Buying 16mm film

[Heikki Repo]

I mean, you're penny pinching stock cost. Processing at it's absolute best rate is .12/foot and scanning is around .45/foot depending on the resolution. So your 1000ft of film will run you $570 at absolute best + drive cost and a few other fee's. So you're looking at close to a grand per 1000ft (stock+processing+scan)

 

For .40/foot (.12 for processing, .06 for prepping and .22 for telecine) I have had great 16mm processing, prep and HD (1920x1080) film-to-prores 4444 in the US. Pretty economical, all of those are list prices.

[Tyler Purcell]

I do intend to do as much of it my self, at some point I'd like to learn how to process the stock my self. I f some one could put me in the right direction that'd be grate.

Processing color negative at home, is pretty challenging in of itself. When you add the kind of film lengths that are required for motion picture film, that's where things become more complicated.

 

Yes... you can absolutely build your own machine to process motion picture film, but the cost would be astronomical. What most people do is unroll film into a big container and swish chemicals around. Unfortunately that process doesn't work well because not every surface is covered evenly. The other way is to roll the film from one side to another, through a chemical bath. This method is better, but it's VERY time consuming and because chemicals stay on the film as this happens, it can lead to blotches and other uniformity issues. Truthfully, there isn't a "fool proof" solution on the market today and even some of the older solutions, are hard to find, very fragile (plastic parts that fail) and as I said earlier, you really need to be a chemist to process color film anyway. Plus, once you're done processing, the drying part is extremely difficult and trying to hang 100's of feet worth of film around your house, isn't exactly a smart idea.

 

Here is an example of a home made processing machine:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dark_orange/2042501949/in/set-72157603226919391/

 

In terms of transferring color negative to some sort of digital file. If you send the film out for processing and get it back to scan, you're also in a bit of a bind. There are some interesting ways to go about this though and one of them is to rip apart a projector, and build your own scanner. If you google search this, you will see some of the options. It's actually not that difficult if you know how to make electric circuits that can trigger a stepper motor, digital still camera and LED lamp source. You can get some good results from a home made scanner but you won't get anywhere near the results of a professional system, that's because the home made system has zero control over registration AND transferring negative really requires a different type of lamp source. You'd have to experiment with light sources and negative, maybe even invest in an adjustable color LED panel to start with.

 

A good link to start the topic of film transfer: http://thecreatorsproject.vice.com/blog/kinograph-may-be-the-savior-of-film

 

Plus, the russian camera you plan on buying, doesn't have good registration to begin with. The image will shake all over the place without something to stabilize it with. This is where having a good scan with an excellent machine, will help greatly.

 

I know you really wanna do everything yourself, but I fret the cost of doing it yourself properly, will outweigh the benefits. Yes, it's awesome to get your hands dirty and as a HUGE film buff, I've always wanted my own machines. However, having processed color and B&W negative still film for years, I know how challenging it is to make it perfect and in all honesty, getting perfection at home is nearly impossible. So we all resort to sending our film to labs that have clean rooms and do it right.

 

With all that said, processing B&W reversal is a lot easier and if you could care less how it comes out, playing around with it at home using a morse processing tank, maybe be a lot of fun. It won't come out perfect, there will be streaks in the highlights in some spots, but if you just wanna have fun, it's a good way to go.

 

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=9878

[Tyler Purcell]

For .40/foot (.12 for processing, .06 for prepping and .22 for telecine) I have had great 16mm processing, prep and HD (1920x1080) film-to-prores 4444 in the US. Pretty economical, all of those are list prices.

Yep, that's a good "telecine" rate. If you have a camera with perfect registration, it's a good way to go. If the camera's registration isn't so good like the camera the OP wants to use, I'd recommend a scan.

[connor denning]

Yep, that's a good "telecine" rate. If you have a camera with perfect registration, it's a good way to go. If the camera's registration isn't so good like the camera the OP wants to use, I'd recommend a scan.

So I am correct i say developed film with no print is not transparent.

[connor denning]

Simple way to get around the shaking. scan the whole film, use the sprocket holes use that to offset the image. I wouldn't the first to do that. Also from what I seen seen the camera I looking at is quite stable, or I'm I wrong.

Edited April 4, 2016 by connor denning

[Giray Izcan]

Connor, once again, I suggest you read some books to gain information on film and what goes into shooting on film etc. Not to be harsh but you do have some wild ideas. Best of luck.

[David Mullen ASC]

Connor, surely you what what processed color negative looks like... if not, there's an image on this page:

http://www.colorlab.com/faq.html

[Tyler Purcell]

So I am correct i say developed film with no print is not transparent.

No all film that's processed is transparent. Negative film though is very fragile and of course is a negative image, not positive. So whites are black and the colors are reversed as well. This makes it a bit harder to scan properly.

[Bill DiPietra]

Connor - I'm not trying to discourage you, but Giray is right. Learn the fundamentals and do a lot of reading, first. It will pay dividends in the long run.

[connor denning]

No all film that's processed is transparent. Negative film though is very fragile and of course is a negative image, not positive. So whites are black and the colors are reversed as well. This makes it a bit harder to scan properly.

Then why where some people saying I need a print.

[connor denning]

No all film that's processed is transparent. Negative film though is very fragile and of course is a negative image, not positive. So whites are black and the colors are reversed as well. This makes it a bit harder to scan properly.

I know it's harder to scan, but I think I'll be able to live with it, Ad I'm pretty picky.

[Aapo Lettinen]

the orange mask also adds more noise to the blue channel which makes things even more complicated. and if using led lights it is quite difficult to find right colour temperature and good enough CRI lights for scanning purposes which fit the dimensions. you also need very good camera/capture device to be able to get usable contrast range from the negative with low enough noise and compression to be able to colour correct it to usable image.

 

if you are shooting b/w exclusively you may benefit from a own scanning system in some situations because it is much easier to get usable image from it than out of reversal or colour negative. I made kind of a film scanner out of a Konvas camera a while ago but it only creates usable image with B/W neg and you have to post process the footage in After Effects to get rid of the led matrix http://aapolettinen.blogspot.fi/2015/05/making-film-scanner-out-of-konvas-camera.html . It also scratches film but for camera tests it is quite usable system if you develop the bw neg by yourself (otherwise not practical at all)

samples (self developed in Lomo tank with Adonal) :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paHQC762j3s

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teuvaVQO42A

[Tyler Purcell]

Then why where some people saying I need a print.

If you wish to project you will need to turn the negative into a positive.

 

If you build your own transfer machine, dealing with a positive image makes life a lot easier.

 

You can't just take a still image of a negative and magically turn it into positive. It requires color correction to do this job and substantial organization of the files, let alone all the hardware necessary to build a transfer device from scratch.

 

I know it's harder to scan, but I think I'll be able to live with it, Ad I'm pretty picky.

If your picky, none of your plan will work. The old Russian camera doesn't have good registration or stability. The scanned images you see online, most likely fixed the issues. Even the Bolex which is known for it's stability is worse then my Aaton for instance. Processing and transferring at home are two extremely challenging tasks which require a vast amount of money in order to do it right. Plus, even if you build your own processing system and scanner, you will NEVER match the quality of a professional solution run by people who've done it their entire lives. Heck, there is even differences from lab to lab and we're talking about professionals with the right equipment.

 

I like your enthusiasm for motion picture film, but I think you maybe are biting off a bit more then you can chew right now. You can't circumvent the money necessary to do this right, it's impossible. If you ask specific questions, I will gladly answer, but I fear you haven't yet grasped the concepts of these things yet.

[Aapo Lettinen]

btw if you are really interested in making your own b/w film from the start, you can make silver bromide by yourself by using silver nitrate and potassium bromide.

both are quite harmful chemicals and silver nitrate is also expensive. you can make it out of leftover silver using nitric acid (not expensive if you already have pure silver like bullions) but I would not try that in the States if you are a private person, it would probably attract NSA and FBI and/or DEA quite a lot :o it also creates poisonous gases and the acid itself is very dangerous stuff...

 

you would still need to sensitise the silver bromide after that and work out the other aspects of the emulsion like the gelatine moulding and how to handle all the stages safely in reduced light or total darkness.

 

There is however photographic emulsions which are sold in liquid form and can be used for example for painting on objects and textiles. maybe you should look on that first if you really want to make your own film stock for artistic purposes :)

[Tyler Purcell]

Actually the problem isn't even the chemicals, it's actually finding/sourcing the clear plastic base AND of course, coating it evenly. Also, there has to be a back coating as well. Then you need a perf maker which in of itself can be challenging to deal with.

 

It's easy to whip up a batch of photographic chemicals and paint them onto glass, I've made several glass negatives in a 4x5 camera. It's a lot more difficult to make motion picture film that has to run through a camera perfectly.

 

I will make one more note, the two youtube samples above, notice how uneven the processing is. You see the sky moving all over the place. That's what happens when you process at home in a tank. It comes out very uneven and sure there is an image, but even for a camera test, it's barely acceptable. How do you know the flicker of the poor processing, or the scratches caused by running the film back and forward, weren't caused by the camera?

 

I have yet to see motion picture film processed at home that looked anything like it does from the lab.

[Aapo Lettinen]

yep I have had more even results by developing in a washing bucket in a darkroom. but it makes lots of scratches to the film and also wastes quite a lot of chemicals ( I used 10 litres per batch for that compared to 2 l in Lomo tank )

 

In Lomo tank you don't run the film back and forth, you just roll it to the spiral at an angle once. you also run the film through the scanner only once. I mainly check focus issues with this system so it's perfectly fine for that. I haven't tried mixing the Adonal batch directly in the tank from maybe 1:5 to 1:25 or 1:50, that might reduce unevenness quite a bit if done quickly. other way would be to use the Lomo spiral without the tank in a darkroom and use the chemicals in buckets so that the applying is very quick. that would create the best results but eats up more chemicals. the tank parts are also very fragile so it is not a good idea to mess with them too much in total darkness, one mistake costs 150 $ or more. it is also practical only with low cost developers like Rodinal/Adonal, Microdol X or Coffenol, would not try that with anything expensive and very air sensitive stuff like E6 developers or anything more poisonous than the 4-aminophenol /Methol developers already are <_<

Edited April 5, 2016 by aapo lettinen

[Tyler Purcell]

I can't imagine having loose chemicals around like that in a dark room without a HUGE ventilation system. All the lab work I've done had more vents then ceiling! :)

[Aapo Lettinen]

depends on what it is and how volatile it is if all. for example sodium thiosulfate solution (fixer purposes) is quite safe in this regard. the 4-aminophenol has low vapour pressure as well as potassium hydroxide (another dangerous component of the Rodinal/Adonal developer) . but you can use gas mask if huge ventilation system is not possible. not a big deal really. the real danger is if you swallow it or get it to your eyes, especially the concentrate

[Aapo Lettinen]

of course if you add some stuff to used fixing solution which captures --->releases the bromide ions in some gaseous form then it's another issue

[connor denning]

Stock is actually one of the cheaper things because you can get expired stock on ebay. The problem is processing and as I've mentioned before, how are people going to watch it? You can't project color negative and you clearly are looking for low-cost solutions for things, so you can't make a telecine machine yourself out of a projector without making a print first, which is costly in of itself.

 

Just trying to figure out your game plan.

I can't actually stock on ebay for a good price, I just one or two over pierced stocks mixed with a bunch of crappy old movies (mostly 50s public service announcements. I'm I doing something wrong or is there a place that sells it cheaply or dose a dip test? I'm not going to spend 500$ on film that might not work at all, none the less badly.

 

http://www.ebay.com/sch/16mm-Film-Stocks/63821/bn_230176/i.html

Edited April 6, 2016 by connor denning

[Tyler Purcell]

It comes and goes so fast, if you don't catch it, you won't find it. There hasn't been much on there for months tho.

[connor denning]

It comes and goes so fast, if you don't catch it, you won't find it. There hasn't been much on there for months tho.

I know there websites that specialize in, but are the trustworthy/reasonably priced? I've herd of studios selling old stocks and short ends, how would I find the ones that do short of calling each of the? anyone bought from a studio before.

[connor denning]

Also I need to be films of different iso's and color balances. If there's only one stock available at a time on ebay then it's not a viable. I find it somewhat hard to believe that those of you who do low budget stuff with film pay full price from Kodak. witch is why I'd make my own film, I'd be cheaper in the long run.

Edited April 6, 2016 by connor denning

[Tyler Purcell]

You wouldn't be able to use studio's left over film because nobody really shoots on 16mm for big movies. So that kinda scratches that idea right off the top.

 

Short end dealers will sell you re-canned film for less then retail, sometimes a lot less if it's out of date. When you learn more about film stock color balance and ISO, you can make a judgement call on what stocks you want.

 

Making your own color motion picture film that has the consistency of mass produced motion picture film is impossible. It's also impossible to process color motion picture film at home with the consistency of mass production. So the mere idea of "making your own stock" is kind of irrelevant, because you can't. Now if you don't mind wavy lines all over your image and density/exposure changes constantly, then you can experiment all you want. I'm just saying, you don't quite understand the science behind any of this yet.

[connor denning]

You wouldn't be able to use studio's left over film because nobody really shoots on 16mm for big movies. So that kinda scratches that idea right off the top.

 

Short end dealers will sell you re-canned film for less then retail, sometimes a lot less if it's out of date. When you learn more about film stock color balance and ISO, you can make a judgement call on what stocks you want.

 

Making your own color motion picture film that has the consistency of mass produced motion picture film is impossible. It's also impossible to process color motion picture film at home with the consistency of mass production. So the mere idea of "making your own stock" is kind of irrelevant, because you can't. Now if you don't mind wavy lines all over your image and density/exposure changes constantly, then you can experiment all you want. I'm just saying, you don't quite understand the science behind any of this yet.

the hurt locker shoot on 16mm, some smaller studios still do.