Christian Wilfong
-
Posts
9 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Christian Wilfong
-
-
Here's an updated link to my original video. Sorry for letting the link go dead for so long. I hope people continue to enjoy the film.
At the very least it's a helpful example if you're planning to shoot Double X on 16mm. Enjoy!
-
I started this thread so people can see what different film stocks look like without doing test shoots of their own. For student or low budget shoots sometimes testing is not possible.
This could be the next best thing. Please try to be as specific as you can in your posts regarding the camera used, the film format, stock and transfer.
Kodak Double X 16mm
All the 16x9 shots are Double-X as well as all the 4x3 footage with the girl in the flashbacks. The 16x9 footage was shot on a Aaton XTR Prod (Super 16mm) with Zeiss Ultra Primes.
The 4x3 footage was shot on a Bolex Rex 5 with a retro focus 10mm lens
Kodak Tri-X 16mm
All the 4x3 shots of the main character drinking were shot on Kodak Tri-x reversal film on a Bolex Rex 5. You can tell the difference in the footage because it has more contrast and it is less grainy than the Double-X
All footage was processed normally at PAC LAB NYC and transferred to HDCAM tape at Technicolor New York
P.S. If anyone has examples of Fuji 16mm ETERNA 500 I would love to have it posted. I'm thinking of using it for an upcoming film and I'm not sure if we'll have the money to do a test shoot.
Hope this thread is helpful to people
Here's an updated link to my original video.
Please post more!
-
Great work.
Cinematography, editing, sound & story was an excellent effort.
Love the look of Double-X but it isn't compression friendly. I'm sure the ProRes or uncompressed files looked awesome. All the grain makes the compressor go nuts and leads to those blocky artifacts. Wish Vimeo had an alternative compression scheme for grainy film.
Thanks Will,
I appreciate your kind comments. Glad you enjoyed the film.
You're so right about the compression. I wish everyone could see the uncompressed file I have; The grain does look beautiful when it is not reduced to digital, compression mud.
-Christian
-
I started this thread so people can see what different film stocks look like without doing test shoots of their own. For student or low budget shoots sometimes testing is not possible.
This could be the next best thing. Please try to be as specific as you can in your posts regarding the camera used, the film format, stock and transfer.
Kodak Double X 16mm
All the 16x9 shots are Double-X as well as all the 4x3 footage with the girl in the flashbacks. The 16x9 footage was shot on a Aaton XTR Prod (Super 16mm) with Zeiss Ultra Primes.
The 4x3 footage was shot on a Bolex Rex 5 with a retro focus 10mm lens
Kodak Tri-X 16mm
All the 4x3 shots of the main character drinking were shot on Kodak Tri-x reversal film on a Bolex Rex 5. You can tell the difference in the footage because it has more contrast and it is less grainy than the Double-X
All footage was processed normally at PAC LAB NYC and transferred to HDCAM tape at Technicolor New York
P.S. If anyone has examples of Fuji 16mm ETERNA 500 I would love to have it posted. I'm thinking of using it for an upcoming film and I'm not sure if we'll have the money to do a test shoot.
Hope this thread is helpful to people
-
I am shooting a short using the Aaton XTRprod and the camera has been modified for Super16 by the rental house. I am shooting on Double X 7222, mostly night exteriors/night interiors. It says in the camera manual that it is best to avoid pushing the film and push processing it. However, I don't have a budget for a professional light kit, so I am using available light plus CFLs on top of those. Should I push the film to 400 or should I keep it at 200 and try to light accordingly?
This is kind of an old post so I'm not sure how helpful this is. I would not try pushing the stock unless you like big grain. I shot the film below on Double X 7222 last year and it was exposed properly in well lit daylight and is still extremely grainy. I was going for that gritty early 90's black and white film feel so it worked for me, but if you want something with finer grain you have to shoot color and desaturate. At least that's the conclusion I came to after doing some research on black and white photography in today's age. Hope this helped.
-
-
Getting people to sit through 8 minutes isn't easy.
Any takers? Maybe we could start a discussion about the film stock? There are a lot of Double-X haters out there.
-
Hello All,
I finished this short film on 16mm last year and have been trying to find ways to get people to watch it. I feel like it's difficult to get hits if you don't make a 30 second video of a cat falling off a chair, or something quick like that. Getting people to sit through 8 minutes isn't easy.
We made this film for a little over a grand, so keep in mind our access to EQ was limited; I'm not sure I would have filmed it much differently had I had more gear though.
I'd love to hear any and all comments as long as they are constructive.
Thanks for watch and enjoy,
Double-X and Tri-X HDCAM Technicolor Transfer
in 16mm
Posted
That would be really cool Will. I'd love to see it printed. I'm actually shooting another project on 16mm now for a friend of mine. We're using Fuji Eterna 500T. So right now all of our extra cash is going into that.
Again though it would be really great to go back to film after making our HD edit. I think for now though the limits of our budget provide for capture on film but ultimately presentation in the digital domain.
I’ll be holding on to the original negatives of course so it is possible some day for me to make a work print.
Also I checked out the film you shot on 35mm Double X. It’s amazing to see how much finer the grain is in 35mm. It’s a completely different look.
I’d love to shoot 35mm sometime before it goes away.
Thanks for the continued interest.