Scott Pickering

I have picked a couple labs to process my 16mm film in 100 foot spools. I have decided on either Fotokem in California, or Cinelab in MA. I have some B&W reversal and I think Cinelab is the only option for that between the two. As for B&W neg and color neg, would you go for Cinelab or Fotokem? I see with 100 foot spools, Cinelab charges about $20 a roll of 100 feet for B&W. Not sure about Fotokem. Also will Fotokem work with Orwo B&W film, or strictly Kodak? Any suggestions?

Ok. I can see getting an Arri is the better way to go, but the price of admission is keeping me from getting it now. I looked for PL mount lenses, and you need 4 grand to even get started. Not exactly something I can jump into. The Bolex at least is affordable, and I can get a camera with lenses for 600 bucks or so. When I get more serious cash, I can jump into an Arri, assuming film is still sold by then.

I'd love to get that SR2 on Ebay right now, but in total it will cost me almost 2 grand with exchange rate and duty taxes on top of shipping and item costs. Don't have that right now. Also- there is a 35mm Arri package available to me locally for almost 3 grand, but honestly I just don't have the funds right now. Budget was the reason I was looking at the Bolex. By the time I'd have the funds for the more expensive cameras, they would be sold by then. I guess I'll have to wait till another offer comes up. I have been buying up 100 foot rolls of film expecting to get the Bolex. I may get an older Rex Bolex that has been converted to Super 16, assuming that isn't sold next week as well. Then later on I can look at getting a SR2 or SR3. I should have been a little more specific when I was referring to current stocks. I only bought the older stocks just to see how they compare. And I love B&W as well, which is why I have been getting some Plus X.

They SR3 packages are around 5 grand I see online. Doesn't include lenses. I can get a Bolex SBM with everything needed for $1200- 1350. And then the cost of conversion to Ultra 16. I have read the Arris, at least the SR2, doesn't like conversion for Ultra or Super 16. And I don't think the SR cameras like 100 foot rolls, as far as I know.

I've actually read this book and I'm very curious as to how this film will turn out. The last faith based film I saw was rather poorly done, and didn't seem to be in the spirit of the book. I wonder David how the Heaven sequence will go. I assume this is what the green screen use will be for.

I'll also add I have both variants of Plus X 16mm, reversal and negative.

I plan on getting a Bolex H16 (depending on Rex 5, SBM, or even EBM). I will have the camera converted to Ultra 16. How do the current color and B&W neg stocks hold up to 4K or even 5K scanning? I have some Plus X 16mm and some 50D variants in my possession. This includes Fuji F64D, Kodak EXR 50D, Vision 2 50D, and Vision 3 50D. Does 16mm have enough sharpness for 4K, or does the image look mushy? Is grain very noticeable or is it smooth? I also have a Panasonic FZ1000 camera that does 4K video, and was wondering how the look of scanned Ultra 16mm would look in comparison? Image will of course be 16:9 or even 1:85 at end result.

Thanks guys. I bought some of this stock recently. Just a few rolls, but he says he has more. I think I might leave the reversal film to regular usage instead of going neg with it.

Anyone?

I know one is a reversal and the other a negative film. Is it possible to expose and develop 7276 as a neg (skipping the reversal process)? I know the ASA is 50 on 7276 and 80 on 7231. I just thought they'd be cut from the same stock, so you could process as you'd want to.

For my own private use, I want to get a 16mm Bolex. It will get converted to Ultra 16. Anyway what is the differences between the Rex 5 and the SBM? The only thing I can see is the SBM has a bayonet mount, while the Rex 5 still uses the standard rotating C mount. Both cameras use the 400 foot magazine. Also what is a good zoom for use with Ultra 16? And how does Ultra 16 hold up to 4K scanning?

Technirama is basically Vistavision with an anamorphic lens mounted so you can achieve widescreen. Cropping a regular Vistavision image would not be my choice for widescreen. Unless one was to leave the cropping and keep the image at 1:66 for Vistavision and square for IMAX sections.

I guess another option would be to shoot in Technirama and use the anamorphic lenses with 35mm B&W film and get a optical dupe to color 70mm IP somehow. And then just leave the IMAX sequences in color.

Got an email back from Fotokem. They said the challenges are too great to make it worth setting up B&W 65mm developing, as it would stretch their resources. So basically I wouldn't be able to do this in a lab in North America. Shipping film overseas to get processed is not really a great option either. This would also rule out making a B&W print of course.

I grew up in the 80s when Super 8mm was dying away for video formats. Im glad I stuck with film because the video of the time looks horrible, yet the film scanned today holds up rather well other then scratches and the grain it produces. Super 8 looks beautiful when projected. I agree with others in that a telecine doesn't hold up the image quality you get when projected. Its sharper by telecine, but the grain is more noticeable. That said I still have my Super 8 cameras and have a couple rolls of reversal for the day when I decide to break them out again. I shoot 4K video now because its easier to work with and image quality is excellent, but I still like the look of film over video. I had a 16mm Bolex so many years ago in the 90s, and sold it. I wish I kept it. I love 16mm too. I have been peeking on Ebay at 16mm cameras, but Im just looking. The only reason to shoot on film now is for its look, which Super 8 gives. That is unless you shoot 65mm, which can't be beat by anything right now. Even 35mm holds up well today in resolution.

That has been a consideration to shoot in color if all else fails. But getting a true B&W print still needs a 65mm B&W developer tank, which means we're back to where we started. And I'd really like to avoid a digital intermediate to get this look. Also many would argue the look of true B&W is hard to do on color film without digital manipulation. Things like grain, tones, etc are usually specific to the B&W film used. I know they did this for Pleasantville, which was color film shot with B&W lighting ratios, and done digitally in post to get B&W. It looked good, but if using 65mm, to retain the true film look, best to stick with the stocks intended for this purpose and not use a digital scan of the film which would reduce resolution.

Yes this is a narrative story. So people would be its focus. About 15 minutes of the film would be in color, and the rest B&W. IMAX scenes are limited, but are interspersed throughout. Some IMAX would be in B&W, but most IMAX shots are in color.

Ok. So I guess Im looking at $150,000 in film neg costs. A bit more substantial.

What shooting ratios of film stock used did you guys end up with? I was quoting 4:1. What is a more realistic figure for a 2 hour feature?

Certainly IMAX theaters that have retained their film projectors are held to the highest standards. Might be in my best interest to ditch the idea of having a 5 perf print made up and stick strictly with IMAX prints. I understand doing 70mm is not a road to success. Many 70mm movies shot on 65mm have actually been poor performers. My interest in this is retaining that film look (hence shooting on film) while getting the best image possible. Digital projection has a long way to go before it equals an IMAX film print. And it still looks like video instead of film. Even 4K isn't the equal of 5 perf. 8K maybe, but we're not there yet. That said I'd still like this to be on film. And for it to stand out from the other common films, it has to be 65mm originated. I figured out that if one were to shoot mostly in 5 perf, I'd need about 60,000 feet. At about a grand per 1000 feet, that brings the cost to only 60 grand for film stock. Certainly doable with most productions today. Of course there are other costs like lab costs, print costs, etc. But when a production is in the millions, 60 grand is not a lot of cash to shoot on film.

I would think if they were to fill color tanks with B&W chemicals, they could simply bypass the tanks not needed for the process. That said even though 5222 uses D96 to develop, the positive print 2302 Estar base uses D97. This means a second set of tanks would be needed for the positive print, and as such, introduces yet another problem. Even if they could develop the neg print, getting a projection positive print in B&W may prove to be difficult. Unless their POS machine for B&W has adjustable rollers, which I highly doubt. The end projection print may still have to be on color stock.

That's a good question I'd also like to know. I would have thought chemical tanks could be filled with what ever chemicals you pipe into it, whether color or B&W. Maybe they don't want to cross contaminate their color tanks, and by using a B&W specific tank, this may be achieved? Maybe its a temperature thing too or the way it handles certain base emulsions. Or it could be a time thing- maybe B&W tanks are designed for better processing due to time the film is in the tank per bath? Not sure.

I got a short email back from Andrew at Fotokem. He states they do have in their possession a decommissioned B&W 65mm processor that was used at IMAGICA up until 2004. Fotokem has never made it operational and said it would take some effort to do so. He said he'll get back to me on Monday to see if it is viable, with the amount of film my movie would use.

They will contact me on Monday, as they are not available during weekends.

I contacted Fotokem and asked them if they could do it. Also Kickstarter wants for more information to post my project, so I decided not to follow through with them at this time.