65mm B&W Motion Picture Film

[Simon Wyss]

I have worked as a machine developer. Can one say so, I mean palaver-wise?

 

It’s not “simply bypass”. It’s laborious work. That’s why you call the place a laboratory and why nobody there likes to do bypasses. The machines I know are the Photokem, the ARRI, the Debrie Aiglonne. With the Photokem and the ARRI the racks system is lifted out the baths (chain pull). You then crawl under and around the racks with scissors and staple fastener to change the ways. Sometimes a little rinse water is allowed to get rid of some of the chemicals that drop down on you. Time is lost for nothing. Temperature is lost. Snippets of leader can fall into the machine where they’re not wanted. You watch out that not but it happens. Staples, too. Some use tape.

 

There is a different film transport principle. It is used with the short photo films but can also function on long rolls. Cylinders with a smooth surface take the glossy surface film with them under water. Swing-in guides can be actuated for changes of the way. I had such a machine in my lab and processed black-and-white prints in it, 400-ft. portions and the like. No leader needed but slow

 

Rem-jet is an expression I’d like to say something about. Like with other terms, “sharp films” and so, one word is replaced by an other. Rem Jet is an industry abbreviation, removal jet. What gets removed? The backing, a thin gelatine layer blackened with soot. In the processing machine, in a prebath, there are underwater warm water jets aimed at the film. Why doesn’t everybody speak of the back layer or the backing? Kodak doesn’t know better than the rest of the world. Rem-jet removal is idiotic.

[Dirk DeJonghe]

Converting a color ECN2 machine to a B&W neg/pos machine is a major undertaking. I have done it and have the scars to show. Heating the baths is easier than cooling, the processing times for B&W are variable and standard is around 7 minutes for 5222 (variable to attain the requested gamma). So your machine will run at half the speed of color given the same footage in the bath (color is 3'15" developing time). You will need lots more of washing time (countercurrent tanks, at least four to five). Compared to a 35mm machine, 70mm rollers take up more space in the same tank, reducing machine speed by half again.

So, compared to a 35mm ECN machine, a B&W 70mm processor would run at 1/4 of the speed in the best case. This means more turbulator bars in the developer with heavy pumps because you want the film to pass a turbulator with fresh developer every few seconds.

 

Despite the lower cost of B&W chemicals, I would say the B&W processing is much more expensive, there is less footage to process, there are differents processing times for each emulsion type (5222/5231/5234/5366/DN21/DP2 etc only for negative process), and you have to constantly switch between neg and pos processing (I have two developer tanks in the machine).

 

65/70mm quality is certainly a wet dream for many directors, but as one of my previous customers found out, the highest image quality is not a sure road to success. There are only a few places in the world left that can properly show 70mm prints.

[Scott Pickering]

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.

[Bill DiPietra]

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.

 

Yes, but that would be a pretty tight shooting ratio.

[Dirk DeJonghe]

I have had productions shooting that much footage on Super16. Only one production on 35mm used this little. Talking about typical 90 minute feature films here.

[Scott Pickering]

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?

[David Mullen ASC]

10:1 is a more realistic shooting ratio for narrative work. The lowest I've managed was 7:1 on a feature, but I know one person who managed 5:1.

[Scott Pickering]

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

[Doug Palmer]

10:1 is a more realistic shooting ratio for narrative work. The lowest I've managed was 7:1 on a feature, but I know one person who managed 5:1.

I suppose though it could be less depending on the kind of subjects he's filming ? I'd be interested to know what is the typical shooting ratio for an Imax production. And wonder about Interstellar of course.... but at the other end of the scale seem to recall that Ron Fricke used a 1:1 ratio for "Chronos" :D

If it's strictly controlled maybe a 4:1 ratio would work.

[Scott Pickering]

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.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Would it not be infinitely easier to just shoot color 65 and then finish in B/W? I know it's not necessarily the same feeling; but one would think the stock and processing would be substantially easier.

[Scott Pickering]

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.

[Dirk DeJonghe]

Getting a B&W film print from a color negative is by making a color IP 2242 first and then a B&W dupeneg 2234 to be printed on B&W positive stock. You need to adjust RGB color balance going from color IP to B&W dupeneg in order to get a correct B&W rendition.

 

So you will need, in addition to the B&W camera negative, 65mm 2242 and 2234 if you follow this route.

[Scott Pickering]

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.

[Scott Pickering]

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.

[Robert Houllahan]

 

Rem-jet is an expression I’d like to say something about. Like with other terms, “sharp films” and so, one word is replaced by an other. Rem Jet is an industry abbreviation, removal jet. What gets removed? The backing, a thin gelatine layer blackened with soot. In the processing machine, in a prebath, there are underwater warm water jets aimed at the film. Why doesn’t everybody speak of the back layer or the backing? Kodak doesn’t know better than the rest of the world. Rem-jet removal is idiotic.

"Rem Jet" is a carbon gelatine backing which helps the film go through the camera and acts as anti halation. The backing is black and light tight so if it isn't removed you can't see through the film, also the carbon would pollute the developer tank.

[cole t parzenn]

Lack of lenses aside, Technirama seems like the most practical ultra-wide format.

[Robert Houllahan]

Have you thought about shooting B&W 35mm Vista-Vision and doing a VV to 70mm optical? I think that is probably the only way it could work, and a B&W neg to Color Print can be timed to look good.

[John E Clark]

Re: Color -> B&W... I've never really been satisfied with the results for stills, relative to using 'real' B&W. Even using 'poly contrast' print materials was somewhat of a compromize to me...

 

There was an Ilford still film, XP2, which used a C-41 process. I have no idea if there was ever a similar motion picture film, but alas... it had its own set of problems beyond not quite yielding the same results one would have by using silver based negatives, but it did allow for processing via most places where still film was processed.

[Scott Pickering]

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.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Scott Pickering

[Mark Dunn]

VV was cropped for reduction to 4-perf, but the extraction for Technirama to 70mm. is virtually full- frame- a 1.5 AR and 1.5 squeeze is only cropped to 2.21.

[Tyler Purcell]

WOW just found this thread using google of all things! very interesting stuff!

 

I too am obsessed with making a few 65mm film's and have done a lot of soul searching and research as of late. I can't answer you B&W question unfortunately, but I can tell you what I'm planning on doing… maybe some if it could help your cause, never know?

 

I personally feel large-format is the answer to film staying alive. Arri's new system 65 Alexa will for sure push some films into shooting digitally until they realize there isn't a standard projection system with high enough quality. Doesn't matter how good the source is, if you're presentation is 2k.

 

I've been writing a great little small-town fantasy film which will be all art direction and set design. Something that harken's back to the day's of large format; longer takes, every shot is on a dolly or jib with a slow move and extremely shallow depth of field throughout the piece. Also, because there are lots of dark interiors, I'm scared to loose image detail through grain using higher ASA stocks. I'm so sick and tired of filmmakers using 500 ASA stock and using a few 200 watt practicals to light. The graininess pulls ME right out of the film and I start focusing on the grain and why they made that decision. The last two films that were blown up to 70mm (Inherent Vice and Interstellar) the dark 35mm stuff looked like crap, very disconcerting. For me, it's a no-brainer to step it up a notch and make a real masterpiece, originating on a 65mm negative.

 

The film has a lot of tricky things, including a whole bunch of underwater cinematography (maybe 12 min worth) and a 3 minute 2D hand-drawn animation section, which we'll use an multi-plane animation stand to capture. This animation scene AND the underwater stuff will be shot using a Fries 8 perf 65mm vertical camera. Getting that large negative, gives something for IMAX involvement. Shooting those scenes in IMAX with IMAX 15 perf cameras, is very technically challenging, not just because the cameras are huge, but also because of the expense. My goal of using a Fries 8 perf for some select MOS scenes, works great because it give a large enough negative and rental costs are peanuts compared to IMAX.

 

I've devised a great system of recording takes digitally before running the camera and because the takes will be long, using art directing and camera moves to keep the audience entertained, negates the need for excess coverage. My goal is a 5:1 shooting ratio for MOS shots and 8:1 shooting ratio on dialog shots. I'm consciously separating both because Panavisions (loud) reflex 65mm MOS camera is much smaller and easier to deal with then their sound camera. So for the practical locations I plan on using, it's going to be much easier to fit in tight spots.

 

I'm doing a photochemical finish for sure, color and print with zero digital work. There are a few special effects in the film, but nothing that can't be achieved with an optical printer. Even the titles will be photochemical, something that's going to be tough, but doable. The goal of course will be to finish the film on 5/70 and run a 70mm and 35mm print up front for the festival circuit both in the US and Europe. Due to the cast and interesting story, the film should be an easy sell in Europe, which is kind of my market anyway. I'm planning on building-in to my distribution deal a one month hiatus before wide-release which will screen the film in 70mm only AND sign on a few IMAX theaters in the process to show it in 15/70. This way the hype is built slowly, based on "quality" and an "experience" rather then just another film to watch at your local multiplex. US distribution maybe "self' distribution and may take time before it goes wide, depending on receipts from Europe. However, if theaters can make money off the few prints that will be struck and released, then there is no reason they can't continue to make money. The buzz will keep people in the seats for sure.

 

Anyway… that's kind of my idea. Because most of the people I work with are european, I maybe able to come up with the money from Europe and push hard to make the film for the European market, though in English. There is a huge market for that right now surprisingly enough, and it's something I'm absolutely going after. 12M isn't a huge risk and the rewards would be great IF the film is received well by the audience, which if course is any filmmakers real goal.

 

:sigh:, time to get back to work on the script! LOL :)

[Josh Gladstone]

Wow. Ambitious. Best of luck!!

[Scott Pickering]

Tyler- your idea has some similarities with my story. My problem getting mine done, is I don't really have the connections to get my story out there to find interest in producing it. My friend works in the Vancouver film industry, and even he has problems getting his film out there. And if someone were to fund this, they'd probably force me to shoot it on video instead of film, which I'd be against.

[Tyler Purcell]

Yea, I just had dinner with a filmmaking friend of mine who was like; "Why would you ever shoot on film" and I was like "what else is there?" LOL :)

 

I'm gonna make some calls this week and get some numbers. I'm happy to share my findings. :)