Complete photochemical process - 16mm project

[Jay Young]

I just watched some of "The Artist" and, while I don't have a problem with the color? density? of the black and white, it just doesn't LOOK right. Was it a digital shoot?

Just looked it up, most sources say Vision 3 500T, but it looks so... digital. lol

 

I only say black and white because I think it could really work for my project. However, I already have about... 8000' of color 16mm laying around.

[Carl Looper]

The Artist was a remarkable film, even if the black & white wasn't as good as it otherwise might have been.

 

The revelation that sync sound inaugurated was recreated so well in the film. To relive that historical moment. By elaborating a slow burn context for such. And to undercut any modernist fantasy (of progress) that such might inspire, was the deferred back story of the lead: why was the arrival of sound a problem for him? The simple interpretation of an artist caught up in some mad identification of silence with purity is bounced by quite a brilliant bit of writing: to reveal a more compelling problem behind such a light-weight one.

 

And the happy ending is done so well.

 

Great movie.

 

C

[John E Clark]

The Artist was a remarkable film, even if the black & white wasn't as good as it otherwise might have been.

 

Yes, B&W and Silent... wins Academy Award...

 

While I've not been able to see "Ida"(2013), I've been impressed with the stills, and it was captured digitally. (and 4:3 aspect ratio no less...).

[Bill DiPietra]

Jay,

 

What do you hope to do with the film when it's finished? That is, will it be exhibited at festivals? Will it stream on the internet? Will it go to DVD?...

[Jay Young]

Bill,

 

I would like to screen it at a festival. However, I really just wanted to create an interesting film, and learn a bit about editing by hand. Perhaps that's just not practical any more. Perhaps that's why perfectally working editing tables sell for $100. I don't really want to do things the way everyone else does them. I don't want to shoot super16, I HATE the 1.85:1 ratio, and I hate the fact that literally everything has conformed to that standard.

 

I don't necessaraly NEED a film out, but I had the idea of screening it locally with my equipment here. Yes, I would like to spend the time to create an interesting film, but I think for me it's more about the process.

So, if it's unrealistic to try to do an edit on film, I can accept that. I'm still going to shoot on film. I can always have digital to film out made. I understand that some festivals can't (or won't) deal with film prints and I'll need a digital copy. I am anticipating this to be a long project over the next several years to finish. I'm just trying to get some of the details worked out. These things are important to me, but perhaps they shouldnt be? Who knows.

 

 

Thanks for asking.

[Carl Looper]

Working to a photochemical workflow is incredibly rewarding - even if one might subsequently substitute contemporary alternatives.

 

Its a way of coming into direct contact with the history of film making. To be face to face with the solutions that the pioneers created. To channel this history. To become a part of this history rather than just in for a guided tour.

 

I reckon.

 

C

[Bill DiPietra]

Working to a photochemical workflow is incredibly rewarding - even if one might subsequently substitute contemporary alternatives.

 

Its a way of coming into direct contact with the history of film making. To be face to face with the solutions that the pioneers created. To channel this history. To become a part of this history rather than just in for a guided tour.

 

I reckon.

 

C

 

Well said, Carl!

[Gregg MacPherson]

Bill,

Have you been cutting 16mm sepmag for your projects?

Have your sound mixes been on 16mm or are you doing it some other way?

[Gregg MacPherson]

Anyone,

It makes me think of all these questions, some of which have been discussed or answered on the forum.

Do we know what facilities still exist?

I think quite a few labs still do work prints.

Ditto for optical sound tracks, high con B&W for titles, answer prints.

Who is still doing 35mm blow ups?

Is black and clear leader obtainable?

 

Where is 16mm sepmag availible?

Who is still doing the transfers?

Who still has a setup for mixing analogue from multiple 16mm sepmag tracks?

[Gregg MacPherson]

Jay,

It's difficult to know what technical limitations you will run in to untill you have a particular project.

 

If the sound quality from 16mm projection suits your project then good. Tyler's advice assumes certain common standards for cinema, founded on expectaion, a sense of the normal, commonly expressed as dialogue driven realistic narrative. Let me think of a couple of influential films that I saw in 16mm....say, Erazerhead and La Jete. Examples of how 16mm sound can be fine.

 

One easy way to try your hand at film editing might be to make a music clip. The sound requirements are small. If you shoot something with a lot of small expressive elements rather than something literal then you will learn a lot.

[Jay Young]

Thanks for the continued dialogue.

 

I have a working project in mind, and even 7 pages of script started. But, because I have to think of all the elements that help tell the story, sometimes these technical limitations get in the way.

 

I've been watching a lot of Fritz Lang, and I can't quite figure out why hard lit shadows are such a bad thing. I very much like the hi-contrast look. My film is sort of leaning in the direction of

serial anyhow. Maybe I should just shoot, and record with head and tail slates, full timecode on audio recorder, and figureout the end format later.

 

 

[Carl Looper]

Hard lit shadows are great.

 

What is interesting about this technique is how it emerges within film making. It originates within an economic constraint - to keep lighting cheap, eg, by using a single light source. In and of itself such a constraint doesn't automatically provide the distinctive look of Film Noir. The imposed constraint is not the solution but the problem. It becomes the Film Noir style which becomes the solution. It exploits the effect of the constraint. Makes a virtue of such.

 

The style is so successful it continues long after the constraint has been lifted.

 

C

Edited July 10, 2015 by Carl Looper

[Gregg MacPherson]

 

....

I've been watching a lot of Fritz Lang, and I can't quite figure out why hard lit shadows are such a bad thing. I very much like the hi-contrast look. ....

I've only seen snippets of Friz Laing, at art school, I think. I just watched a little of Metropolis, thinking to properly understand what you were calling hard shadows or high contrast. Can you post one or two frames that illustrate that for you.

 

I had some thoughts, but I wanted to be clear on the start point.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Gregg MacPherson

[Carl Looper]

Metropolis isn't yet that which will become known as film noir. Metropolis is quite ambiant. It will be german expressionism meets american realism which eventually becomes film noir. And Lang will be very much at the origin of that.

 

C

Edited July 10, 2015 by Carl Looper

[Tyler Purcell]

It's true my approach is much more conventional. That's because the vast majority of people who will see your film, are probably not filmmakers. When I sit down to develop a story, I think about the audience first. I think about holding their attention and even making them want more when it's over. In that case, "technical" decisions like shooting on B&W and working with a special anamorphic 16mm workflow, could theoretically be detrimental to a film's outright potential. If your film is good, it may never see the light of day in the way you want, due to technical limitations.

 

I look at our modern 16mm films; 'Hurt Locker', 'Beasts of the Southern Wild', 'Black Swan' and they are good looking films. It would take a real cinephile to point out they were shot on small-gauge. Heck even 'The Walking Dead' AMC TV series was S16 until the last season. So you can make 16mm look great, it's a fantastic format. So why risk all the hard work to find out people don't appreciate the same things you do?

 

Shooting, editing and distributing on film in a conventional way, is one thing. But using obscure lens/format selection, odd-ball projection system and potentially B&W formatting, it stretches the technical aspects a bit too much in my eyes. This is why unfortunately, more conventional filmmaking methods are usually the best. You can still do everything photochemically, but wouldn't it be sweet to hold your 35mm print with digital audio so you can go anywhere and show people your vision?

[Jay Young]

 

 

I've only seen snippets of Friz Laing, at art school, I think. I just watched a little of Metropolis, thinking to properly understand what you were calling hard shadows or high contrast. Can you post one or two frames that illustrate that for you.

I had some thoughts, but I wanted to be clear on the start point.

 

Stills from Fritz Lang's 1929 Frau im Mond (Woman on the Moon), available on Netflix! I'll spare you the details of Lang inventing modern manned orbital rocketry in this film, which you should read about

at your leasure. See below for hard shadows.

 

 

There is, shown on screen later, a strong practicle lamp in the stair well. I assume this scene was lit to give the impression that same gas lamp would have.

 

Because of distance, there is some softer shadows on this wall, but I believe this scene is still lit with two front lamps. There are distinct "three cross shadows" just like one gets on a stage earlier

in this scene. Because the lighting is so high up, the shadows are religated to the floor, and not so much noticable.

 

Strong side lighting of this kid, minimizing the shadows, but still hard lit. The strong shadow on the side of his face tells me there's no reflector. Just one strong key camera left.

 

The interesting thing about this film is that it gets very much more soft the later you watch. Some of the more "upper class" interior sets look lit exactly as they would in some 1950's films.

Also, who doesn't love a good sci-fi romance drama!

[Bill DiPietra]

Bill,

Have you been cutting 16mm sepmag for your projects?

Have your sound mixes been on 16mm or are you doing it some other way?

 

Hi Gregg.

 

Yes, I just got some 16mm mag back from Colorlab. Considering I will most likely have a digital final product, I will be looking into a digital post house for the sound mix. Nothing too crazy, since my soundtracks are usually pretty straightforward voice-overs or sound effects.

[Bill DiPietra]

Bill,

 

I would like to screen it at a festival. However, I really just wanted to create an interesting film, and learn a bit about editing by hand. Perhaps that's just not practical any more. Perhaps that's why perfectally working editing tables sell for $100. I don't really want to do things the way everyone else does them. I don't want to shoot super16, I HATE the 1.85:1 ratio, and I hate the fact that literally everything has conformed to that standard.

 

I don't necessaraly NEED a film out, but I had the idea of screening it locally with my equipment here. Yes, I would like to spend the time to create an interesting film, but I think for me it's more about the process.

So, if it's unrealistic to try to do an edit on film, I can accept that. I'm still going to shoot on film. I can always have digital to film out made. I understand that some festivals can't (or won't) deal with film prints and I'll need a digital copy. I am anticipating this to be a long project over the next several years to finish. I'm just trying to get some of the details worked out. These things are important to me, but perhaps they shouldnt be? Who knows.

 

 

Thanks for asking.

 

Nope...those same things that are important to you are exactly why I still use a 16mm analog workflow. I simply prefer it. And I finish with a 1.37:1 aspect ratio, as well. So if you want to make a film using the analog process...DO IT. However, I will point out a few realities that you should be aware of...

 

I’m currently cutting a 16mm short on my Steenbeck. For my last film, I had the negative conformed and that was subsequently telecined to create a 1080P video master. I’d planned to conform the negative for this current project as well, but now that digital scanning technology has come into the fray so forcefully, I’ve been investigating my options. As much I want to stick to the old methods, I have to acknowledge that a 2K or even a 4K digital scan will most likely be a better option for the project. If you shop around, the costs are manageable and the image quality is significantly better.

 

However…

 

Negative conforming is something every filmmaker should do at least once. I did it for a class I took at NYU and it is an extremely tedious process, but it gives you a true appreciation for the care that has to be taken with the medium of film. It’s rewarding when you see you did a good job of it, too! And as Carl mentions, you automatically begin to have a new respect for the craftsmen that did this (and other tasks) way back when the film industry was still in an infancy.

If you want your film to be black & white, shoot on black & white film. All the films I’ve seen that have originated on color stocks and then been converted to black & white in post never had true blacks, in my opinion. Take a look at Ingmar Bergman’s Persona and compare it with The Artist.

 

I have to disagree with what Tyler says about the optical sound. What matters is what you are originating on. If you are recording on a Nagra with ¼” tape, you will get a very nice, warm sound. Regardless of what processes it goes through, the sound will retain that original quality unless you drastically alter it in post.

 

On the other hand, I agree with what Tyler says regarding a print. I was hoping to make a 16mm answer print of my current project until I started researching the prices. I just like to have the analog version of the final product, but when I saw the prices I realized it would be far too much money for something that would most likely sit on the shelf. It’s not some festivals that take a DCP, it’s all festivals. I can only think of a few that still exhibit 16mm & 35mm prints, namely the New York Film Festival, the Sundance Film Festival, the Tribeca Film Festival and the Stockholm Film Festival. So getting a print made when someone asks for it, as Tyler mentions is definitely the way to go. It will save you a lot of money.

[Tyler Purcell]

I have to disagree with what Tyler says about the optical sound. What matters is what you are originating on. If you are recording on a Nagra with ¼” tape, you will get a very nice, warm sound. Regardless of what processes it goes through, the sound will retain that original quality unless you drastically alter it in post.

The optical track dynamic range is 40db and 200hz to 6khz frequency range. This is worse then one of those dictation note taking cassette recorders. In contrast, that beautiful Nagra 1/4", half track @ 15ips will produce 70db of dynamic range and a frequency response of around 30 Hz to 18khz, which is perfectly acceptable for dialog recording. In contest, CD's are 90db of dynamic range and 20Hz to 20kHz and most films today have extended the dynamic range to well over 100db and frequency response of 10Hz to 96kHz.

 

My biggest beef with the 16mm editing process is the mag stock itself. Recorders are rarely calibrated, so getting any decent quality audio onto mag stock and back off again for a film print, is nearly impossible. I've experimented with DBX noise reduction and had some success with making dialog sound OK. However, I had to calibrate everything myself by hand which was time consuming. I used a 6 plate table, which enabled me to run 2 strips of 16mm mag stock. My first pass was 2 tracks of dialog. My 2nd pass was 2 tracks of effects. So in total, I'd have 4 tracks of audio to deal with in post production. I ran over to the lab and we dupe those tracks to one channel of 35mm mag stock in a "mix" session, which cleaned up the transitions and levels. My music was on CD and on the fly played it out onto 35mm stock on 2 channels in stereo. This gave us a 3 strip master, stereo music L/R and center channel of dialog and effects. This allowed us to work with the mag stock for dialog and effects only (since dialog frequencies are limited anyway) and the 35mm mag stock was superior in quality to 16mm mag stock, so taking the digital audio masters from my score and putting them on the L/R channels of the 35mm mag stock, retained much of the quality.

 

So now I had a 35mm 3 strip mag master with Dolby SR already encoded, which was easy to process onto 35mm optical track with Dolby SR noise reduction. The nice thing about Dolby SR is that you don't have to pay royalties. Lab's can take your mag, run it into the optical soundtrack printing machine and mate it with a 35mm print no problem. With digital audio, you've gotta pay royalties/fee's to use their formats and it can get exorbitant. Plus, every theater on the planet with a 35mm projector can playback Dolby SR optical tracks, it's the "backup" format and it works great.

 

I've been struggling to find some examples of this workflow I can post for you, but all of those films I worked on in the past have restored audio. When I was 17 years old, I shot and edited a film called "Elvis and Me" about teenagers worst fears using a Cinema Products CP-16R, angenieux zoom lens and vision 7219. We did the 2 track dialog trick, we used the 35mm stereo track with SR trick as well. Unfortunately, we never did the 35mm blow up, so this video is made from a one light print of the negative that I painstakingly matched to the audio because I no longer have the original audio tracks, just the 35mm 3 strip. This scene has the best example of audio because it has good indoor dialog recorded with a Nagra 1/4" half-track at 15IPS.

 

http://tye1138.com/stuff/elvisandmeclip.mov

[Jay Young]

I figured I'd just record audio digitally.

But if we're talkin tape, I'll just use my Otari 30ips half-track mastering deck! It's... sort of portable. HA!

 

Does the optical sound printer only accept magstripe?

 

Also, I understand Tyler, that you hate 16mm optical sound.

 

I am getting the feeling that some of you that have replied don't ever want to edit actual film ever again. I can understand that.

I'm sorry I want to do something different, and I feel bad that it upsets others. However, in the end, I'm gonna do what I feel will

make the project work best for me. There can always be made a crappy youtube version, and there can always be made a film print in

whatever format you wish.

 

Sounds like shoot on film and digital the rest is the consensus. Guess I'll sell my projector.

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

You should definitely do what you feel is right. Also, it is very much possible to print an optical soundtrack from a digital file.

 

You should play around with it and do some tests. Call labs and see which ones can do what you want for the price you want.

[Bill DiPietra]

Sounds like shoot on film and digital the rest is the consensus. Guess I'll sell my projector.

 

I think cutting the work-print is a great idea. As I said, that's what I'm doing right now and it's a big part of the analog process. Having the film physically in your hands and actually putting a scene together is quite an interesting & rewarding experience. You can always scan the negative as we said and have the post-house do a match-back from your work print.

[Gregg MacPherson]

 

..... Guess I'll sell my projector.

I think Lenny Lipton put it this way years ago in a book.....

"quality is relative to purpose"

 

To say there is a spectrum of good to bad quality requires explanation or assumption. Of course, it's assumed we all want to make crisp clean movies like the mainstream (sorry Tyler). Or, sudden lightning bolt, gestalt moment, his friends saved him from the lobotomy, cue trumpets.........

 

One could simply explore what the innate qualities of this medium are. 16mm acquisition, sound, projection.

 

And if one is drawn to those qualities, hopefully sensing there some grand arcane fact, then explore.

 

As for costs, and whether required facilities are still available....

You will need to have a good look for yourself. Probably a long way from Lexington. Direct contact is good. Find them all and get a feel for the price range. Let us all know what you find. Do a budget for your post production stream, then throw precise questions at the forum.

 

Lots of things I wanted to say about the sound cutting and mix , but it should wait to see if you actually need it. If we work within Lipton's dictum on quality then the generic tools and methods used in the 80s/90s may be fine. I can only speak for New Zealand though, maybe the States was different, though I doubt it.

 

All the TV stations and a few private companies had 16mm mix studios where you could buy time. Four or five sepmag machines gave you eight or nine tracks, mixing to a 16mm sepmag master. Cleaning the tracks was routine. Most documentaries and short films were mixed this way. I did a project once where I went to a mix studio where the 16mm tracks were all transferred to a 1" multitrack. Better engineer, maybe better cleaning skills and tools.

 

One guy here had a large indie style edit facility with a lot of flatbeds for hire and a 16mm sound mix studio. I heard he mows lawns for a living now, but that he might have a facility set up in his garage. So there's always hope.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Gregg MacPherson

[Carl Looper]

Shooting, editing and distributing on film in a conventional way, is one thing. But using obscure lens/format selection, odd-ball projection system and potentially B&W formatting, it stretches the technical aspects a bit too much in my eyes. This is why unfortunately, more conventional filmmaking methods are usually the best. You can still do everything photochemically, but wouldn't it be sweet to hold your 35mm print with digital audio so you can go anywhere and show people your vision?

 

Unless of course, one's vision happens to be conceived in terms of an "obscure" lens/format, the use of an "odd-ball" 16mm projector, and screening in B&W.

 

It is completely self-evident that a film conceived in terms of a vision other than this spec, will be less than it should be if it were made to this spec.

 

I was working on a 35mm short a while back which was conceived and eventually made in terms of anamorphic projection. But beforehand the producer argued themselves silly not to do it this way as it would limit distribution. The choice we eventually provided the producer was either his support or resignation from the project.

 

Why does one do anything?

 

It doesn't really matter why. More interesting is how. And that's how we made the film, by solving that particular problem.

 

However this doesn't mean the producer wasn't right. Making such a film did limit it's distribution. However it wasn't as limited as the producer had been hallucinating. It got a good run all over the world. And it looked great.

 

But more to the point, this film wouldn't get any distribution at all, if we didn't make the film in the first place. Would it?

 

Try and defeat that last bit of logic :)

 

C

Edited July 10, 2015 by Carl Looper

[Tyler Purcell]

Does the optical sound printer only accept magstripe?

You can print any source, but you can only bench edit on mag stock, so yea you're stuck. 35mm mag stock sounds great, so it's not a big deal when bench editing on 35mm, only really a problem with 16mm.

 

I am getting the feeling that some of you that have replied don't ever want to edit actual film ever again. I can understand that.

Editing film is awesome and I apologize if you think I'm trying to persuade you away from it. My concern is really to do with what happens after editing, how the audience will appreciate all the effort you put in.