GeorgeSelinsky

Hey James, good for you - honestly - and I really hope it works for you. Maybe you're just a better man than I am. Personally, I would never risk putting my own film into developing soup (unless we're talking still film) and doing anything that grand. I hope that after your 16 hour days you're going to have reliable grad students to process your dailies so you can sleep soundly and prepare for the next shoot, lol. I've shot on a 6:1 ratio before. It's VERY tight, but it's doable. I'm about to do it again on a short film I'm shooting this weekend. I am also a bigtime film addict. I will shoot film as long as I can afford to do it. Right now I'm scratching my head thinking how I'm going to raise funding for my next project, a good deal of which I want to shoot on B&W 35mm widescreen. But in the end if I can't raise the dough to shoot it that way I'm simply going to grab an HD camera, I certainly won't start a lab in my basement because I've been there and done that already :) Besides, with 35mm the economy goes down when you process your own. The place where you really save the most is Super 8, since labs charge a lot for that given the much lower volume. Btw, the Aiptek is 720 30P HD. It looks better than Super 8 that's for sure, and that was my only point. - G.

As one who has played with the idea of processing movie film for a feature and been a one man film crew (shot-lit-directed-pa'ed-edited-sound-etc), I am warning you that you are about to set onto a perilous path. I don't know how many films you have directed, but I think that your idea of building a laboratory is going to take away from the main point of what you should be, a filmmaker first and foremost. Personally I sympathize because I've always detested the overhead of making a film period, and wished that there would be various ways of getting around that. I've had crazy ideas like developing my own dailies, using a hand cranked DeVry 35mm camera (though I am still tempted to try the Parvo one of these days - in honor of Eisenstein!), and so on and so forth. It's also flattering to the ego to think of yourself as some Renaissance man filmmaker who can do it all and buck the system. In the end however you are humbled when you realize that there's a limit to what you can accomplish. In the film world there are many craftsmen who concentrate on their job and specialize at it. This includes actors, cinematographers, editors, musicians, mixers, and yes, most certainly the lab personnel. Granted, while you can get a DP for free sometimes, it's nearly impossible to get a lab to do a freebie - though exceptions happen occasionally. The main reason is the lab has a fairly high overhead, which will explain why a number have gone out of business recently (New York's A-1 just shut down this last week, Lab Link shut down a few months earlier). I think the choice is simple. If you want to shoot film, the lab is simply a part of the budget. Negotiate, call around and find the best price you can get. If you're just bringing in 10,000 ft, you're not going to get a big break, but you'll do better than a film student who's just bringing in two 100' spools of 16mm Plus X reversal. If you can't pull it off, get in front of a mirror, say to yourself "I can't afford to shoot film and I thank God for the existence of digital formats", and then love the one you're with. Yes, it's a bruise to the ego for the director with refined taste in images not to see the grain of film on the screen, but what's more important - that or the content of the story? If you want to make films, you need to make them any way you can. That means video if necessary. If on the other hand you are a man with a love of film technology and have an entrepreneurial spirit, go ahead and create your own laboratory. But do it like a real business. Work for a real lab first and get some experience. Then incorporate, get investors to put some dollars in, and be prepared to manage a real business. You probably won't have time at that point to shoot your own film, not until you have the business started and the lab is running on a regular basis. But you will have a professional laboratory. To set up a lab that will produce professional results and make your own film at the same time is spreading yourself WAY too thin. Trust me, you're much better off spending all that time and mental energy rewriting the script, rehearsing the actors, and meeting people at film festivals than learning to make sinex strips in your basement. It's enough of a challenge just to put a film together in an of itself. Yes, it sucks that it costs so much to get quality on the screen. It sucks that so much dreck is shot on glorious 35mm while more meaningful. artistic, and socially significant projects have to use Sonycams. Is it fair? No it's not. But look how 16mm became such a lively format - people who couldn't afford 35mm could now make a movie using a TV news camera and short ends from news agencies. Digital video has made it even easier. There's a $300 HD video camera today from Aiptek that can produce video of a higher quality than a Kodak Brownie 8mm could 50 years ago. It keeps getting easier. Ultimately nobody gives a damn what you shot it on. If you shot it on 35mm and it sucks, they won't watch it. If you shot it on DV and it's funny, they'll remember it. Ask yourself if you take your film to the theater and someone else who shot something on a $2000 Sony HD camera gets further with their film than you with yours that was self-printed in your basement, how would you feel? All said out of love and respect... - G. P.S. Replenishment is no joke! Just read the specs in the Kodak process manuals to get an idea. Also, have you thought of where you're going to pour all that highly toxic chemistry? What about silver recovery? Don't want the Ghostbusters EPA guy knocking on your door while you're in the middle of processing, lol

I have an unrelenting crush on B&W 35mm. Problem of course is that I can't seem to find any short ends of it in NY, looks like I have to go retail. It's funny but these days it seems it costs more to shoot in B&W 35mm than color, lol. From what I'm aware, Kodak is the only manufacturer who still makes it, Ilford quit a few years ago, right? I've never tried HD black and white, but my gut tells me that it will never give me that Double X look, if anything more that color negative minus chroma signal look. If anyone knows of any camera combination that can approximate the silver B&W look I'd be interested in hearing about it. Also, I can't seem to find an online catalog for Kodak anymore that features prices. Anyone know where I can find out without having to call their office and have them recite every emulsion for me? Thanks for all advice... - George

I used to be obsessed about this subject, started a webpage http://www.geocities.com/gselinsky devoted to it. I haven't done it in a long time however. It was fun and sometimes economical, but the time it takes is crazy. I'd forget about doing color seriously, unless you want to spend your life in your basement running a chem lab. B&W reversal and negative is doable. The trick is having equipment that will produce even results. Rewind machines are a royal pain, esp. with reversal. I've never used them. I had a spiral reel LOMO tank and that was okay, but it would jam sometimes and the film would get messed up. Anyway, see my website, read the net, and have fun if you want. But don't even think of shooting a feature and developing your own filmstock. You're much better off spending the time raising the money to pay for a lab.

Well, that's Clooney of course. Reminds me of when Schindler's List came out, everyone was like "Yeah, but that's Spielberg". But who knows, if enough precidents become succesful distributors might not flinch at it as badly as they used to.

Shooting without a permit is one thing. You camera can get confiscated in some instances, but if it's a few handheld shots on the street that should be no problem for many. Shooting pyrotechnics and stunts carelessly is another. If you can't do it safely and properly, don't put it in the script. Even if someone were to have insurance, insurance companies don't pay if it's proven you were doing something carelessly or illegally. And if something were to happen to that person and they had insurance, the insurance company would sue YOU to reclaim the damages. If you want to take serious risks, do them yourself. When a wire guy sets up his wire harnesses, or creates a hangman's noose, he always tests it on HIMSELF before putting the actors through it. Get a camera, whatever you need, and do the risky stuff yourself if you can't afford to secure the safety of others.

Well said, lol. It's nice to see that the independent film movement still has a strong pro-film contingent, and that this contingent is involved with labs. Good luck with it! I think it takes an extra sense of courage and vision to put across a black and white film today, especially feature length. I still imagine there's a serious anti B&W bias in the distribution business. It seems fine to shoot a music video or TV spot with it, but that's about it. I'm not sure audiences feel the way distributors claim they feel, although there are probably a few simpletons out there who'd see something on TV and say "Oh, it's black and white..." and flip the channels.

Wow, that's interesting I bet. It does seem like a scarier time to be involved in labs I have to say. I just witnessed my favorite NY lab, Lab Link, close shop. They were great with things like minimums and the like, B&W was the same price as color, pushes were no extra charge. I loved it. Now I'm at Duart, where Tony Landano and his boys went. I'm going to be picking up my first batch tomorrow probably. Interesting, I gather that's film students doing their first assignments. I assume the crash tests are no longer coming in... Awesome. I wish I could shoot a feature in B&W 35mm, I actually am trying to plan my next one in a way where I get a lot of B&W done. I was a bit unhappy that it cost me more to develop Double X and HP5 at Duart than Lab Link, which had a flat rate for everything. I wonder if HD films are going to get laser recorded to 3 strip, lol. If I had the money I'd certainly do it! I totally agree about real B&W. I'm so sick of seeing the desaturated color negative look. I think it's more often all about "We really aught to shoot it in color JUST IN CASE" and "I don't remember I haven't shot it in so long, I'd rather just stick to what I'm familiar with and play with it in post"

Hi Rob! I see you're a lab person, nice to meet you... I was primarily talking about B&W negative, although I agree that some reversal labs don't replenish the bleach too well. One lab was kind enough to call me and say that I should put off developing my '76 until the bleach was replenished - although it meant getting my film back later I said okay. I think that B&W negative is pretty much a no brainer. The main idea is to keep the D-96/97 fresh and the fixer, that's basic B&W darkroom. Btw, I believe many continuous processors don't do a stop bath but go directly to a wash. I always thought that was wasteful because the fixer gets killed much faster that way, and fixer is much more expensive than acetic acid. The color processes seems so complicated by contrast, you have very tight temperature control and have to watch pH, spgr, and all that stuff. You have like 6-7 baths to keep track of, if I recall. But I guess volume is the main reason, all the waste with starting up the machines, keeping the chemicals fresh in tank, etc.

If the difference amounts to $0.05/foot, I'll suffer the inconvenience of asking them to do that. I find it ridiculous that I have to pay MORE to shoot and soup B&W film. - G.

That's a pretty big blimp, feels like you could almost sit inside of it, lol.. You may want to try stuffing it with rubber or felt.

I hear they've come up with this new silver halide that costs one hundreth of what the current formula costs, and it requires just three dips to develop it: Bath one is dishwashing detergent, bath two is clorox, bath three is vinegar and a pinch of kosher salt which acts as an instant drying agent. The resolution is said to be twice the original silver halide stuff, but if you want to add the old grain all you need to do is bake it for five minutes at 100 degrees. And the catch is this, if you don't like the footage you shot on it, apparently the formula is harmless to dogs and gerbils, so you can feed it to them. :lol: okay that was immature, but I'll allow myself to do it once Honestly I'm amazed how fast they come out with new stocks these days. I've never seen such a fast turnaround rate.

I think that film schools are never truly going to be able to address the issues that affect film students. You might say, kids will be kids. I've seen plenty of film theory classes where they discuss philosophy and social themes - more than you can shake a stick at. Plenty of production teachers try to impart practical knowlege. But the problem is that you can't cram in the knowlege that can come through experience only, hence the reason why after medical school students are out doing internships and residencies before they can get their license. Film school helped me do one thing which was very critical - it made me think in the right categories. It taught me what to look for, how to take apart a film, how to understand what is going on. It taught me how to deal with the basics of shooting, what is happening on the set, what needs attention, what you can potentially do with the right resources. It taught me that there is something called "professionalism". Like our first camera teacher, a succesful DP said "Guys, out of focus images or improper exposure - no excuse." It developed the inner critic. The problem is the youthful arrogance, the impatience, the desire to bypass the "in between filmschool and first successful feature" phase and go straight for the gold. I'll never forget one kid, a good guy but very ambitious, shot his own Super 16 feature in between his Junior and Senior year at filmschool. As many other kids there, he was born with money. I met him after he finished the feature, he was back to basics taking a class on how to direct a 15 minute short film. Another kid, a foreign student, was a real winner. This guy had money, had people, had drive, but he was totally not together personally. He arrived late to everything, even forgot to come to his own equipment checkout. He had an ego too, which was funny. He had his short shot in Super 16, he had a professional DP, he had an actress flown in from Europe, he hired a writer, you name it. But his film was just DREADFUL! Many of them do it, as you said, "to do it". I myself remember how I was really inspired by Once Upon a Time in the West, and I so badly wanted to do something in that spirit for one of my production classes. But it never worked for me because I really didn't know what I wanted to say, outside of putting across a general mood and feeling that the Leone film had given me. Back in filmschool I myself didn't really know what I wanted to say. I had sketches, feelings, ideas, but no concrete "meat" to serve. That changed with time, and now thank God I am not so much concerned about what to say, but more how exactly to go about it, and what specifically to do. It's certainly a much better and secure feeling. In my memory the most succesful film students have always been those who really had something strong to put across that they cared about. That, coupled with their talent and abilities, was what made their work stand out. End of rant ;)

Absolutely. However, I differ about film theory. A lot of film students get too big headed about it sometimes, to the point where they believe they can construct and plan every shot perfectly like a math forumla, using film theory. You always hear these big headed discussions on student film sets "Like Orson Welles did in... Like Stanley Kubrick did in... Like Martin Scorsese did in..." and everyone's throwing around buzzwords like they're some big shots. They don't think about the meat of what they're doing, they think more about style. I think it's interesting when you end up learning that a considerable percent of cinematic "style" choices are actually dictated by practical concerns on the set, and are the result of circumstance and in some cases even accident/coincidence. And a lot of "genius" ideas come often not after a heavy night of brainstorming but in a flash of quick inspiration. All of these things you can only learn when you start actually shooting. The biggest problem with theory is that you need to know how and when to apply it. When you start shooting your first films the basic goal is to play it conservatively, get things in the can and cut it so its legible. Its all about knowing the 1-2-3, getting basic cinematic language down. Then you can start playing with style more as you get a bit more confident in your ability to nail a meat n' potatoes scene. That said nobody follows the rules and everyone wants to out-avant-guarde each other, which is okay and fun, but when you try to carry this over from school into the professional world it's dangerous. That's one of the biggest problems in filmschool, the border between work and play are poorly defined, and there is a readjustment when you enter the real film world. So many kids who win prizes for short films just bomb when they go to make their first features because of that. As for "what to say", that always requires a certain level of life experience. It's funny to see a 22 year old guy directing some 69 year old man and telling him what his thoughts should be about his dead wife, etc. You even see some hostility sometimes between actors and film student directors, because the actors think "Who's this kid to tell me?".

In that case you can ask "Please hold these for a fresh bath", I did that once. - G.

P.s. Personally I don't like the idea of shooting color film and turning it to B&W, it never looks as real as the silver nitrate imho. But economics may force you to make that decision, believe it or not. I just priced in 35mm what it costs to shoot B&W versus color neg short ends, and it works out in favor of the color. This is quite a difference from ten years ago when you could pick up B&W short ends for $0.05 a foot, I'm not talking about the seventies when B&W 35mm to shoot & develop was $0.04/ft. But lets leave the nostalga...

I think Pi was shot mostly on 7278, the old Tri-X. There's a new Tri-X out there, don't know the number. The grain is supposed to be a bit finer, don't know about the contrast - I assume it's most likely the same. Kodak didn't want to change the product too radically because the idea was to either discontinue '78 and '76, or to revamp them to a new dichromate-free bleach process. Double X negative is definitely lower contrast than the old Tri-X reversal I knew. They're two different animals and I'm fairly sure you don't want to intercut them if you want consistency. Double X buys you just a tad more speed, it's 250 in daylight and 200 in tungsten, but what's good is that apparently Double X lends very favorably to pushing. I have never pushed it myself, only shot it straight, so others may know. I would imagine Double X gets a bit contrastier with a push. I think Kevin Smith's "Clerks" was shot with pushed Double X, for an effective 400 asa. It looks pretty damn grainy and the contrast is more reversal like. Cost wise, it's a lab to lab issue. Generally black and white is more expensive, because the labs get less of it and they run it once or twice a week. Some charge more for processing the higher speed B&W negative stocks (5222/7222 and Ilford HP-5) because they eat up more developer replenisher, some don't. Reversal tends to be the same for both stocks. If you find a cheap B&W lab let me know!

P.S. Terrific B&W verite cinematography. Makes you think what a pity that B&W features have been made nearly extinct. What I'd give to shoot my next feature entirely on 5222, would it not be for the hard boiled attitudes of financers and distributors.

A lot of Arri II work there for the handheld, but also I saw a few Mitchells in some of the footage. The entire train sequence was shot with flatbase Arri II's and post dubbed. They had mag dubbers in one of the train cars to record the temp track, these are still the pre-Nagra days. "Who's that little old man? He belongs to Paul..."

Yeah, reminds me of those 16 year olds who I've seen asking where to buy a cheap 35mm camera. When I was that age I was thrilled to have a Bolex in my hands, which I got as a 14 year old. I didn't really know how to use it properly for some time though, because I got a C mount adapter for a Minolta lens and it wouldn't do infinity focus, and I hadn't enough money for an optical viewfinder so I over-compensated manually - let's not go there, lots of wasted film, lol... I think that some kids who are that age and get started risk burning themselves out. It's sort of like getting married at 16. Also, those who actually do make it at that age almost always have experienced people helping them out. Sort of like Haig Manoogian helped Scorsese with his first feature (if you look at Scorsese in that film, he looks like a boy he's so young!)

That's really a very, very, very small minority, to be honest. It happens rarely. And when it does happen, what ends up happening often is that these directors are flashes in the pan. So many are carried away by their apparent success, then they get eaten in development hell and find some other job to float the bills. They become writers or something else. When you graduate filmschool you're usually around 22 years old (if we're talking undergrad), a year after you got the legal right to buy a beer at a bar, and three years before you can rent a car in some states. It's still quite a young age to be directing films, really. One of my teachers said "It should be against the law for anyone to direct a feature under 40 years old". I see his point more and more as time goes by. To me, the path of a director has to be determined. The most important thing is to have something to say. If you don't have something to say, you'll become more like a commercial director, selling sizzle but not substance. I think a lot of kids in film school who jump into feature films are so enamored with style and not concerned enough with the raw content of the story. They will attach themselves to and obsess with various crafts, i.e. they'll get very specific on the shots, on the music, on the editing, on the wardrobe, on the art direction, but the script and the acting comes last. It's really a maturation process, and it takes experience and time for it to occur. You have to have things to say. You have to learn how to say them. You will change in the process. It's quite a journey, and it's a bad idea to rush it.

On the director's commentary track for Scorcese's first feature, "Who's that Knocking At My Door?", Scorcese mentions that the scenes with Keitel and the boys were shot in 35mm with a Mitchell BNC (as was the Amsterdam sex scene, although that looks like it was done with a handholdable camera like the Arri II). Then at one point he finally got sick of the Mitchell and decided to shoot with an Eclair NPR and blow it up. He said specifically that the party scene where Keitel is hanging out with his buddies and the girls come in was shot with the Eclair, and it looks it. Looking at the film there are some scenes where I'm sure it was 16 or 35, others where it's either grainy short ends and badly focused 35mm, or 16mm. I imagine when transferring they tried to smooth over the differences that would have otherwise been noticable. The scene where Keitel first meets Bethune by the ferry looks like it could have been fine grain 16mm. The scene with them outside at night on a date was definitely Double X 16mm pushed a few stops. The shot of the Staten Island ferry taking off was definitely 16mm. The rooftop hooking up scene I really can't call, either grainy 35mm, or Plus X 16mm. The hooking up in Keitel's bedroom I can't call. The last scene with Keitel telling off Bethune looks like either the AC had a huge hangover and was working with an f 2.8 on a Mitchell, or it was an Eclair with a wide open Angineux zoom. I tend to lean towards the latter. But when Keitel is leaving her apartment and walking down the stairs, it looks 35mm crispy and sharp. All the church sequences at the end are most likely 35mm. The scenes in upstate NY look like it's 35mm, but don't tell me the dragged a BNC up a mountain!!! Also, there are a few shots that have an optical high contrast jump in them. The first scene where Keitel is in the club with his friend, arguing about going uptown or downtown to hang out, looks like there were some 16mm inserts in it. You can see a dramatic jump in contrast (either that or the negative was damaged and they had to transfer off a print). This one really had me guessing a lot! Any ideas from diehard Scorsese fans?

I guess it all depends on what you want to do with yourself. I graduated from NYU in 1998, and I'm still not famous, lol. Filmschool just gives you the raw skills, it teaches you how to think in the right categories and it helps build some networks. As my cinematography teacher said after our camera class "This class does not make you a cinematographer" It's funny but you never know who's going to make it in the film business. Some very promising classmates who've made the biggest prize winner short films end up going into law or some other field. Then some slackers who didn't really work hard or made atrocious films end up making that groundbreaking feature. It's a total crapshoot. It's very easy to burn out in filmmaking. If you want to be a cinematographer, you just have to go out there and shoot, keep your chops sharp and challenge yourself. Work for free in the beginning, then you will be paid and land better assignments as you improve. If you have a reputation of being easy to work with, and on top of craftsmanship you find that fine balance of being a good worker without being a) a scandalous or pretentious jerk, or B) a total pushover, that will tremendously help. If you want to be a writer-director or director, you have to go out and make films. That simple. When you get an assignment in filmschool, pour yourself into it. I was amazed at how hard my fellow classmates at NYU would work on simple "lighting exercises". They'd go all the way, get actors, locations, you name it. They took it very seriously. So there really is no secret mystery here. While in filmschool you will make friends and build working relationships with people. Quite a few of them may never get anywhere, but working with them will inevitably benefit you and lead you to other relationships. And of course, never expect that once you get your diploma you're going to be the big man. As my film professor said, "Think of your life in terms of decades, not months or even years". Everyone wants to hit the pavement running, but those who believe they're going to make it to an award winning Sundance flick straight from filmschool will be taught humility by life.

FFT is great but as with any filtration there's always a loss of some kind. You have to fotz with the settings, and you will end up going crazy because you will probably have dozens of tweaks to do with each change of camera-mic distance and even camera positioning within the same location. If you shot an outdoor scene with a lot of ambient sound, you could probably get away with it. But I'd never bank on shooting a major project like that. I don't know how you're going to get the 16mm blimp to work with the IIc, the IIc will be louder I'm sure. There was a fairly lightweight blimp that Cine 60 made for the IIc, it was 18 lbs with camera (?). I saw a shot of a camera operator doing handheld with it. Those blimps cost around $1000 or less. - G.

I don't think I would really be too happy with that, Tim. In a pinch it might work, but my advice is for you to try a scene with a few actors maybe ("actors" meaning any people who can walk around and talk), and some moves/footsteps thrown in. Try one with the camera noise and filter, and one without. Do it for a good 15-20 second stretch. Blast it through a high quality speaker system, and see what you think. Ask someone else's opinion. If you really are happy with this, try several different scenarios, approximate what you'd have in the script. Only then proceed with caution. Btw, I assume the Arri had film running through it? Remember that filmstock also adds noise. Honestly, I think you either aught to get a blimp, or get a sync blimped camera. You can go ahead and try the setup you like, and if it doesn't work for you, you can post dub. But post dubbing is not to be taken lightly. You have to record dialog, ambience, foosteps, and moves. It takes time to get it right and convincing. So pick your battles...