g/l and KJ 50 mg/l for FD, 8 min , 68 F. Scanned with my homemade frame scanner (modified Noris projector).

 

Edited April 24 by Dr. Thomas Faehrenkemper

[Dr. Thomas Faehrenkemper]

5 hours ago, Dr. Thomas Faehrenkemper said:

Here is some Fomapan R100 footage (Super 😎 home processed in Dokumol 1+7  with KSCN 5g/l and KJ 50 mg/l for FD, 8 min , 68 F. Scanned with my homemade frame scanner (modified Noris projector).

 

Super 8...🙂