Stuart Brereton

Riiiiiight.

This you?

Really, that's weird, because on 02/04 you told me I had no right to an opinion if I hadn't bought film recently. Seems you haven't either. Then on 02/05, you claimed that you were one of the people keeping Kodak in business, but now you're saying that you shoot mostly recans and short-ends, so I guess that wasn't true either. You contradict yourself with every other post. I guess it's hard to keep your story straight when you do so much lying and exaggeration.

My profile pic was taken on a set which was lit with a daylight balanced kinoflo as a toplight. The camera was white balanced to 4300K so that the kino tube would appear slightly cold and blue. It's the same light on the wall as on my face.

Digitally finishing your film is going to be much more effective in dealing with fogging than a photochemical finish would be. The tools available in software like Resolve will help a lot to mitigate the worst effects. It really depends on what you regard as acceptable results. Black & white film processing is incredibly flexible. There are many, many different developers and developing techniques, all of which can have a marked effect on the negative. That article shows what can be done with some experimentation. Unfortunately, color negative processing is much more standardized, and there is little flexibility. Robert Houllahan would know more than me about processing chemistry, so maybe he’ll chime in. I think it’s highly unlikely though that color neg can be “fixed” like that.

Chilling or freezing film is done to slow down fogging from atmospheric radiation. That’s a process that continues to happen no matter how old the film is. It’s probably fair to say that whatever damage has already been done is unlikely to get too much worse in the timescale you have for shooting it, so simply keeping it refrigerated should be fine.

This is, of course, the way all reliable statistics are compiled... Yes, why on on earth would you think that film manufacturers sales figures had anything to do with how much film was being used? Crazy. Anecdotal observations, hearsay, and unprovable statistics are always a much more compelling argument than actual facts, after all.

No. Usually when creating moonlight with an HMI you would use a tungsten white balance, as often your other, practical sources are tungsten balanced. CTB gels absorb a lot of light, so are generally not used unless necessary.

You can do it either way. If the HMI is your only light source, it might be easier to change your white balance, but if you have other light sources in shot which would also be affected by changing the white balance, you might choose to alter the color with gel instead. There is no "correct" way to do it. It just depends on the needs of the shot.

Personally, I've never had any trouble with shooting stock that was previously frozen. That doesn't mean that Robert is wrong, just that I've never had that problem. If you're worried about it, then just keep it refrigerated. If it's a significant amount of stock, and you're planning to use it for an important project, you really should be getting it clip tested before use anyway.

EXR 500T was discontinued in 1995, and 200T in 1996. The other EXR stocks were available until around 2004, as was Vision 800T. How badly fogged they are will depend on how they've been stored over their lifetime. Freezing them might not make much difference at this point, but it certainly won't hurt. Usually when shooting old film, you would overexpose in order to lift your exposures above the fog level. The rule of thumb is to overexpose by one stop for each decade that the film is out of date.

There are larger versions known as Maxi-Brutes or Dinos, but they have more lamps, usually 12 or 24. Yes. They are all daylight balanced, therefore 5600K If you shoot daylight balanced lamps with a tungsten balanced camera or film stock, they will appear cold and blue. This is basic color temperature theory.

HMI lamps for motion picture use are all daylight balanced. I don't know exactly what you're referring to, but it sounds like it could be a lamp known as a Mini-Brute. They have 4, 6, 8, or 9 tungsten par globes in them.

Those stocks are all at least 15 or 16 years old. They are likely to have already deteriorated somewhat, particularly the Vision 800. Freezing them won’t hurt, but you may be shutting the gate after the horse has bolted, as it were. If you do freeze them, just allow plenty of time for them acclimate back to room temperature before use.

As Phil points out, there are many ways to make digital B&W, and they are not all created equal. Whether digital B&W looks like film, and whether it looks good are two separate questions. That said, the movie looks great, although a lot cleaner looking than I would have expected. Makes me wonder if there hasn't been a pass through Neat Video or similar.

Who exactly are these people? I know plenty of pro-digital people, but I've never met anyone that was actually anti-film. It's not a zero sum game, after all. The film looks great, btw.

You weren’t correcting anyone, you were arguing over the definition of niche, something that wouldn’t even have been necessary had you bothered to check a dictionary before you opened your mouth. if you’d actually read the original posts in this thread before you butted in, you would know that Karim and I were talking about film in general terms. In fact, Karim mentions stills film in the second line of his original post. Later on, I specifically referenced Harman Photographic’s silver related problems with production of stills film. You would know this too, if you hadn’t been so busy trying prove what an “expert” you are on all things film related. No one likes a know it all, and that’s exactly what you are. You barged into this thread, like you have so many others, claiming expertise, claiming insider knowledge, telling anyone who disagreed with you that they could “find the exit”. All the while mouthing off like a firehose of misinformation. And now you complain that you’re being picked on, as you always do when you’re challenged. Why is it always me, you ask. Why indeed.

It was you that added stills film to the topic, along with Instant film, if I remember rightly. You evidently thought it was relevant then. Actually, no I don't. Any fool can buy a camera. Threatening? Does being challenged make you feel threatened, Tyler? Maybe you should do less lying.

For the purposes of this conversation, stills and motion picture film are the same thing. You specifically included stills when you made your claims about “millions” of people shooting film. Purchasing a product does not make you knowledgeable. I know this is the basis of your own claims to expertise, but it’s simply not true. If it was true, you wouldn’t need to resort to quoting imaginary contacts at Kodak. I mentioned my involvement with shooting film purely because you asked, not because I believe it has any relevance. Obviously, you want to turn it into a pissing contest because you’re so desperate to be right that you think listing every camera you’ve ever owned and recounting your exploits from summer camp is in some way a compelling argument for an adult to be making. That's the kind of thing that children do. We’re all well aware that you consider yourself to be the resident expert on film. Unfortunately for you, no one here is the slightest bit interested in your bullshit, “bro”.

I am a regular user of film. I’ve been shooting and processing 35mm and 120 since I was a teenager. The only reason you mention them is to appeal to authority, even though you admit that neither of them has any expertise in this subject, and now, when further questioned, you invent some imaginary legal jeopardy as a way of weaseling out of having to provide proof. Did the dog also eat your homework?

That's completely irrelevant. I'll repeat my question. In what role did your "friends" work at Kodak? Presumably, you are able to answer this.

I'm not your bro, and I'll leave when I feel like it. And where exactly did your make-believe friends work at Kodak? Because unless they were involved with futures trading, their opinion is worth about the same as yours. Nothing.

I’d much rather have Robin’s contributions than your incessant lies. It should be you that finds the exit.

I’ve had to point out numerous times in the past that there’s no such thing as Grace on a non union show, therefore the 1st AD can’t “call” it, they can only ask for it. It’s not always the most popular comment to make, but it doesn’t hurt to occasionally remind them that you are doing them a favor by working on.

It’s a trigger word for some people here, Daniel. It causes all kinds of incoherent rants. ?