Film stock recommendation

[Steven Budden]

Hello,

 

I'm shooting film for the first time... a black and white short with very short color sequences. I'm editing physically, with a splicer/ viewer. I'm going no sound for now. Also, I'm doing it for eventual 16mm projection at festivals, etc.

 

Can anyone recommend stock to begin shooting with? I was planning on reversal but I'm looking to go the most direct route to get a 16mm silent film I can project. I guess I could do neg, create a workprint, edit that, the conform the neg (which I'll probably try to do myself). Edge numbers?

 

Anyway, any advice helpful. Thanks!

 

Steven

[Cohen Phillips]

  I was planning on reversal but I'm looking to go the most direct route to get a 16mm silent film I can project.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey Steve,

That would be the most direct route is to shoot on reversal. I've shot 7266 Tri-X outdoors and it came out great! It was a pretty cloudy day. I haven't shot any Plus-X but I'm sure it's just as good. Where will most of the film take place indoors or outdoors? Tri-X is 200ASA daylight. Plus-X is 100 ASA daylight. Hope this helps you out and good luck with your project! :)

Edited July 13, 2005 by HTTK

[Steven Budden]

Thanks!

 

I think most of it will be outdoors. Maybe minor indoor shots.

 

So reversal... someone told me that there were no more reversal projection stocks? Only reversal camera stocks. So if I was shooting for 16mm projection I couldn't shoot reversal. What does that mean?

 

Steven

[David Mullen ASC]

That would be the most direct route is to shoot on reversal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry, but you're wrong. He said he needed a PRINT for film festivals. Shooting reversal is not the simplest way of getting a print; shooting negative is. Shooting reversal is the simplest way of getting a positive image for immediate projection but you're not going to send your original, spliced footage to a film festival for projection!

[Chris Burke]

Sorry, but you're wrong. He said he needed a PRINT for film festivals.  Shooting reversal is not the simplest way of getting a print; shooting negative is.  Shooting reversal is the simplest way of getting a positive image for immediate projection but you're not going to send your original, spliced footage to a film festival for projection!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

David is right. I would recommend the 7222 or 7231. The 22 is great for indoors without a lot of light the 31 for outdoors or indoors with loads of light. You can get a one light and cut with that, never send out your camera original out to festivals. If you movie is in demand and you only have one print, you may want to consider a Beta or DVCAM copy for screening only. Good luck.

 

 

chris

[David Mullen ASC]

One can always copy reversal onto reversal for the purposes of projection -- but at a big increase in contrast.

 

The other issue is whether you really want to mix in a little color into a 16mm b&w piece. This generally requires that all the color footage be conformed onto a C-roll (if the bulk is an A-B roll b&w 16mm negative) and that the print stock be color, so your b&w footage may pick up a color cast.

[Steven Budden]

One can always copy reversal onto reversal for the purposes of projection -- but at a big increase in contrast.

 

The other issue is whether you really want to mix in a little color into a 16mm b&w piece. This generally requires that all the color footage be conformed onto a C-roll (if the bulk is an A-B roll b&w 16mm negative) and that the print stock be color, so your b&w footage may pick up a color cast.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks. That all helps.

 

Were going to have parts in color, what would be the best way to avoid a color cast? I guess I'll be paying for color the whole way through? Sad.

 

I was thinking Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev... color in the last few seconds... sort of thing.

 

But on the reversal thing, are reversal projection stocks still being manufactured?

 

Also, I guess one more concern is the fragility of Negative? I've been practicing editing, projecting, etc on some film students' old negatives and it seems like even a breeze will scratch them.

 

Thanks for the help!

 

Steven

[Steven Budden]

Also, I remember seeing in some post a low cost source for film stock somewhere but I can't find it. It had deals if you bought and developed your film with the same dealer? Any recommendations on suppliers with discounts?

 

Thanks!

 

Steven

[David Mullen ASC]

You just try and time the b&w image on the color print stock to look as neutral as possible.

 

Or you could do what "Schindler's List" and "Rumblefish", which is hand-splice the color shots on color print stock into the b&w prints. Trouble is that in 16mm, you have a splice going through a frame I believe. Plus you'd have to deal with splicing Estar stock used now for color prints, but I don't know if the Estar b&w print stock is available in 16mm or only in 35mm. Estar can't be cement spliced but can be ultrasonic-welded.

 

Yes, there are still two reversal print stocks in the catalog for copying reversal onto reversal -- 7399 (color) and 7361 (b&w).

 

But considering that 7399 uses VNF processing, and Kodak has obsoleted all the VNF Ektachrome camera stocks, I don't see it sticking around for much longer. I guess Kodak would have to replace it with an E6 reversal print stock but I don't see much market for that so Kodak might not bother. You'd probably have to use a camera reversal stock as a reversal print stock instead.

 

You should spend some time here:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...d=0.1.4.8&lc=en

 

Negative isn't necessarily more fragile but ANY camera original must be handled with great care and absolute cleanliness. Dust & scratches on a negative will show up white or light-colored on a print, which is considered more visible than dust & scratches on a reversal original, which show up as black.

[Cohen Phillips]

Sorry, but you're wrong. He said he needed a PRINT for film festivals. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I missed that part where he said that. Forgive me.

[David Mullen ASC]

I missed that part where he said that. Forgive me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, I'm sorry, you're right -- he didn't specifically say "print"... but I sort of assumed he wasn't going to show something uncut like an original camera reversal roll. Once you're talking about an edited piece, you need to copy the conformed original to something for projection.

[Sam Wells]

If you want to print on 7361 B&W reversal print stock you better act fast.

 

I'd be hesitant printing B&W material on 7399 reversal color - it's pretty low in contrast & you might find the d-max you'd like with B&W not to your liking. (I can't say I've tried though). Again you'd have to move fast because I don't think there will be any more of it made.

 

So from reversal originals it's interneg time otherwise I think.

 

Too bad Vision Premiere is not a standard item in 16mm.

 

Well anyone commited to photographic materials and who is not a millionaire has an uphill struggle same as it ever was I guess.

 

-Sam

[Steven Budden]

7361 (b&w) reversal has been discontinued this year. I saw many valiant attempts to keep it going when I ran a google search on it.

 

Sad.

 

Steven

[Steven Budden]

Also, what are the benefits of reveral in general? Why go through the trouble of using it? I've heard they give more subtleties and richness in black and white. Don't know about color.

 

Also, I'm making short experimental films to start, so I guess the immediacy of having a positive right away. But then I have to get a workprint made anyway?

 

Anyway, I really want to start shooting but I'm a little confused. Where to start?

 

Thanks!

 

Steven

[David Mullen ASC]

Shoot 16mm negative, b&w and color, just make sure that the color neg is conformed onto a C-roll, with your b&w neg on checkerboarded A-B rolls. Then print onto color print stock. This is assuming you understand the whole editing process between shooting and cutting the negative.

 

Even if you shot reversal, you'd want to make a workprint for editing before you conformed the original, so you might as well shoot neg.

[Sam Wells]

The B&W reversal stocks are bolder, sharper.

 

The negs however can be pushed to a higher gamma yielding more contrast (but more grain then). The negatives can give you a better mid tone scale (you really gotta have some light in there to match this quality with B&W reversal).

 

With no more 7361, film workprints are problematic in 16mm B&W rev.

 

Push 7231 ~ one stop - 0.75 gamma & it'll look similar to shooting reversal. 0.70 is a good comprimise in that you retain the mids but get some contrast (NB some labs will consider 0.70 as "normal" others 0.65)

 

Get some of these stocks & try some things !

 

-Sam

[Steven Budden]

Thanks. I'll try out some of those stocks and forget the reversal for now.

 

Where would anyone suggest I buy those stocks at a good price?

 

Thanks!

 

Steven

[Steven Budden]

"Negative isn't necessarily more fragile but ANY camera original must be handled with great care and absolute cleanliness. Dust & scratches on a negative will show up white or light-colored on a print, which is considered more visible than dust & scratches on a reversal original, which show up as black. "

 

I figured out where I got that idea of Negative being more fragile. From the Cinematography book... it says "Reversal is physically tougher and less prone to scratching..." and that used to be a reason for using it, but now, because people rarely project the original anyway for safety reasons, it is mostly used for the higher contrast "look".

 

Anyway, I wound up with some black and white negative to start... figured I might as well just shoot a roll of everything on earth anyway to start to get a feel for how the various emulsions and speeds function.

 

Also...Is fujifilm comparable to kodak now?

 

Thanks!

 

Steven

[David Mullen ASC]

I figured out where I got that idea of Negative being more fragile. From the Cinematography book... it says "Reversal is physically tougher and less prone to scratching..." and that used to be a reason for using it, but now, because people rarely project the original anyway for safety reasons, it is mostly used for the higher contrast "look".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The first part of the sentence was written by Kris Malkiewicz in 1972 probably and the second half of the sentence was written by me in 2004... weird, huh?

 

I don't think reversal is physically tougher but I could be wrong; it's just that dirt, dust, and scratches show-up better on negative because they photograph as white on the print instead of black.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Unfortunately, both color and B&W REVERSAL print films were discontinued. As noted by others, the reversal camera films are best suited to applications where the camera original will be projected after processing, or to productions where the "look" of the reversal stock is desired. These are incorporated into a production by either telecine transfer or scanning (digital intermediate), or by making an internegative that can be cut with other footage shot on negative film.

 

Reversal films:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...04Revised_Q.pdf

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...PCN040804_Q.pdf

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...1.4.4.6.4&lc=en

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...1.4.4.8.8&lc=en

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products....4.4.8.10&lc=en

[Steven Budden]

Wow, that book (Cinematography) is really a collage of different authors (2) and years isn't it?

 

Does anyone project their original though?

 

If one were to edit original, with splices, would it need to be cement spliced to make prints?

 

And the only difference between reversal camera and reversal print stocks are edge numbers?

 

Also, does film cleaner work pretty well for cleaning negative? If I were to cut negative in my apartment (where there is surely some dust) could I just clean it off before sending it off for prints?

 

Thanks!

 

Steven

[David Mullen ASC]

I would create a hyper-clean work environment to cut negative at home if I were you.

 

Not sure about the best way to clean negative before & after conforming.

 

Yes, you can't use tape splices in a negative / reversal original meant for printing.

 

I assume even without reversal print stocks sold, one could contact-print to reversal camera stock to create a print?

[Sam Wells]

I would let the lab clean it, but the cleaner the environment the better.

 

I think Kodachrome uses, or used some kind of anti scratch treatment so maybe that's the source of reversal is tougher thinking but I'm not sure it's true otherwise.

 

You could contact print reversal camera stock to camera stock but that woulld be one contrasty print without really playing with the development seriously if possible.

 

-Sam

[John Pytlak RIP]

It's not so much that reversal films are "tougher" than negative films, it's because dirt and scratches from poor handling of a negative show up as white on the screen, which is more visible than the black dirt and scratches from a mishandled positive image.

 

Using an experienced negative cutter is the best option.

 

Printing originals are cleaned using either a Particle Transfer Roller (PTR) film cleaner, or an ultrasonic film cleaner using solvent.

[Steven Budden]

That helps. I'd prefer a pro negative cutter but it seems costly paying per cut.

 

I see so if the reversal is the original the dust won't show as badly, so my workspace, though clean, may not need to be hyper clean?

 

Thanks!

 

Steven