Gautam Valluri

Sorry Alex, all gone. Best,

Very interesting! Have there been any tests done or is it still just theoretical at this point? This makes a lot of sense for the modern DI workflow.

I personally think the BW stocks are interesting exactly for their limited latitude. With 95% or more films going through the DI process, if anyone wanted more latitude in their BW stocks, they could just shoot Vision3 and colour grade to greyscale like "The White Ribbon" or "Good Night and Good Luck". Business-wise, having one BW negative stock and one BW reversal in 16mm/ Super 8 is a solid strategy to cater to such a small demand. Having a new BW stock might make sense if Kodak wants to replace Double-X with a cheaper, easier to manufacture stock. I only wish the ORWOs were more reliable in usage. I've heard fellow filmmakers claim the UN54 approaches the Plus-X realm but they wouldn't dare use it on a serious project due to its well-known camera transport issues.

It looks very unlikely. Kodak decided to hold onto Double-X and to a lesser extent Tri-X mostly as a single option for BW neg and reversal each. Double-X is faster speed stock than Plus-X and with its signature grain looks more obviously like "film" especially for the Super8 market. With the possibility of shooting Vision 3 stocks and then desaturating the colours in post coming close to the "Plus-X" kind-of image, I seriously doubt Kodak will invest in bringing it back. Ektachrome probably was brought back because of the Super 8 market, at least that's what I've understood. I think almost everyone here would be on board with seeing Plus-X back. It just doesn't look like its going to happen.

I would recommend using a spot meter to measure the light coming from the projector to see if you need to push the 500T by a stop or two. 1. If theres natural light coming in through the windows, you need to meter that and see if its too much for the pushed 500T. In which case you might want to use some curtains or gels to cover the light coming in through the windows (if doable) or simply close the windows. 2. For this you need to figure out what kind of a digital projector you are dealing with. Here are some threads from the forums that might help: If at all possible, I would simply go in with a 30m roll of 500T and shoot some tests, maybe even two rolls (one pushed and one normal processing) and see the results. But if tests are not possible, meter everything, eliminate possible problematic elements (the windows), figure out the math of the projector's refresh rate/ frame rate and prepare to accept any imperfect results.

Hello Everyone, I was just wondering if the lens size matters in 16mm? For example, how is an image shot with a 25mm Kern-Switar C-mount lens (which is tiny) differ from an image shot on a PL-mount 25mm Zeiss Superspeed MK III (which is considerably bigger)? Besides the obvious sharpness from the quality of glass, I'm wondering if it affects the FOV in anyway by having a lens with a larger diameter? Any thoughts, diagrams or examples would be welcome. Thanks!

Bumping this as I'm also looking for more info on the technical specs on this film. Such an extraordinary film, so relentlessly puts us in the perspective of the lead character!

Once you have a sample of only the camera noise, you can feed it as a noise 'profile' in software like Adobe Audition. It's usually under the "noise reduction" menu. Once the software has the profile, you can remove it from the entire sound recording by doing "Apply profile to entire file" option.

Stephen, don't forget to record some room tone and if possible, also a few seconds of your Aaton running without any other sounds. This is so you can profile it in sound editing software to remove camera noise if needed. Good luck with the shoot!

Also I'd like to know if these were direct filmouts from a Digital file (is that even possible on 70mm?) or was there a 15-perf and 5-perf "internegative" made for contact printing these projection prints?

The film's duration is 2 hours 46 minutes, roughly 18,675 feet of 70mm. $20,000 / 18,675 = $1.07 per foot. Sounds kind of low to me?

Congratulations David! Thank you for all that you do on these forums, this is amazing news!

Thanks for the tip, I will do another test roll at 50 ASA to see what it does.

Excellent work Kamran! Thanks for sharing. You could perhaps consider putting this up on https://sixteenmillimeter.com/ and perhaps also on https://www.filmlabs.org/ to reach a wider user base...

Yes The Lighthouse was shot entirely on the Double-X but Jarin had done extensive tests with 16mm Tri-X as well. There are some of his posts from that period on these forums somewhere. Understandably, he couldn't share the results with us but he did mention exposing 7266 (Tri-X) at 80 ISO and then developing as negative yeilded much better results compared to traditional 7222 (Double-X).

They went with the 7266 with a bit of desaturated 7219 mixed in, exactly like The Happiest Day in the Life of Olli Maki, the finnish boxing film from 2016. I remember reading an interview with the filmmakers back then where they said they bought out the entire European supply of Tri-X from Kodak, and had to even ship some from North America. Could've been exagerrated. I did get a 122m roll of 7266 shipped from Kodak last year, it took them a few weeks to deliver and it seemed like it was made to order. The film also looks like it has the Guy Maddin / Bertrand Mandico vibe, which could be a bit much for a feature-length film. As Jon mentioned above, always a pleasure to see Tri-X and SR3 features. Also, I remember Jarin Blaschke doing tests of 7266 as a negative during The Lighthouse pre-production. He claimed 7266 at 80 ISO was a far superior 16mm negative than 7222.

Thanks Robert!

Greetings! Last summer I did some tests on some old 7217 stock where I exposed at box speed (200 ASA) and push-processed the footage 1-stop. I was pleased with the results, especially with exterior shots. I'm wondering if I can technically get the same kind of image if I simply expose the stock at 100 ASA and process normally? Considering push-processing pretty much doubles the per meter costs of development. Also, this stock is easily 15+ years old. Thanks in advance for your views, G EDIT: Just adding that I went through some other posts on the forums already and I couldn't find any specific responses to push-processing comparisons with overexposing pertaining to expired stock.

Hi Tommy, Thanks for taking time out to respond to my queries. I was previously unaware of the work you guys were doing on the S16 cameras. Hoping you guys will find the resources to pick it up again soon! In the meantime, wishing you the best for the 65mm camera systems development. Best, Gautam

What ASA did you rate the 125T?

ADOX used to have the Pan-X 100 ASA Super 8 film. Could this be a repackaged version of it?

Robin, I wasn't aware that Logmar proposed S16 cameras. I just found out about their cancelled Rockhopper and Galapagos cameras. I stand corrected! Looking at the specs now they looked promising, except the lack of 400ft loads, and I'm sorry they never got it off the ground.

Considering the costs of developing 5/65mm and 15/65mm that pretty much three people will use, isn't it better to be spending all that money and time in developing S16 cameras? What's Logmar's end-goal? How do they plan to turn a profit for their investors?

It's great that Logmar is making the 5/65mm and 15/65mm camreras but apart from Christopher Nolan and a couple of other filmmakers, no one else will use these. Why not make an affordable, lightweight, ultrasilent Super16 camera body? This is the most demanded market currently and the cost of owning a second-hand SR3, XTR Prod or a 416 is no longer possible for most independent filmmakers. Logmar could be doing what the early RED cameras did for digital filmmakers- offer professional quality, modulable camera bodies at affordable prices. An ACL-style multi-lens mount system with adapters, 12-48 fps crystal sync speeds, a basic video tap, a basic timecode with light weight, easy to load co-axial magazines is enough. Supported by the possibility of spare parts and servicing, this could be a very profitable market. Logmar already must have done a lot of research and testing for their S8 cameras that they could transpose to a S16 system.

Thank you Frederick for the info. This is really worrying. Over at some of the analog photo forums, members have started compiling lists of all airports currently using CT scanners for hand-baggage. Perhaps we could also compile a list to sticky-post on these forums? Copy-pasting some of the info here: HOW TO IDENTIFY THE CT TYPE X-RAY SCANNERS The following machines are currently on the market; Smiths – CTIX L3 – Clearscan Rapiscan - 920CT / Connect CT IDSS - Detect 1000 Nuctech - Kylin Analogic Cobra These US airports currently use CT scanning technology: Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI) Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD) Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG) Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW) Houston Hobby Airport (HOU) Indianapolis International Airport (IND) John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) Logan International Airport (BOS) Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Miami International Airport (MIA) Oakland International Airport (OAK) Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) St. Louis Lambert International Airport (STL) Tampa International Airport (TPA) Washington-Dulles International Airport (IAD) European airports Amsterdam Schiphol Rome-Fiumicino International Leonardo da Vinci International Airport Stockholm Arlanda Airport (in progress) Shannon Airport in County Clare, Ireland Donegal Airport, Ireland source: https://www.thenationalnews.com/travel/2023/04/05/airports-where-travellers-dont-need-to-remove-liquids-and-laptops/ Please add on more airports if anybody can confirm. Info on how to contact these airports beforehand would also be useful. And also perhaps fake "ISO 3200 film" stickers?