Marc Roessler

For your amusement, some technically incorrect actions:

- push processing, pull processing

- skip bleach

- shooting through the base side of film

- shooting on print stock

- using uncoated (or old.. spell: Cooke Speed Panchro) lenses

- flaring a lens

I can only imagine what kind of heated debate those pioneering these technologies had to endure.

You wouldn't believe it: I once even had a lengthy discussion with an elderly owner of a small lab who could not get his head wrapped around the fact that I wanted plus-x neg push processed one stop because I wanted a more grainy, gritty, contrasty look. I think we phoned for about an hour with him continuously trying to pursue me into using his favorite faster, smoother, fine grained stocks because those were technically better. After repeatedly trying to communicate that I was aware of these facts but that it just wasn't the look I wanted I gave up on this insanity and went to another lab.

P.S.: I actually do have a scientific/university background

This is all about learning, understanding, experimenting, having fun - using what's available. It is not about technical correctness or economics. Leisure and art never is.

Intellectual? Not so much as I do intend to try this :)

For me it's a very interesting and highly educational thread. Thanks for all your contributions! I guess I will try to get hold of a few feet of 16mm color print stock for experimenting.

Brian, at what step would this be done? I suppose after filming but before processing? I would like to try this, can you elaborate a bit?

Dominic, I supposed this would be a problem, as (afaik) usually extra care is taken in the lab that no parts of the rem jet get around the film onto the emulsion side when washing the rem ject off. Haven't really checked for it yet, as I haven't had a print or scan made yet and it's quite impossible to see with bare eye. I'm just toying around a bit though, so this is not a big issue for me at the moment... I mean, bucket processing.. this is really just for getting a feeling for the process and for fun at the moment.

Would you get a usable image (contrast wise) by carefully printing to color print stock using neutral printer lights? I'd have to expect color shifts I guess?

I will try to push a bit (2 stops), to see what happens to the gamma...

Greetings,

Marc

Hey all...

During the last few weeks I processed a few meters of 16mm color neg (7213 Vision3 200T, 7248 EXR 100T) in b&w chemistry and I wanted to share my experiences here.

I had some leftover Fomadon LQR so i used that one. The (already thinned) processing solution is about 3 weeks old now, still works good. The developer (in theory) should be consumed by now (1.8 liters, processed about 80 meters of film in it) but still seems to be usable for such experiments.

I rated the film normally (100T, 200T) and developed for 12 minutes. For the first batch I used a lomo tank, for following ones I just dumped the film directly into the tank (bucket-processing-style in a dark bathroom). The first neg batch seemed rater fat, so probably for fresh developer the right processing time is a bit less than 12 minutes.

After developing and fixing you will have an orange masked negative with a negative silver image. During the development step (and during the following washing) the rem jet will come off, which will kind of mess up your developer. However the developer can be re-used for future cross processing experiments. I've found it's best to bucket process in the dark, then wash in the dark while running the film through your fingers, this will remove the rem jet backing.

As far as I can tell by photographing the neg with my Ixus camera through a magnifier lens and inverting it digitally, it turned out nice. No way to upload images here, though - sorry.

Anyone else here played with this?

Color neg leftovers (especially recans shorter than 10 meters) are easy to get and are ideal for this. b&w developer is cheap as well, and 10 meters are easily "bucket processed".

Anyone tried to print such negs? I've read they are rather low-contrast (due to the color masking maybe?)...

Greetings,

Marc

Friedemann, cool tip, thanks!

I used distilled water already, but still had the problem of manganese dioxide forming after some time. Does the calgon work against oxidizing?

I developed the two rolls yesterday, used 1800 ml instead of the 1600 ml for all baths, same processing times. Filtered the bleach solution before use. Worked like a charm. For the second film's bleach bath I added 3 grams of permanganate for replenishment, let stit for 15 minutes, and re-filtered it before use.. lots of manganese dioxide in the filter, again, so this tells me the replenishing was not an entirely bad idea.

After I had processed the two rolls I remembered that I still had a short end of 7213 (Vision3 200T) sitting around, so I shot these 12 meters in my bathroom. I developed with the used developer, quickly threw together a stop bath from vinegar (balsamico works great...) and distilled water and fixed in the used fixer. It worked! The negative still has the orange masking of course, but you seem to get a usable image. I developed for 12 minutes, this seems to result in a slightly higher EI then the usual 200. Difficult to judge without a densiometer or scanner or 16mm printer though.

Wanted to attach an inverted scan of the neg, but unfortunately I seem unable to upload any images, as the board claims I exceeded my upload quota. As I can't find how to delete any previously attached images, I'm SOL...

Greetings,

Marc

you're brave Karl.. dichromate with bare hands and a cut on the finger :ph34r:

Just checked my disulphate, it contains traces of chlorine ions when dissolved in distilled water. Not so good, so I'll go with reusing the original bleach bath.

Bleach by inspection sounds very good... what is the starting point where no ill effects can be observed on the film when exposed to light? After rising the first developer? After a major portion of the bleach bath has completed its work? I know that you re-expose (to light) after the bleach bath, but you don't re-expose (chemically) to the bleach bath after that again.. so is this safe to check bleaching "in progress" or does one have to take care here?

The (potential) issue with the emulsion peeling off is not because of the bleach itself, it's more because the Fomapan emulsion is quite soft from the start, so having the film in processing solutions for about an hour total (with wild pH changes) is critical already. (That's what I found on the net from others doint a reversal process on foma 100R). That's why I'd like not to dramatically extend bleach time.

Thanks,

Marc

Thanks Karl!

This leads me to the next question: how critical is "over bleaching"? I know that Fomapan has a soft emulsion and that care will need to taken here, but how critical is this seen from a purely chemical view?

I more or less tend to try the disulphate bleach, first testing it for chlorine ions (using the silver chloride test) that may be present due to the technical grade quality disulphate.

For reference, in case others read this thread:

Concerning replenishment of bleach I found in Friedrich/Meier's "Filmhandbuch" (a book on movie film lab chemistry) that only the bleaching agent (in their example: chromate) is consumed. The acid is only needed for getting the necessary pH value as a setting for the reaction to take place. I.e. as long as not too much water or alkaline components are introduced from the previous baths, the acid does not need to be replenished.

Marc

The Foma processing kit is 20 Euros (about 28 Dollars). Replenishing the bleach with 4 grams of permanganate is about 50 Cents, doing a completely new bleach mix with Disulphate and Permanganate is about 2 Euros maybe. I agree that replenishing the other processing solutions is probably not economical, but I didn't talk about that, just the bleach bath.

I'm a bit reluctant to dump perfectly well processing chemicals, generating unnecessary toxic waste... as Foma states, the baths are sufficient for 2 100" rolls. The only problem is that the bleach will oxidise until the second batch. This is why I would like to replenish (or re-mix from scratch) the bleach bath only.

It is the lomo spiral tank, as Charles wrote. The morse rewind tanks.. well I just think they're a bad design.

Marc

Hi,

I'll be developing two rolls of 16mm Fomapan 100R in a lomo tank in a few days. I've got the Foma Reversal kit which suffices for development of these two films (2x 30,5 Meters). The kit will give me 1.6 liters of processing solution. The tank requires 1.8 liters for one batch (i.e. 30 meters of film).

I need to thin the solution to 1.8 liters (1.6 is not enough, I tested this). Usually development time is 12 minutes. How should I extend the development (and bleach, and fix..) time to account for this? Last time I used 13.5 Minutes instead and this seemed to somewhat work, but I'd love to know the relationship between concentration of the developer and development time. Is this a linear relation? I.e. half the concentration, double development time? I'm sure it's not that simple..?

Then there is the issue of the bleach. The Foma kit comes with sulfuric acid/permanganate bleach bath. The permanganate will no doubt oxidize until I can process the second film (directly after the first one, but no doubt too long...). I see two options:

A

before processing the second film, replenish the bleach bath with fresh permanganate (including filtering etc..). The question is how much to replenish (fully?) and if I also need to replenish sulfuric acid (don't have any of that handy).

B

set up a fresh bleach bath with potassium permanganate and sodiumbisulfate (NaHSO4). The bisulfate I have is industry grade (swimming pool ingredient) so there's the question if that's pure enough, and even if it is pure enough if this mix will work as well the original mix from Foma with sulfuric acid.

Any experiences here?

Thanks,

Marc

I love optical viewfinders... Last month I shot an S16 short which took us three days, and we had to change batteries once and that was on the last day. Quite impossible with any non-OV digital camera at present.

But besides the higher price, don't forget that an optical viewfinder also makes the camera much heavier. Nevertheless I'm all for an OV model of Alexa. It's just the question how this goes together with ISO 800 and upwards...

The mechanical shutter has some advantages with regard to rolling shutter as you wrote - whether that's an issue depends on the type of scene you are filming. On the other hand you can open the digital shutter to > 180 degrees, but that gives you a different rendition of motion which I don't like as much.

I like shooting from the shoulder (if it fits the scene), so I'm a bit biased for the lighter Alexa vs. the heavier D21.

Greetings,

Marc

David is right... how could I forget the beloved anamorphics! A 4:3 version of Alexa is planned though.

Hey guys and girls..

Thinking about toying around a bit with some older glass.. Most of it is NOT in PL mount (which is my "target mount".. S16). What's the best way to to approach a conversion? For those who have done this: do you do the adapters etc from scratch (CNC?) or do you use something as a basis?

As an example I got an interesting "ilex cinemat F3.5/25,4mm" fix focus lens here I'd like to try to convert it to PL mount. Currently it's in a CS mount (flange distance 12,5 mm vs the 52 mm for PL!) - sounds crazy right? But it's possible: it still clears the mirror shutter and the lens is so small in diameter that it is easily inserted deep into the PL mount.

Greetings,

Marc

Alexa: lighter, smaller, much higher EI, less noise, on board recording, on board battery possible (Bauer mount). Integrated 15mm rod mounts which is very nice (already liked that about the Aaton Prod). No optical viewfinder but a nice temperature compensated (and thus color stable) digital viewfinder. Easy to use on-board display for control, vs. the D20/21 where you needed an external PAL display for changing the settings. Easier to remote-control via Ethernet (via www browser... the D21 can do this via remote text console).

I see really no pros for the D20/D21, besides having the OV and being totally noiseless because of the fan-less cooling system. The Alexa fan is also very quiet, though. And the Alexa already seems to be easier to rent, they are popping up in just about any rental right now whereas the D20/D21 always was a bit rare.

You can find most of the info on www.arridigital.com

Greetings,

Marc

Georg, I'm actually one of these developers working on Alexa in Nuremberg. Drop me a message when you happen to be around, we can meet for a beer.

Richardson is a great DOP, looking forward to what he will do with Alexa and how it's going look with his trademark lighting style..

Greetings

Marc

Can anyone here suggest a halogen replacement for photo floods?

I'd like to use this with china balls, so wattage should be between 150 and 250 Watt, E27 socket (european style), and (important!) 3200K color balance.

I've found the JDD and Osram Halolux Ceram series, but most of these either state no color temperature or something between 2800K and 3000K. I'm not quite sure whether those sellers labeling them "3200K" got the real deal or are just misinformed. Many won't reply to inquiries, the others just don't know. Often "3200K" seems to be used for "incandescent color temperature", grrr...

(I just bought a bunch of 500 W R7s quartz bars, "3200K"... ha! 3000K at most.. so I'm careful.)

Filmtools.com sells 250W JDD edison socket halogen lamps, supposedly 3200K. But they are located in the states and shipping to Germany will kill me (and besides I need those bulbs within the next 2 weeks...).

Any suggestions?

Thanks,

Marc

I'm currently toying around with a Mole Richardson 4k/5k softlight (the less common one with the two-part silvery reflector and 4x 1250W or 4x 1000W quartz bars.. quite similar to the Quartzcolor softlights).

This light has got me wondering a bit... how is this beast is actually used? I mean.. at EI 200 it gives me almost a T5.6 when I'm at 3 meters distance... when I switch it down to 2k/2k5 it is still a T4 (as expected).

Nice for lighting a high-key soft-light low-speed-stock/high-speed-framerate video clip. But what else is this used for? It won't be of much use as a fill light at this intensity, and if you back up farther away the light will become harder so it won't be a softlight any more. I'm considering to lamp it down to 4x 800 Watts (needs modifications to the lamp sockets), but I'm still wondering...

So I'd like to hear how you use these lights, what lighting style/stock/T-Stop range etc, if you use them at all.

Thanks,

Marc

I'm sure some of you have already used the Prod with Superspeeds and (of course) a mattebox, usually this will be a Chrosziel for Aaton. And if you do this from the shoulder, you also need the hand grip.

It just occured to me that you can't really use the handgrip in this scenario: obviously you can't mount it to the rods in front of the mattebox, and it also won't really fit between the MB and the Aaton because the Superspeeds are so short.

Any tips? Or are you using some extender to position the wooden grip further below? (Which would also be much more comfortable...)

Greetings,

Marc

Hi Alex,

I've seen pulse jet based foggers being used... those make quite some noise but generate really massive amounts of smoke. Those fog thermally. The principle is also used for military foggers.

Here you can see (and hear...) a DIY pulse jet fogger in action.. using diesel oil as a fogging fluid - I don't recommend this!!

the commercial ones are more efficient and a bit more civilized... they also use healthier fogging liquids!

You probably will have to wait until the wind subsides, though... no worth fighting it.

If I remember right Christopher Nolan used a portable pulse jet fogger for the fog scenes in "Insomnia". I remcommend watching the Making Of on DVD, I think they talked about the problems of fogging the woods.

Greetings,

Marc

What I haven't seen yet (even on CML): are those rules for 120 V or for 230 V lamps?

There should be quite a difference as the filaments are much heavier for lower voltages and thus flicker less...

Tim, I just browsed the site a bit, stumbled across this:

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=30872

There you stated that the Kinetals reach into the camera pretty deep, which is confusing me a bit. So they are better than the Schneiders... but which lenses would be less critical than the Kinetals then?

Just to make sure I get all of this right ;)

Thanks,

Marc

Hey Tim,

the Schneider 10 mm and 16 mm works on the 16BL, tried this myself. Can't speak for the others but according to http://cinematechnic.com/resources/arri_16bl.html most (all?) of the other Schneiders work as well. (Terrible camera (the BL), though).

Do you know if the Schneiders fit the SR3?

I quite liked the 10 mm, although it seemed to me that it showed quite some brightness falloff towards the corners when shot wide open. Concerning sharpness, they all aren't that sharp...? But I guess that just part of their personality. I've been using them on my little 16S.

The Schneiders seem to cover S16 nicely, easily visible on the Aaton where you can see a large portion of the image circle even outside the frame. Can't speak on how much the falloff there is in the corners, though... not easily visible on the ground glass.

I've been thinking about the Cooke Kinetals, but they are offered at insane prices and are mostly sold in the US, which is a bit risky for me (located in Germany, so I can't check quality beforehand and customs can be a hassle...). You can buy a used Schneider for about 200 to 250 EUR... the Cookes seem roughly double of that! Is the quality (image or mechanical) really that much better? Also they will need to rotate in their mount for focusing, so it will be harder to get a suitable mount converter? Unfortunately I never had a chance to use any of them personally so far...

In case anyone has some a set of good quality Kinetals for sale (or for trade for the Schneiders) I'd be interested...

Greetings,

Marc

Hi,

does anyone know if there's any way of using the named lenses (Schneider Cinegon, Cine Xenon) in Arri standard mount with an LTR/XTR?

Tried with a Arri std to PL adapter... it seems the 50mm will fit, but the 10 mm, 16 mm and 25 mm won't. It's not possible to fully insert the lenses, it seems they either hit the two plastic parts at the sides (light meter?) or the front part of the ground glass. Quite a pity, because those are very nice lenses with a distinct look.

Any idea how to make it work?

Thanks,

Marc

Not to forget "Brazil" from Terry Gilliam...!

Hi,

some years ago this already has been discussed here:

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?sh...828#entry124944

Does someone know who still sells these WPI connectors? Any idea what the actual part number is?

It just occured to me that the connectors of the old Atari/Amiga joysticks look very much like that... does any Aaton owner have one handy for trying this out?

Thanks,

Marc