a look like 1980?

[Lars Drawert]

Hallo

 

Think I need an advice to have a starting point for testing.

 

I am trying to find out how it is possible to reach a look like at beginning of the 80ies or end of 70ies - colourfilms.

We are going to shoot on 16mm- over daytime (hopful with a shining sun)

 

What where the stocknumbers at this time?

 

Unfortunately I only know the numbers of stocks which are available now (started not a long time before 7218 at filmschool).

 

Or how can I come close to that look with todays filmstocks?

 

Thanks for any advice

Lars

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Kodak had its 5347 which was a real workhorse. Think it was 100T or 125T in speed.

To replicate that look, you should stay away from the new Vision2 stocks. They're

way to slick. I'd go for Fuji - they have a color rendition that just feels a bit more

dated. Perhaps try the 400T or the harsher 125T and 64D. Or try the Kodak 320T

(which also is a low con stock) or the EXR100T (5248).

 

The exteriors on 80's films I always remember as quite harsh. The interiors as well

- lot's of hard light still around - kind of the last days of the old studio pro DP's still

doing their 3-point lighting. Preferrably blue....:-)

[Filip Plesha]

It was 5247,and it was 100ASA at first ,and later they changed it to 125.

 

Personally i feel that the EXR films have a bit "older" look when shot with artifitial light, less smooth than the new vision and vision2 films. On daylight scenes they

look less distinctive from visions, at least 5245 and 5248. This is how my eyes see them.

 

I think you would need the "dated" tonal gradations of EXR films, but you would have to get rid of color saturation and contrast in post because today's EXR films (what is left of them) have a lot more contrast than 5247 as it was in the begining of the 80's.

 

Again,using something like 320t would give you comparable contrast and color,but you would not have this "dated" look

[Jarin Blaschke]

My impression of films of that time is the look of high contrast, but without soild blacks and of generally low saturation.

 

I would love to shoot a 'period' film that takes place during that time and have thought about how I would do it if ever given the opportunity. If it were me, the stock would need some dirtying up - I'd take an EXR stock (preferably '98 or '93 but both have been axed by Kodak), push it a stop with some flashing. This would raise the gamma in the midsection, add grain, but weaken the blacks and maybe some color saturation (pushing would add saturation but the flashing would take it away). The flashing could also be done with a light chocolate filter to introduce some color crossover in the form of warm shadows. Just my thoughts... These techniques may introduce a bit too much grain for 16mm though, unless perhaps you use '48. Can you even flash 16mm?

[Filip Plesha]

Jarin.

 

Are you refering to 5247? It was never high-contrast.

 

Perhaps you are refering to the faster films that were introduced in the mid 80's?

The first of them was the original 5293 in 1982 (250t), then 5294 in 1983 and 5295 in '86, they were both 400t.

They were higher in contrast.

 

But Lars wanted the look of late 70's and early 80's. This is the look of

5247 , and it is pretty soft.

[David Mullen ASC]

I always get concerned when people ask how some 35mm movie was shot in the past and on what film stock but are shooting their project in 16mm. Even if you could use exactly the same stock as the past, the fact that you are shooting in 16mm means that the image will be grainier and softer.

 

Also, what is the end product? A 35mm print? A video transfer? Are you trying to match the look of prints in the late 1970's or a new video transfer of an old movie from that time?

 

The best thing is to pick something very specific to match to because we all have different opinions on what past movies looked like.

 

Even though everyone was shooting on 5247, there was a wide variety of looks. Also, by 1981, a few people were shooting on the new Fuji 250 ASA film, the first high-speed stock. "Star Trek 2", "Das Boot", "Room with a View", "Sharkey's Machine", "Legend" used this stock.

 

Fuji wasn't used much in the 1970's except for some TV shows. Manufacturing quality was too variable at the time. The exceptions I recall were "Farewell My Lovely", "The Last Metro", and the period scenes in "Somewhere in Time."

 

The look of some 35mm prints in the 1970's were due to the use of CRI's for duplicating plus many films were blown-up to 70mm for release.

[Jarin Blaschke]

Filip, as someone in my mid 20s, I probably associate that 'look' with how I mostly saw movies at the time: transfered from the much lower-quaity telecines at the time. It's rare that I get to see films from that period on the big screen - even then, they're 'restored.'

 

I also realize and agree with David's point in that maybe there is really no such thing as a "70s look" - there has always been a variety of looks - that's what we're here to do. Star Wars doesn't look like Taxi Driver doesn't look like Annie Hall doesn't look like Bad News Bears. I suppose I was just thinking out loud as to how to degrade today's film stocks.

[Filip Plesha]

Well yea, there is no 70's and 80's universal look,i agree on that.

But the things i talk about have nothing to do with DP's style.

I am talking about the way film would look if you put a camera on the street and shoot, no lights,no set design, nothing, this is where you can see how one film stock can look.

 

If you say you have seen any of the restored early 80's films in cinemas,

then you are capable of comparing them properly. The fact that they are restored does not mean that they are altered. I don't know which case you are refering to, but most of films from that era have been chemically restored, and the only difference in the negative is color fading, color timing is usually done with the presence of original filmmakers, and is usually done to match the original timing.

Take E.T. for example, Spielberg not only wanted to match the timing of the film,but the look of 80's prints too.

 

 

And even if the timing is different,you can still notice the differences in contrast and saturation (unless there was a DI)

[David Mullen ASC]

I once shot a feature on Vision 320T rated at 160 ASA and thought that the look was sort of like a 1970's stock, 5254 or 5247. Creamy, not too saturated, but good blacks.

 

You could use a classic 1970's filter like a Fog or Double Fog (pre-ProMist days.)

[Sam Wells]

My impression of films of that time is the look of high contrast, but without soild blacks and of generally low saturation.

I got solid blacks with 7247 but you had to print for them & virtually fight the labs over the printer lights - they wanted to "help" you in the shadows thus turning your dark areas into blue-green mush :ph34r:

 

I actually wrote on notes/camera report :

 

NO LIGHTS UNDER (whatever) IF IT'S TOO DARK IT'S MY FAULT NOT YOURS

 

Things have changed - for the better I might add.

 

But, the D-Max on prints was not like Vision stock now, and I suspect if you asked for black crush on a telecine transfer they'd have asked if you make that with Kaluha & ice ;)

 

Your ideas to induce cross color are interesting; that's what everyone hated (or in retrospect !) .... I've come to the conclusion it was what I liked about 47 !

 

But, with 16mm especially (in terms of noticability) it could get really veilled looking real fast

if you were not extremely carefull.

 

-Sam

[David Mullen ASC]

I've sometimes thought about flashing film with blue light to simulate the look of an "aged" negative being reprinted now. They tend to have yellow highlights and blue-ish shadows. Of course, for telecine transfer only, you could probably simulate this blue shift in the shadows digitally without flashing.

[Jarin Blaschke]

That's interesting. Last year I shot, processed and printed old 126 film with an expiration date of 1983. I pushed it a stop but the negs were still very thin, except for stuff shot in direct sun. In this case, the old film certainly had a cyan-red crossover effect, with cyan in the highlights and red in the shadows. Perhaps it depends on the timing lights (or the color settings on the enlarger) when dealing with a thin negative. The shadows will take on the color settings of the printer lights, while you can only really correct the rest of the tonal range. Like if you shot by firelight, for example, and ended up with a thin negative. If you time out much of the orange-red bias, the thin or clear areas of the neg will take on a blue-cyan color. In still photography, I've even had this problem with modern daylight film, shooting in tungsten light (well, probably 2800k). I couldn't print out much of the orange color without the shadows becoming this awful blue tone. Of course the digital realm makes this all much easier.

 

-Sam, with a well-exposed 5247 negative, what was the typical crossover? Were the shadows slightly warm or cool?

 

My impression of old snapshots is that the shadows become a red-brown while the highlights remain truer. It's funny how people have such different ideas of what looks dated.

[Sam Wells]

I seem to remember shadows going slightly cool, but I had things timed to the warm side.

 

-Sam

[Sam Wells]

I've sometimes thought about flashing film with blue light to simulate the look of an "aged" negative being reprinted now. They tend to have yellow highlights and blue-ish shadows. Of course, for telecine transfer only, you could probably simulate this blue shift in the shadows digitally without flashing.

David, have you ever seen the shot-on-5247-and Chem Toned "The Missouri Breaks" ?

 

Now that was a blue / yellow film.

 

-Sam

[Nate Downes]

How about the look found in classics like Dirty Harry, where the reds were so vibrant but the blues were subdued? (I saw an almost identical effect in House of 1000 corpses as well, surprising me)

[David Mullen ASC]

On motion picture color negative, generally the yellow dye fades first, causing the shadows to go blue on the print as you correct the highlights. On a print, the cyan and yellow dyes fade, causing the image to become magenta. Same with paper prints - they fade to magenta. But a new print off of the old negative shows different problems.

 

I saw a new 70mm print of "Patton" at AMPAS theater and the blueishness of the blacks and shadows was the only sign of aging.

 

Old movies used red quite strongly in design -- for example, having everyone dress in gray and then having a woman in a red dress or a man in a red jacket. Fake blood tended to be redder too. So I don't think it was really due to the film stocks. If anything, most people complained that 5247 was too blue saturated compared to 5254. Spielberg said he had to use Coral filters on "Close Encounters" to get rid of the blue saturation for some scenes.

 

Reds were really saturated in dye transfer prints, which died out by the mid 1970's, so if you saw one in a theater, you would have noticed the reds. They were so rich that red was used a lot in movies to catch your eye, like the red titles and red jacket in "Rebel Without A Cause."

 

Reds tend to oversaturate in NTSC, particularly on VHS dubs.