Two questions about motion picture film re: daylight/tungsten & basic "old-time" film

[Brook K]

This is the first of MANY posts I am probably going to do, on this and also on other filmmaking website. I have a huge (very SPECIFIC dream) of an independent motion picture I want to make, and have all these ideas knocking around in my head, and am overwhelmed and unsure where to begin. These forums would appear to be my only savior in making sense of all of this and getting advice I can use on my Film Adventure! :)

 

Therefore, the first two of the many questions are these:

 

1) I have noticed in many older films (1980's and prior) white artificial lights will have a bluish hue to them, including headlights, when in the dark or low light situations. I love that effect and want to achieve that on my film. I have heard something to the effect of that you can get that effect if you use tungsten film as opposed to daylight (something about the emulsion color balance, I would assume). So, is that necessarily the case, and if not, what do I do to achieve that effect? (WITHOUT using a CTB)

 

2) I am not going to be using any special effects at all. My film will be straight-up, 100% film sent through the camera and then processed. I want my film to have a specific hue, graininess, and even color balance that was common in films from the 80's, and more of an extent in the 1970's and 60's. Below I will include a link to a clip of a 1975 movie that shows a close representation of the look I want. The question therefore, is what brand/type/speed (and any other specific data) of film do I use to get that look? If that is even possible.

 

 

Thanks so much for all of your help and answers! I feel intimidated by all of the talented cinematographers with all their experience, but at the same time count myself lucky as I can avail myself of it! :)

Edited April 10, 2017 by Brook K

[Aapo Lettinen]

the current film stocks don't have the look of the 70's at all, they have been updated every 4 or 5 years or so and now that Fuji is no longer manufacturing stock, you are pretty much limited to Kodak I'm afraid unless wanting to experiment with certain reversal stocks which are still available.

The Vision stocks have a very "modern" look but maybe you could get something interesting by shooting and processing them to maximum graininess and then making a timed and special processed print and scanning the print. that way you would have much more control over the final look without needing to use DI for other than small tuning. the look would be easier to archive with DI though but with the printing step it's quite possible I guess even when you are limited to only one or two negative stocks you could use...

 

Are you shooting in 35mm or 16mm?

[Brook K]

the current film stocks don't have the look of the 70's at all, they have been updated every 4 or 5 years or so and now that Fuji is no longer manufacturing stock, you are pretty much limited to Kodak I'm afraid unless wanting to experiment with certain reversal stocks which are still available.

The Vision stocks have a very "modern" look but maybe you could get something interesting by shooting and processing them to maximum graininess and then making a timed and special processed print and scanning the print. that way you would have much more control over the final look without needing to use DI for other than small tuning. the look would be easier to archive with DI though but with the printing step it's quite possible I guess even when you are limited to only one or two negative stocks you could use...

 

Are you shooting in 35mm or 16mm?

 

Pardon my ignorance but I am still incredibly new (as in, haven't as yet shot a single film!) What is DI?

 

As for what film I was using, my *dream*, to be frank, is using 70mm. But the cost of that will surely raise the cost of making the film exponentially, not even to mention the extra cost there would probably be to get the 70mm print printed onto 35mm reels for showing on the average cinema projector. SO, all that said, I will very likely go with 35mm, since more information can be fit onto a frame of that than 16mm, obviously. and I want THE best quality image, for every single frame.

[Aapo Lettinen]

 

Pardon my ignorance but I am still incredibly new (as in, haven't as yet shot a single film!) What is DI?

 

As for what film I was using, my *dream*, to be frank, is using 70mm. But the cost of that will surely raise the cost of making the film exponentially, not even to mention the extra cost there would probably be to get the 70mm print printed onto 35mm reels for showing on the average cinema projector. SO, all that said, I will very likely go with 35mm, since more information can be fit onto a frame of that than 16mm, obviously. and I want THE best quality image, for every single frame.

 

DI is for Digital Intermediate. I was assuming that you will be doing DCP deliverables for film festivals for not being limited to the ones which can show 35mm prints.

 

I think it can be a bit counter productive to aim for the best techical quality and at the same time try to emulate a old movie style where part of the look is some amount of imperfection, like in total sharpness, grain, color reproduction...

the problem with current negative stocks is that it may be very difficult to get enough grain out of them because they are specifically manufactured for low grain and great technical performance.

That's why I asked if you would like to use super16mm because it is much easier to get the graininess you want that way. A 65mm original would look pretty much grainless in 35 prints so that might not be the best choice for this project.

 

with 16mm negative you need to blow it up to 35mm for prints and need to use fresh stock instead of short ends: this may cost more in total than using 2-perf 35mm. but if grain is what you want the I would say the S16 format could be better for this project. if you don't have any experience with film it would be best to edit the movie in digital I think and then cut the negative according to video and make 35mm prints out of that. I recommend getting a great cinematographer for the project who has lots of film experience, especially with photochemical finishing

[Brook K]

 

DI is for Digital Intermediate. I was assuming that you will be doing DCP deliverables for film festivals for not being limited to the ones which can show 35mm prints.

 

I think it can be a bit counter productive to aim for the best techical quality and at the same time try to emulate a old movie style where part of the look is some amount of imperfection, like in total sharpness, grain, color reproduction...

the problem with current negative stocks is that it may be very difficult to get enough grain out of them because they are specifically manufactured for low grain and great technical performance.

That's why I asked if you would like to use super16mm because it is much easier to get the graininess you want that way. A 65mm original would look pretty much grainless in 35 prints so that might not be the best choice for this project.

 

with 16mm negative you need to blow it up to 35mm for prints and need to use fresh stock instead of short ends: this may cost more in total than using 2-perf 35mm. but if grain is what you want the I would say the S16 format could be better for this project. if you don't have any experience with film it would be best to edit the movie in digital I think and then cut the negative according to video and make 35mm prints out of that. I recommend getting a great cinematographer for the project who has lots of film experience, especially with photochemical finishing

 

Well, I'm torn because I want graininess but not too much. Probably the average graininess from any of todays' normal films would do. Film with grain will ALWAYS look more beautiful than a digital recording with noise (trying to replicate the grain!)

 

As for the S16, I will definitely look into it.

 

As for the editing movie in digital, how would I go about that? Would I scan the print in somehow into digital form and then edit it in a program like Premiere Pro? I'm gathering no one does old time editing and splicing machines with film anymore!! although I'd wanted to, to see what it was like!!

 

And YES I definitely wanted to get an ULTRA talented cinemtographer! As well as a magazine loader who knows what he's doing. EVERYTHING associated with the film stock and camera I have to do totally right, because not only does the look of the movie depend on it but also the movie itself, since if the stock gets screwed up then that's a lot of money wasted.

 

As for the developing, I am a photographer and have had experience with developing rolls of still photography film. I presume the process is just the same with a reel of motion picture film. Only I'd have to be absolutely errorless with it!

[Stuart Brereton]

 

DI is for Digital Intermediate. I was assuming that you will be doing DCP deliverables for film festivals for not being limited to the ones which can show 35mm prints.

 

A DI is the wrong term when referring to DCP deliverables, as it means a Digital Intermediate step between Film origination and delivery. You are referring to Digital color correction.

[Aapo Lettinen]

 

Well, I'm torn because I want graininess but not too much. Probably the average graininess from any of todays' normal films would do. Film with grain will ALWAYS look more beautiful than a digital recording with noise (trying to replicate the grain!)

 

As for the S16, I will definitely look into it.

 

As for the editing movie in digital, how would I go about that? Would I scan the print in somehow into digital form and then edit it in a program like Premiere Pro? I'm gathering no one does old time editing and splicing machines with film anymore!! although I'd wanted to, to see what it was like!!

 

And YES I definitely wanted to get an ULTRA talented cinemtographer! As well as a magazine loader who knows what he's doing. EVERYTHING associated with the film stock and camera I have to do totally right, because not only does the look of the movie depend on it but also the movie itself, since if the stock gets screwed up then that's a lot of money wasted.

 

As for the developing, I am a photographer and have had experience with developing rolls of still photography film. I presume the process is just the same with a reel of motion picture film. Only I'd have to be absolutely errorless with it!

 

you really want to work with a professional film lab when shooting motion picture film. it is both more economical (when shooting color film) and saves you a lot of work. if you want to develop 35mm cine film you would basically need at least a 400ft developing tank (may need to be custom made) OR continuous processor similar to a small film lab (very challenging to do and you don't have much time to shoot the actual film when building and fine tuning the film processor all the time :wacko:

 

for editing, you would have a preview video of the negative made with Keycode number showing, then edit that preview and when finished, let a negative cutter to cut the movie together from the original negatives using the reference video and keykode numbers. you would send the exposed negative to the lab and ask for telecine with keykode info burned to the video and then edit the video preview with any available video editor, like the Premiere Pro you suggested.

 

if you DON'T want old time style graininess you could as well use 35mm. depending on your camera and film suppliers and lab deals it may be practical to use either 2-perf camera or 4-perf camera, you need to negotiate this with all the three of them to make sure you get the best cost effectiveness. are you shooting 2.39 or 2.35 ratio or taller? if taller than 2.35 it might be most practical to just use 4-perf camera to get a good camera deal and save on lab costs (easier and cheaper to print than 2-perf) if the film stock is affordable enough per roll

Edited April 10, 2017 by aapo lettinen

[Brook K]

 

you really want to work with a professional film lab when shooting motion picture film. it is both more economical (when shooting color film) and saves you a lot of work. if you want to develop 35mm cine film you would basically need at least a 400ft developing tank (may need to be custom made) OR continuous processor similar to a small film lab (very challenging to do and you don't have much time to shoot the actual film when building and fine tuning the film processor all the time :wacko:

 

for editing, you would have a preview video of the negative made with Keycode number showing, then edit that preview and when finished, let a negative cutter to cut the movie together from the original negatives using the reference video and keykode numbers. you would send the exposed negative to the lab and ask for telecine with keykode info burned to the video and then edit the video preview with any available video editor, like the Premiere Pro you suggested.

 

if you DON'T want old time style graininess you could as well use 35mm. depending on your camera and film suppliers and lab deals it may be practical to use either 2-perf camera or 4-perf camera, you need to negotiate this with all the three of them to make sure you get the best cost effectiveness. are you shooting 2.39 or 2.35 ratio or taller? if taller than 2.35 it might be most practical to just use 4-perf camera to get a good camera deal and save on lab costs (easier and cheaper to print than 2-perf) if the film stock is affordable enough per roll

 

Thanks for clarifying about the developing of the film. Yeah I had originally figured that a lab was the only realistic and feasible way to go, and what you said cemented that in my mind! :)

 

Thanks so much for explaining that little editing process to me. I want to do as much of the editing myself as I can, or at least be involved in the process almost constantly, as I have a specific vision of how I want it to look.

 

Thanks for letting me know also about the 35mm and about it being most practical to use the 4 perf film. (Which as far as I know is the standard for 35mm film and has been for years, so to me it's a natural choice).

 

As for the aspect ratio, I'm still not completely sure what it is or how it will affect me (or how I can MAKE it affect me) in regards to making the film. I know that it will affect how my the film looks when displayed/projected, depending on what device or screen it is projected onto. But I don't know much more about it than that.

[Aapo Lettinen]

You're welcome ^_^

if you need tips and tricks for photochemical finishing for specified look, there is very knowledgeable people here who can help. you can try the "Film Stocks and Processing" section.

I personally finish all the film originated material digitally but others can help with how to create or mimic a certain look entirely on film.

 

if you edit on video, it is easiest to get the sound made according to the video and then let the lab make the optical soundtrack out of the audio file.

remember to edit at 24.00fps to maintain audio sync ;)

it also helps a lot if you get the telecine in intra codec (like prores hq) format and edit directly from that and also send the reference video to the negative cutter in intra codec so that the video reference is frame accurate. otherwise you may run into audio sync problems when making the prints and have to recut the audio to correct for differences in the negative cut VS video reference :ph34r: so it is wise to use intra codec for that, NOT h264 or anything which does not have accurate frames.

 

the aspect ratio comes into play when you want to make taller aspect ratio than the film format allows. if not using academy width 4-perf aspect ratios you need to optically print it anyway so there is not much extra work from the aspect ratio difference compared to using the "native" aspect ratio of the 2perf or 3perf format. (though the printing itself may drive the costs upwards so much that it would be cheaper to shoot on 4-perf instead of, say, 3-perf or 2-perf if your shooting ratio is low. that's why you need to calculate the costs carefully for each option: for digital finishing the 2-perf is practically always much cheaper to use than 4-perf but for photochemical finishing it kinda depends. it is much easier to obtain a affordable 4-perf camera (renting, purchasing) than a 2-perf camera and the printing costs may be more than the price difference between 4perf and 2perf if your shooting ratio is 1:3 for example)

 

It is fully possible, for example, to make 1.37 aspect ratio movie with 2-perf camera but then you need to mask the sides and enlarge the image a lot to fit it to 1.37 4-perf release print. if shooting, however, for 2.35 aspect ratio, you can use the full (academy) width of the 2-perf negative and approximately the full height. then when it's printed for release print it does not need to be enlarged optically and the graininess will be the same than when shooting academy width 2.35 aspect ratio with a 4-perf camera. with 2perf you will have gate hair more often at they always affect the final image though, when shooting for example 2.35 with a 4perf camera you will probably never see any hair in the picture area even if the gate is full of them B)

Edited April 10, 2017 by aapo lettinen

[David Mullen ASC]

There are three reasons for a blue-ish edge or glow around lights back then in the 1970's. One is that many old lenses back then had some chromatic aberration (CA) problems and a blue fringe around hot areas like lights was one artifact. Second, many of the low-contrast and fog filters popular back then had a blue-ish bias to the glow that they created. Third, streets were lit with mercury vapor streetlamps back then, which rendered as blue-green on tungsten film at night. Also Cool White fluorescents render blue-green on tungsten-balanced stocks.

[David Mullen ASC]

Example of blue CA fringing around a bright edge in "Help!" (probably Cooke Speed Panchros):

 

Example from "Superman" of blue glow from Harrison Fog Filters, plus blue from Cool While fluorescents and mercury vapor streetlamps (but headlamps are tungsten):

 

Even ordinary light bulbs have a blue glow because of the fog filters:

 

I should add that "Superman" was shot on Panavision anamorphic lenses, which also create a blue horizontal flare around bright lights. But most of the blue glow you see here is from the Harrison Fog Filters.

[Brook K]

Example of blue CA fringing around a bright edge in "Help!" (probably Cooke Speed Panchros):

 

Example from "Superman" of blue glow from Harrison Fog Filters, plus blue from Cool While fluorescents and mercury vapor streetlamps (but headlamps are tungsten):

 

Even ordinary light bulbs have a blue glow because of the fog filters:

 

I should add that "Superman" was shot on Panavision anamorphic lenses, which also create a blue horizontal flare around bright lights. But most of the blue glow you see here is from the Harrison Fog Filters.

 

EXACTLY the look I was referring to! Looks like fog filters are the way to go to achieve that effect then. I always thought it was ONLY from using tungsten film but now I know there is more to it. :)

 

Thanks David!

[David Mullen ASC]

Low Cons from that era also have a blue cast around halation, just less than fogs. The newer (early 2000's) Tiffen Smoque filter also has a bit of blue in its halation.

[Brook K]

Low Cons from that era also have a blue cast around halation, just less than fogs. The newer (early 2000's) Tiffen Smoque filter also has a bit of blue in its halation.

 

Pardon my ignorance as I am new, but what are Low Cons and what is halation? LOL

[David Mullen ASC]

Low Contrast filters are similar to Fog filters, both are "mist" filters that have some sort of particulates in the glass that scatter light around a bright area into the dark areas. They also act to soften the sharpness and lower the contrast.

 

The lowest tech version is to just breathe on a window pane and then quickly look through the glass, you see a foggy image.

 

There are many variations of this approach because some people want more sharpness out of the image, or they want the contrast lowered more (by lifting the shadows and blacks) without as much fogginess, they want a more even haze or veil over the image.

 

"Halation" is just another word for the misty glow around a bright thing in the frame.

 

The old Low Con filters look very similar to Fog filters but the image is a bit less foggy looking around lights. There was a Harrison and Harrison filter called a Double Fog (used on "McCabe and Mrs. Miller" but an extremely light version was used for "E.T.") which is not twice as foggy as a Fog but is actually a combination of a Low Con and a Fog.

 

Most of "Barry Lyndon" was shot with a Tiffen #3 Low Con filter.

 

"Superman: The Movie" was shot on a Harrison and Harrison #2 Fog filter. Today that would be considered rather heavy, I'd look for a #1/8 Tiffen Fog today, maybe #1/4 at the heaviest, or see if you can find an old #1/2 Fog from Harrison and Harrison (they went out of business years ago and Hank Harrison just passed away last month.) Or an old Double Fog in those strengths (#1/8 to #1/2).

 

In the 1980s, Tiffen developed a type of Low Con that didn't cause any glowing around lights, it just created an even haze that lifted the shadows. They call them Ultra Cons.

[Brook K]

Low Contrast filters are similar to Fog filters, both are "mist" filters that have some sort of particulates in the glass that scatter light around a bright area into the dark areas. They also act to soften the sharpness and lower the contrast.

 

The lowest tech version is to just breathe on a window pane and then quickly look through the glass, you see a foggy image.

 

There are many variations of this approach because some people want more sharpness out of the image, or they want the contrast lowered more (by lifting the shadows and blacks) without as much fogginess, they want a more even haze or veil over the image.

 

"Halation" is just another word for the misty glow around a bright thing in the frame.

 

The old Low Con filters look very similar to Fog filters but the image is a bit less foggy looking around lights. There was a Harrison and Harrison filter called a Double Fog (used on "McCabe and Mrs. Miller" but an extremely light version was used for "E.T.") which is not twice as foggy as a Fog but is actually a combination of a Low Con and a Fog.

 

Most of "Barry Lyndon" was shot with a Tiffen #3 Low Con filter.

 

"Superman: The Movie" was shot on a Harrison and Harrison #2 Fog filter. Today that would be considered rather heavy, I'd look for a #1/8 Tiffen Fog today, maybe #1/4 at the heaviest, or see if you can find an old #1/2 Fog from Harrison and Harrison (they went out of business years ago and Hank Harrison just passed away last month.) Or an old Double Fog in those strengths (#1/8 to #1/2).

 

In the 1980s, Tiffen developed a type of Low Con that didn't cause any glowing around lights, it just created an even haze that lifted the shadows. They call them Ultra Cons.

 

Gotcha! Wonderful! Thanks so much David. Another of many things I will want to check into! :)

[Satsuki Murashige]

The other part of the look you refer to in the 'Three Days of the Condor' clip is also lighting. Both actors are in cool shade and lit by either a diffused reflector or artificial light source. I'm going to guess it's a diffused tungsten unit with multiple PAR dichroic globes like a FAY light, as they were commonly used in New York at the time. The dichroic coating on the globes (bulbs) partially corrected the warm tungsten to daylight color, but not all the way which results in the warm color that you see on the key lights. So there is a color balance mis-match between foreground and background which is intentionally being exploited, which you likely would not get if you just relied on natural light.

 

I think if you were trying to reproduce this look today, one method would be to either use an HMI (5600K daylight) with 1/2 CTO gel on it, or if you have sun nearby bounce with a warm reflector like an Ultrabounce/Gold lamé checkerboard on a frame.

 

Also, note the use of long focal lengths to compress the background and to throw it out of focus. Something I've noticed in 70s and 80s films is the use of aggressive hard mattes in the matte box to block lens flares, but which can also create square or rectangular bokeh on long lens shots. When combined with anamorphic lenses, I think this look is rather reminiscent of that time.

[Brook K]

The other part of the look you refer to in the 'Three Days of the Condor' clip is also lighting. Both actors are in cool shade and lit by either a diffused reflector or artificial light source. I'm going to guess it's a diffused tungsten unit with multiple PAR dichroic globes like a FAY light, as they were commonly used in New York at the time. The dichroic coating on the globes (bulbs) partially corrected the warm tungsten to daylight color, but not all the way which results in the warm color that you see on the key lights. So there is a color balance mis-match between foreground and background which is intentionally being exploited, which you likely would not get if you just relied on natural light.

 

I think if you were trying to reproduce this look today, one method would be to either use an HMI (5600K daylight) with 1/2 CTO gel on it, or if you have sun nearby bounce with a warm reflector like an Ultrabounce/Gold lamé checkerboard on a frame.

 

Also, note the use of long focal lengths to compress the background and to throw it out of focus. Something I've noticed in 70s and 80s films is the use of aggressive hard mattes in the matte box to block lens flares, but which can also create square or rectangular bokeh on long lens shots. When combined with anamorphic lenses, I think this look is rather reminiscent of that time.

 

Thank goodness I've been through photography school and know all the lingo and know what you were saying about lighting! :) I LOVED location class, since everything we learned was stuff that could be used in a film set (for the most part). But yeah I got everything you said. I don't think I'd like using an anamorphic, as I've looked them up and don't like the "tall and squishy" look they give to the images.