Joseph Konrad

Thank you very much.

Hi Zach, Sorry, stupid mistake- I meant 5254, which 5247 replaced. Grain is good, but very grainy is not the actual objective (the grain will come if we have the opportunity to make general release prints!)- depth of field and that 3D look of slower film is the objective, plus a larger SIZED grain (i.e., not too tight-more dissimilarity from frame to subsequent frame), plus being able to use the hard lighting techniques made necessary with slower speed film, but which today look corny with higher speed film. Hmm...what if you shot at ASA 25 (the most modern, fine grained 500T 35mm with lots of filters) and then pushed to 100 ASA? I think the only way to answer my questions for sure is get a variety of films and pick the lab we're going to go with, and just run lots of different tests in lots of different conditions, stopped, filtered, and pushed in different ways, and project dailies and compare them. This will be costly, but ultimately worthwhile, I think.

Hi all, I am budgeting a movie and am trying to find out what companies in the US still do 1/4" to 35mm mag transfers (on-set audio from Nagra), and also what companies could do 2"to 35mm mag transfer (music soundtrack editing and mixing). I hope this is still possible and not too costly. Thank you very much.

What if one were to shoot super 16 at extremely slow speeds? Maybe that would improve resolution in the wide shots.... Thank you again to all who have replied to this thread. I am slowly gaining an understanding of how to make this work.

Sorry, I was off on a tangent my last two posts, was referring hypothetically to 35mm color neg stock. And another question that comes to mind (sorry for all these posts!) after rereading David Mullen's post (which confirms that you could use ND filters on high speed, grainier color-neg), what if you then pushed that in the lab? Although it sounds silly, here would be the workflow: Kodak 500T>>filters>>shooting what is effectively 100 or slower speed film>>possibly push-process to 200 or 400 if necessary given the lighting situation for the scene. I wonder what it would look like...

Sorry, I was off on a tangent my last two posts, was referring hypothetically to 35mm color neg stock.

And another related question- what is the visual effect of stopping very fast films at very slow speeds- is that possible? Would you get that high quality depth of field and responsiveness (lack of responsiveness) to light of a slower film but the larger grain of the faster film? I am trying to get as close to the 1970s 100T 5424 as possible using photochemical methods (lenses, audio, and everything else aside).

Thanks. I see 100D Ektachrome on the Kodak website, but I have read in other threads that they may be merely finishing stock they already started. It's too bad there is not a 500D film- wouldn't shooting that indoors with the filter bring me to around 100 speed? Thanks again.

Hello, I am hoping to move forward on a new movie very soon, and I am intending to shoot 100D in 16mm because 100T does not seem to be available. I was wondering what the disadvantage would be- I have read some things indicating that the filter really cuts down on the latitude. Thank you very much.

^^Thank you very much for this insight.

Hi Gregg, No, this is for something completely different. But yes, I was and am still looking for those Kodak stocks from the 70s and 80s. Those slower speeds, combined with those specific stocks, combined with the carbon arc lights and the lenses (the latter two are much easier to procure), gives a very, very specific look that is very specific to that combination of tools. I was just watching two episodes of Kojak this morning, season 1. That look is beautiful to me. You could film completely garbage and it still looks like gold today. They weren't going after a look- it was just the tools they were working with and the canvas they had to paint with. All of those 1970s TV shows look the same, and it is great. I want to find those tools. Of course, it is not important whether the stock is actually from the 70s- just that it is at the correct speed and formulated the way the older films were. For example, if Kodak started producing the 70s/80s stocks again in limited quantities in 2013, that would be just as good. It's not an emotional thing- strictly about the results. And I have not seen anything that looks halfway as good as those 70s TV show and movie negatives. People will say, "Oh, you can just use this stock with these lenses and edit in post and it will look just about identical," but you look at examples and it is never even close. I am probably the only one this passionate about getting that film stock remanufactured, but that is what I have to show for years of watching and studying Columbo, Mannix, Kojak, Bob Newhart, The Rockford Files, and Charlie's Angels. Thank you for your question, Gregg!

Thanks a lot- it is great to have this information boiled down into more straightforward terms.

^^Thank you very much.

1. What is the difference between Kodak 100T and Kodak 100D? I would assume "D" stands for digital, but I don't know what the differences are in terms of how the film would be constructed/processed. 2. What is the cheapest method to get Super8 processed, transferred to HD, and blown up to 16mm for traditional cutting on a flatbed? (HD transfer optional) in 2013. Thanks!

I guess that answers my question, thanks! Very hard to find this stuff...

Searching for as much film as possible: Kodak 5293 ***Kodak 5254 Kodak 5247 Does anyone know if anyone might be selling these and other old, slow-speed films? Recans and short ends are fine. Thanks!

No, I apologize; I was getting tired of reading the posts. I shouldn't have said that. I think you raise an interesting point with regards to human perception, but just using certain phrases does not put your writing or thinking on a higher intellectual level than other members. I do think if you organize your thoughts differently with correct grammar, spelling, and so on, I think more people will respond to you. As for my metaphor, maybe it is simple, but it reflects my desire to boil things down to where they are understood and immediately useful. I think art can be made with digital as well as film, but to me and the kinds of movies I want to make, film is superior and it is my medium of choice. If I used digital, I would be trying to imitate film. It really would be like an imitation turkey to me because it would be second-best. However, I am aware that this is just my own personal perspective and that new types of 'art' can emerge through digital shooting; there's a very clean, slick aesthetic there that is not achievable with film, and I can certainly see the potential value in that. My problem is with the elimination of film, not with the existence of digital. I wish they could co-exist side by side, like CDs and Vinyl did throughout most of the 80s. I do think that young cinematographers are wise to master digital because it is not going away anytime soon, and I respect the attitude of people like Kahleem who are making the best of whatever medium they are working in.

I must say Gregg, maybe I am just stupid, but I can't make heads or tails out of many of your posts in this thread either. I will take your word for it that this is not pseudo-intellectualism, but I think I will have to bow out of the discussion as well. It is getting too deep for me;)

Digital is like preparing a Thanksgiving meal by cooking a ready-made tofu turkey and then adding all kinds of spices and seasoning to it to get it to taste like a real turkey; with the right recipe and the right oven and enough time to experiment with different spices, lots of people can't even taste the difference between that and the real turkey. Film would be driving to the store and buying an actual turkey, which when cooked properly, will taste more turkey-like than any imitation. But it isn't as easy to control; every turkey is different after all, and every turkey comes out of the oven a little differently, and when the turkey is distributed, everybody gets variable pieces that are not all exactly the same. But it all tastes like turkey. How good does it taste? It depends upon the skill of the cook. The most highly-skilled cook can work with both the tofu turkey and the real turkey, but the real turkey will yield the most turkey-like results by virtue of the medium.

This is a great post from Bill. It is clear that film is being deliberately killed by the movie studios after co-existing for a while, just like vinyl was deliberately killed by the record companies in the late 80s after co-existing for a while. Neither case had anything to do with customer preference. Neither had anything to do with quality (you tell me that anything digital can beat a brand new 70mm release print on a huge screen). Both vinyl and film are analog, organic formats- there is something that feels deeply human about them both and they touch us in a way that digital cannot. Each was the target of a very deliberate, concentrated propoganda PR campaign to convince Average Joe on the street that the new solution was "better quality". In both cases, it was ALL about money for the companies. Aesthetics be damned. Plastic discs may not sound as good, but they are incredibly cheap to produce. Film looks 100x better than digital (no matter what the "technical specs" are), but you can't argue that streaming digital to a movie theater isn't a lot cheaper than printing miles of celluloid for release prints. This is a travesty, a tragedy, and a great national loss. My only hope is that like vinyl (when a subset of consumers rebelled against what they were "supposed" to like and realized they had been duped and that vinyl still sounds better), film will experience a comeback in about 20 years. Unfortunately, although vinyl has experienced a comeback you don't see the high quality record players you used to see, and the vinyl itself is typically lower quality in new LPs these days. I hope when film comes back there will still be the equipment to do it properly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jRMQeuynqQ&feature=g-all This video got me thinking. What would it take to start a major chain of film-only movie theaters if you are a filmmaker yourself or owner of a small film company? Are there anti-trust issues involved? Why were all the studio-owned theaters broken up originally and how could this be averted? What if these theaters became very popular with the public for other reasons (they also showed sports games through digital projection, there is food served in the theater, very attractive waitresses...whatever the draw might be) and in order to have their movies in your theaters, they had to be on film? What if these film theaters also had a new analog surround sound audio technology that only you had the patent to? (other studios could not simply put their movies into your theaters by doing a traditional film print). If you were the only studio who produced in this format and the movie theater chain was the only one that played in that format, would that not produce legal challenges? What if they were technically owned by two separate entities? Also, what would it take to start producing many varieties of 35mm on a large scale again? To me, film and digital each have merits, but they are completely different mediums, just like oil paintings and watercolors are different mediums. Watercolors are nice in their own way (nothing against digital), but I want to protect the art of oil painting if I ever reach the means to do so. Thank you.

I remember reading something in this forum a while back about hard light, and the person said that when he saw hard light being used in modern movies (which wasn't that often), it looked hokey and out of place. I think that is not just because audiences are used to the other lighting style, but the fact that the film being used and the lenses being used do not necessarily react in as pleasing a way.

Thank you for that info Mr. Kaufman. It is great to know that there is still a source to obtain older film stock from. I do know they have a long shelf-life- I don't know how long, but 100T couldn't have been stopped too many years ago. I still can't believe they would do away with 100 and slower speeds. I have used 100-speed still film since I was 9 years old; it looks beautiful. ------------------------------------------ Everything here is fair comment and needs to be said in a thread like this, but there's one factor you didn't consider and I don't think it has anything to do with Hubris. It's the artistic factor. I sometimes process my own film, edit on Steenbecks, as well as make my own workprints on a modified Steenbeck and there's just something about the hands on experience of analog workflow that fires up the artistic fires within me. Granted, the OP is willing to go way further than me and if I were to shoot a feature, shooting on film and using analog synths for the soundtrack is about as far as I'd be willing to go for the reasons you suggested. The money to invest in the old equipment plus time required to learn how to use it at a professional level. Although collecting over time and spreading the use of the equipment over several projects, not all at once, might not be a bad idea. Either way, I get it. Good luck to you. Thanks for your encouragement. I do plan to add equipment gradually so there isn't an impossible learning curve. At first I will likely just shoot on film and then use Avid to cut it- the final result, of course, will look like it did coming out of the lab (will not be computer processed) but the cuts will be made using computer. ---------------------- I also think that people get so stuck in their "period" idea that in order to make a period film look period they need to use stuff from that period-- that's a lot of periods, period! But in truth, I think you can approach such things with the modern helps we have and still arrive at the appropriate look you're after, so in that regards I don't see the point of making one's life much harder than it need be. Films are already hard enough to make even when you are blessed with the latest and greatest of everything-- crews included of course. No, I definitely see where you are coming from. Why make things deliberately more difficult when you can try and achieve the same thing with a lot less headaches. The thing is that I don't consider this a period look- I think that movies done this way were objectively better. That goes for camera movement, shot composition, lighting style, the crispness of the dialogue, the actors that were used (part of why I want to operate away from LA). It doesn't seem period to me- it seems much more hard hitting and real than what I see today. That's just my opinion of course. I think a movie shot with last century's sensibilities can be just as relevant today. People my age just won't be as used to it. I watched way too much 1970s TV growing up: To Arc lights, I'm not sure how common they were even by the 70's. Could be wrong but I suspect that at least by the late 70's there must have been alternatives. I don't have a clear idea on the history of that. 100T film. If you can get hold of some it will probably look amazing. HOWEVER, it won't look like film from the 70's just because it is the same speed. Technology moves on and it will probably be much lower grained film. I think that faster film from now, will look closer to 100T from the 70's. That's a good point that modern 100T would not look the same as 100 from the 70s. However, I do think that shooting 100 and then pushing it a few stops in the lab could bring out a lot of that grain but would also react much better to that hard-light, carbon arc lighting style than would a much faster film. You havn't thought about what lenses you are going to use and I can tell you now, that vintage lenses are presently being much fought over so that people can mount them on expensive digital cameras. I find it ironic that you havn't considered lenses as they can have a big effect on the look. Lenses actually are on my equipment list-I just neglected to include in my post. It is a very good point, though; lenses have an enormous impact. Also it depends on what you are trying to achieve. There were a lot of films made in the 70's and they don't all look the same and over that 10 year period there were lots of technological changes too! True- I am not trying to pinpoint a specific year so much as wanting to set up all of the equipment and tools that I believe go into making a textured, quality movie- and then spring off from there and experiment to get a striking result fitting the needs of the scene, the movie, etc. In other words I would rather sink the creative effort into the movie and have a certain look and texture that is guaranteed rather than trying to emulate something from the past with modern technology, which is a futile exercise anyway. I don't want to create a museum (although it may seem that way!), but a creative working environment. If I were you I would identify which things are easy and which are more difficult for you and start with the easier stuff. Great idea. This is my plan for the first movie. Technical goals: Use 35mm format (maybe 2-perf) and analog audio recording on-set with correct mikes. -35mm film. -Nagra 4.2, dozens of spools of 1/4" tape, and old Sennheiser directionals for capture on location. -Fast, "normal" film stock. -HMIs. -Whatever lenses are readily available. -Avid Digital Intermediate, but just for purposes of CUTTING the film- do not digitize and manipulate colors. -Copy the ¼” on-set tape onto digital and synch in the digital realm. -Record the soundtrack with a small jazz chamber group. Record however is easiest. -ADR- Nagra, then copy to digital. -Final mix- digital. -Final cut is 35mm images exactly as they came from the lab, but have been edited together using a computer. The final audio track has been assembled completely in the digital realm and has now been copied onto the 35mm optical track. The movie is finished. Thanks again for all of this great advice!

^^What I may well end up doing as I start out is use 35mm film, but use the HMIs (yes, am aware that carbon arcs require special power), use digital audio capture, use Avid to cut it and other digital methods to put it together. Then, if I am successful, I sink that money into procuring more and more analog equipment. The idea would be to always make movies this way (independently). The dream would be to be able to always work with the same crew who were specifically trained in the operation of this equipment. But I want to take one step at a time. From what it sounds like, getting it shot on 35mm film at all would constitute an accomplishment the first time out. I am shocked that 100 speed film does not exist any longer. Is that true for still film, or just moving? I still HAVE 100 speed still film- maybe I should have bought more of it! Could Kodak be coerced into producing slower speeds again for certain projects? (like companies that burn a CD-R of a rare title upon request). What other companies produce film and is it conceivable that they could take special orders?

The reason I am using all of this old equipment is the same rationale as the experienced music production professionals on another forum when they talk about trying to imitate the 1960s, 70s, and 80s "sound" using digital. They say, the mikes are different, the capture process is different, the filters are different, the entire mastering process is different. Trying to use digital and complaining about not getting that "sound" is the same as cooking a roast made out of tofu and being disappointed it doesn't taste like red meat. You can put all of the right spices on top, but the sound is going to be fundamentally different.