Buying 16mm film

[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Short end dealers will sell you re-canned film for less then retail, sometimes a lot less if it's out of date.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.

I'm not shooting in color.

[Tyler Purcell]

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

Any left over film is either sold on ebay or sold to one of the very few buyers of re-canned stock. I gave you the information earlier on how to reach those guys (http://www.reelgoodfilm.com/) They usually charge between .15 - .25/ft for re-canned 16mm stock. Kodak charges .32/ft for NEW stock. So you do save SOME money buying re-canned. However, usually the re-can's are short ends, which are less then 400ft in most cases. Not so bad for someone breaking them down into 100ft loads.

 

Since there isn't as much 16 being used today on bigger shows, the deals of yesteryear just don't exist anymore. I look high and low for film and when I find good deals I bounce on them.

[Tyler Purcell]

I'm not shooting in color.

That's new... we've been talking about color all this time.

 

If you're shooting in B&W reversal (positive image), life is a tiny bit easier.

 

The only problem is, finding B&W reversal stock at a short-end shop like reel good film, is hard. The good news is B&W film lasts A LOT longer then color. So finding film on ebay, as long as it's been stored properly and is less then 10 years old, it should work fine. I shot two short films with 20+ year old reversal an they came out fine.

[David Mullen ASC]

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.

 

 

Did you just say you were going to make your own film stock???

[connor denning]

Any left over film is either sold on ebay or sold to one of the very few buyers of re-canned stock. I gave you the information earlier on how to reach those guys (http://www.reelgoodfilm.com/) They usually charge between .15 - .25/ft for re-canned 16mm stock. Kodak charges .32/ft for NEW stock. So you do save SOME money buying re-canned. However, usually the re-can's are short ends, which are less then 400ft in most cases. Not so bad for someone breaking them down into 100ft loads.

 

Since there isn't as much 16 being used today on bigger shows, the deals of yesteryear just don't exist anymore. I look high and low for film and when I find good deals I bounce on them.

oh I didn't see that (reelgood film)

[connor denning]

 

 

Did you just say you were going to make your own film stock???

I'm going to try if I can.

[Bill DiPietra]

I find it somewhat hard to believe that those of you who do low budget stuff with film pay full price from Kodak.

 

As a matter of fact, many of us do.

 

I'm going to try if I can.

 

Are you delusional?...

[connor denning]

how much is super 8 a foot. and don't I just have to do this to develop the film.

 

[Tyler Purcell]

Yea, but ALL OF THE FILM NEEDS TO TOUCH THE CHEMICALS AT ONCE!!!

 

When you watch these video's and see film sticking out of the containers, you're seeing film that will look different then the pieces still in the container.

 

Super 8 is a lot cheaper then 16mm but it's still expensive.

 

Visit http://www.pro8mm.com/ for more on pricing and such.

[connor denning]

 

As a matter of fact, many of us do.

 

 

Are you delusional?...

 

I'm most certainly am delusional. But I'm not doing this by myself, I have at least two other people who I will be working with in makeing it, and I'm going to learn how to develop. I'm never going to make color, unless I had the money to do the R&D (I never will). But black and white can't be too hard, at least relatively(I'm sure it will be hard), but if I can get 16mm quaily out 35mm, I can live with it. And I have a friend who made a clean room before, and is going to do it again at his new house anyway. If I made thisI think i'd be fine.

 

http://www.retrothing.com/2006/09/make_your_own_p.html

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dark_orange/sets/72157603226919391/

 

make that machine get the chemistry right, and then make film, or am I missing something.

[connor denning]

Yea, but ALL OF THE FILM NEEDS TO TOUCH THE CHEMICALS AT ONCE!!!

 

When you watch these video's and see film sticking out of the containers, you're seeing film that will look different then the pieces still in the container.

 

Super 8 is a lot cheaper then 16mm but it's still expensive.

 

Visit http://www.pro8mm.com/ for more on pricing and such.

"Yea, but ALL OF THE FILM NEEDS TO TOUCH THE CHEMICALS AT ONCE!!"

I know, I'd fix that one way or an other. get a developing tank (for movie film). or is that not enough?

Edited April 6, 2016 by connor denning

[David Mullen ASC]

Connor, it would be useful if you took a few months off to do some research on how film is made, processed, etc. and then came back with your questions. The fact that you are contemplating making your own movie film stock clearly shows me that you don't know much about how film stock is made, the tolerances for even application of a photosensitive emulsion that has to be a consistent height of micro-millimeters for hundreds and thousands of feet, all done in complete darkness, all done in hyper clean-room conditions, and for color emulsions, many times over in layers. I mean, there is expensive machinery built to do this if you want to invest all that money.

 

Think back to the days when people made their own still camera negatives using glass plates and the wet collodion process, and now imagine doing that for a flexible clear base for millions of frames.

 

Not impossible but sort of pointless if the point is to be a filmmaker, not a maker of film stock. In the past, we've had independent filmmakers on this forum who felt the need to own their own processors, printers, scanners, etc. and they spent several years trying to "get ready" to make their own movie by wasting their time setting all of this up. They never actually got around to making a movie.

 

There is the whole issue of economies of scale. You have to invest in a lot of equipment to make a lot of product so that the per unit costs start to drop, so the notion that it will be cheaper to make and process your own movie film is somehow saying that you've found a way to break the laws of economics and get around the economies of scale. It would be like saying that paying $3 per gallon at the pump is too expensive so you are going to drill your own oil wells and process your own crude oil into gasoline just to save on filling up your car.

 

Now perhaps there is some sort of compromise here where you make and process some homemade stock crudely for a sort of experimental approach, it's not unheard of (search the project "Lumiere and Company") I'm just not sure you want to invest in that sort of time and money, and I'm not sure in the long run you are going to save any money compared to just hunting eBay for cheap short ends. "Lumiere and Company", which created rolls of 35mm b&w stock using the original Lumiere formula, had a 2 million dollar budget.

[connor denning]

if it ends up being experimental thats fine by me.

[Bill DiPietra]

If I made thisI think i'd be fine.

 

http://www.retrothing.com/2006/09/make_your_own_p.html

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dark_orange/sets/72157603226919391/

 

make that machine get the chemistry right, and then make film, or am I missing something.

 

Yes - reality. You need a plant to create film stock from scratch - not a room (as well as the real estate, financing, resources, and manpower to run it.)

 

Here's the thing: initially, you were asking about low-priced 16mm cameras, then you were talking about building a drive motor for one, then you were going to be building a Steadicam and now you want to create your own film stock. But you keep asking the most basic questions. You keep upping the bet before you even look at your cards, which makes it clear that you have absolutely no idea just how much is involved with most of the ideas you've proposed.

 

You say you can't afford a film history book, but somehow you have it in your head that you're going to create your own film stock???...

[Aapo Lettinen]

I shoot mostly 35mm short ends, recans and clearance film because it is readily available for good prices and the quality difference is very small because of the larger film format. especially 50D is very easy to get and cheap because large budget productions use it but indie films rarely do anything with it so it just piles up at the stock broker's inventory. the 5219 is extremely difficult to get in short end /recan or even clearance so I have to buy it new most of the time.

 

16mm film I actually usually buy fresh because I shoot lots of regular 16mm cropped to 16:9 so those old Fuji clearance stocks are usually too grainy. b/w I also usually buy new or clearance because it is very rarely shot by any kind of professional productions in any format so you are just very lucky if you can get a short end of those

[Aapo Lettinen]

if stock price is a big issue you can just shoot super8, it is much cheaper per minute that you can buy new film and concentrate on making a good movie. as the processing/telecine/scanning is usually more expensive than the raw stock anyway. if you'd like to concentrate on the chemistry and diy machining instead that's also fine but it will take so much time and money from your filmmaking that the end product suffers quite much and may delay for years as others said

[Tyler Purcell]

I know, I'd fix that one way or an other. get a developing tank (for movie film). or is that not enough?

Well, even with the proper tank, it's still not perfect, not all areas are covered at once. You'd have make something that doesn't exist on the market today. Plus, the developing process is only half the story. The other part is the drying process, which is where things can get tricky on motion picture film because there is so much of it.

[Aapo Lettinen]

with spiral tank you can cover it all at once with the before mentioned method of using separate open bucket for the chemical in a darkroom and submerging the spiral quickly to the bucket, shaking the air bubbles off the film at the same time. you have to do this in complete darkness and with proper safety gear like goggles+face shield+clothing+gloves+ventilation etc.

Splashing may seriously damage your eyes and the chemicals may absorb through skin also (even if not they seriously irritate skin and depending on the chemical may cause dermatitis/sensitisation/allergy or with the more dangerous stuff you may also get poisoning from the skin contact) so not a fun job to do in total darkness.

 

Coffenol is one of the least hazardous developers for film, it smells awful and the shelf life is very short (oxidises very quickly) but creates beautiful images

Edited April 6, 2016 by aapo lettinen

[connor denning]

 

Yes - reality. You need a plant to create film stock from scratch - not a room (as well as the real estate, financing, resources, and manpower to run it.)

 

Here's the thing: initially, you were asking about low-priced 16mm cameras, then you were talking about building a drive motor for one, then you were going to be building a Steadicam and now you want to create your own film stock. But you keep asking the most basic questions. You keep upping the bet before you even look at your cards, which makes it clear that you have absolutely no idea just how much is involved with most of the ideas you've proposed.

 

You say you can't afford a film history book, but somehow you have it in your head that you're going to create your own film stock???...

I did make a steady cam.

[Brian Drysdale]

Making a steadicam is a lot easier than making your own film stock. All this sounds like an engineering exercise, rather than a film making one, unless the subject is about the hands on mechanics of every stage, rather than something else.

[connor denning]

if stock price is a big issue you can just shoot super8, it is much cheaper per minute that you can buy new film and concentrate on making a good movie. as the processing/telecine/scanning is usually more expensive than the raw stock anyway. if you'd like to concentrate on the chemistry and diy machining instead that's also fine but it will take so much time and money from your filmmaking that the end product suffers quite much and may delay for years as others said

the project that I want to shoot on film I won't likely start for 2 years weather or not I shoot it film or not. for the next 2 years on working on a few shorter projects, witch will be done digitally and I may or may not shoot a few parts of it on film as practice, and also focusing on one or two engineering projects unrelated to film, but I may not if I can't figure out one issue.

[connor denning]

Making a steadicam is a lot easier than making your own film stock. All this sounds like an engineering exercise, rather than a film making one, unless the subject is about the hands on mechanics of every stage, rather than something else.

"unless the subject is about the hands on mechanics of every stage, rather than something else."

 

I don't follow that last bit.

[Aapo Lettinen]

I recommend starting with a Bolex, Beaulieu or Krasnogorsk 3 and factory sealed 100ft daylight spools. Let a pro lab do the first batches so that you get used to the camera and stock and see how the stock should look like. After that you can start experimenting with developing chemicals if you like, start with b/w negative. I recommend Coffenol for starters, it is easy to obtain and the chemicals are least hazardous I know for film developing (smells like rotten fish / dog poo though :huh: )

just do a small batch at a time because it degrades quickly, you can use the solution only for couple of days, preferably the same day. Store the chemicals in dry form and remember that Vitamin C oxidises easily so protect it from air when possible.

Factory made fixer is a great option, just buy a bottle of the concentrate, it is cheap and lasts for long

[connor denning]

I recommend starting with a Bolex, Beaulieu or Krasnogorsk 3 and factory sealed 100ft daylight spools. Let a pro lab do the first batches so that you get used to the camera and stock and see how the stock should look like. After that you can start experimenting with developing chemicals if you like, start with b/w negative. I recommend Coffenol for starters, it is easy to obtain and the chemicals are least hazardous I know for film developing (smells like rotten fish / dog poo though :huh: )

just do a small batch at a time because it degrades quickly, you can use the solution only for couple of days, preferably the same day. Store the chemicals in dry form and remember that Vitamin C oxidises easily so protect it from air when possible.

Factory made fixer is a great option, just buy a bottle of the concentrate, it is cheap and lasts for long

Exactly what I was looking for, thanks.

Edited April 6, 2016 by connor denning

[Doug Palmer]

Movie-making is a highly complicated exercise even with short movies. Just consider the time it takes to view all those people's names after a cinema showing :)

So for low or no budget movies it makes no sense to spend extra time on something like making film stock which is practically impossible. It's so easy to get carried away on projects in the vain hope of being more independent or whatever. I've done it myself and still do.... making gadgets and so on that save money and do give enormous satisfaction, but film stock is a totally different thing. Far better to find really old stock, if you don't mind the faults with it. I have used Ilford FP3 which must be something like 50 years old ! Lots of fogging but fun. As Tyler I think said, B/W is feasible, and I would think it lasts a lot longer than 10 years if stored OK.