Jump to content
Daniel Stepp

Famous films shot in 16mm?

Recommended Posts

maybe underexpose and you could have *plenty* of grain.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong here but isn't the idea of pushing two stops to compensate for underexposing the film two stops in the first place? They did underexpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Midnight Cowboy" was not shot in 16mm...

 

Not all of these are famous:

 

Texas Chainsaw Massacre (original)

Evil Dead (first one)

John Water's films of the 1970's (like Pink Flamingos)

Ballad of Gregorio Cortez

Ruby in Paradise

Secaucus Seven

Liana

Roger and Me

Go Fish

Monsoon Wedding

Party Girl

Station Agent

Conspiracy

Never Die Alone

Chasing Amy

Magic Flute (Bergman version)

Scenes from a Marriage(?)

Cold Comfort Farm

Enchanted April

Truly, Madly, Deeply

The Snapper

My Beautiful Laundrette

 

many documentaries

Hustle and Flow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong here but isn't the idea of pushing two stops to compensate for underexposing the film two stops in the first place? They did underexpose.

 

Sorry I missed this earlier.

 

If they're pushing two stops just to add grain, then they are underexposing because of the push, not the other way around, right?

 

 

I'm sure if they would have called up Kodak, they could have gotten plenty of expired film. I'd say deliberately underexposing film a stop or a stop and a half would have about the same effect as a two stop push in the opposite direction, albeit without the same contrast.

 

Just seems like a silly way to waste money. If it's an optical blowup, too, why not just crop the S16 negative? You could even get S8 grain if you wanted with this approach, assuming you can find a lab that has an optical printer that is easily adjusted for cropping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they're pushing two stops just to add grain, then they are underexposing because of the push, not the other way around, right?

 

Apples to apples. Those two things go hand in hand. You are basically treating it like a higher speed film.

 

 

 

I'm sure if they would have called up Kodak, they could have gotten plenty of expired film. I'd say deliberately underexposing film a stop or a stop and a half would have about the same effect as a two stop push in the opposite direction, albeit without the same contrast.

 

It doesn't have the same effect. Not at all. I have done A LOT of pushing and pulling in still photography over the years. Underexposure alone leaves you with pools of ugly looking blacks that clip off. Underexpose/push gives you more contrast but there is a nice gradation into the intense blacks that looks good, rather than a sudden, unnatural pool of black nothingness.

 

As for Kodak, I don't know about that. But one important detail would have been they would have lost their neg insurance shooting expired film.

 

 

 

Just seems like a silly way to waste money. If it's an optical blowup, too, why not just crop the S16 negative? You could even get S8 grain if you wanted with this approach, assuming you can find a lab that has an optical printer that is easily adjusted for cropping.

 

It probably didn't cost them more than regular processing. Labs charge extra for push/pull because of the extra batch. If you were doing a whole feature pushed or pulled I doubt there would be an extra charge for it. It's like if I go into a still photo lab: I pay a premium for any kind of special processing when I give them one or two rolls. But if I give them enough film at once to make up an entire batch, then I don't pay a premium.

 

Also, cropping S16? Isn't this apples to apples again. I mean it's the same thing really, reg 16 is just easier in that case. There was probably 1.85:1 ground glass already available for the reg 16 camera. To frame a smaller area out of the S16 frame you would have needed to have custom ground glass made. Now THAT sounds like a waste of money. Why invent a new format essentially when just shooting reg 16 would do the exact same thing without the hassle?

 

 

 

I tried again to find this interview, but unfortunately I read it way back when Tigerland came out, so I'm having trouble finding it. If anyone knows of where to find the interview please let me know. I'm quite sure I'm right about the 2-stop push though. Wish I could find the article for confirmation.

 

But if Matthew Libatique did in fact do a 2-stop push I'm sure it was carefully planned and was not a waste of money. The guy's body of work speaks to the fact that he knows what the heck he is doing when it comes to putting an image on a piece of film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.

 

 

You said they pushed two stops on Regular 16 because S16 at box speed wasn't grainy enough. So it's not "apples to apples" if they are pushing film just to make it grainier. They clearly had the light but proposed pushing film as an aesthetic choice. I assumed this would have gone through a DI (there's almost no point not to with S16 at 2K), so the effect of underexposing wouldn't be the same in an optical blowup situation, but it could be almost identical in appearance with a one stop underexposure and gamma adjustment.

 

So, if they were looking for grain, that's the most expensive way to do it. I've pushed plenty of film too. You only gain highlight speed, not shadow speed with color negative film. So the shadows still fall off to black. There's no detail there.

 

And, I assure you, pushing two stops slows the entire machine down, significantly in this case. Labs will charge you extra for that.

 

 

 

I don't know Matthew Libatique personally, but I know of plenty of productions where Producers, Directors, even DPs say things that are technically completely wrong and silly and wasteful. It happens all the time.

 

Anyway at first glance I thought your post had said they pushed 35 two stops instead of shooting S16. I know that this has been done on TV countless times, and, yes, that is a total waste of money and film. A lot of the effects of a push can be done just as well by adjusting gamma in telecine. You can even get away with not pushing film a stop and just correcting this way. I don't know about two stops, but a lot of the action of pushing is designed more for a photographic duplcation process, not an electronic one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said they pushed two stops on Regular 16 because S16 at box speed wasn't grainy enough. So it's not "apples to apples" if they are pushing film just to make it grainier.

That's not what I said was apples to apples. This is what you said:

 

If they're pushing two stops just to add grain, then they are underexposing because of the push, not the other way around, right?

Pushing because they underexposed or underexposing because they pushed is the same god damn thing!

 

 

 

So, if they were looking for grain, that's the most expensive way to do it.

It simply is not. I guarantee you that doing it in that quantity they didn't pay extra to push. I thought I made it clear in my last post as to why.

 

 

 

I don't know Matthew Libatique personally, but I know of plenty of productions where Producers, Directors, even DPs say things that are technically completely wrong and silly and wasteful. It happens all the time.

Sure. But you seem to think you are smarter than them - you have it all figured out. Maybe it was wasteful and stupid, but I doubt it. I think it was more likely an informed decision by somebody more experienced than yourself.

 

 

 

Anyway at first glance I thought your post had said they pushed 35 two stops instead of shooting S16. I know that this has been done on TV countless times, and, yes, that is a total waste of money and film. A lot of the effects of a push can be done just as well by adjusting gamma in telecine. You can even get away with not pushing film a stop and just correcting this way. I don't know about two stops, but a lot of the action of pushing is designed more for a photographic duplcation process, not an electronic one.

Well then re-read the post, that's not what I said. They pushed regular 16mm 2 stops. It seems every time we have a disagreement it is because you misread my posts and are reacting to things I didn't even say.

 

 

 

I've pushed plenty of film too. You only gain highlight speed, not shadow speed with color negative film. So the shadows still fall off to black. There's no detail there.

I will state it again. Yes, you loose shadow detail. Yes, they fall off to black faster. But it is a more uniform gradient as in a higher contrast image, not a sudden clip like underexposure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what, I am done here, because you don't want to have an intelligent conversation. You want to show off all of your knowledge on film. This isn't a blog man. So you are right, and we are all wrong. Because someone made a big budget movie and wasted a bunch of money, they can't be wrong and it can't be a waste of money is what you are arguing. You know what? A lot of DOPs, directors don't know the first thing about film. They know how to light and make storyboards and that's it, and they will be happy when film is gone.

 

You are clearly very angry, and your personal attacks and picking apart every sentence are making me and several other people angry. Maybe you had better go cool off before you post on here anymore. I've got film to develop...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what, I am done here, because you don't want to have an intelligent conversation. You want to show off all of your knowledge on film. This isn't a blog man. So you are right, and we are all wrong. Because someone made a big budget movie and wasted a bunch of money, they can't be wrong and it can't be a waste of money is what you are arguing. You know what? A lot of DOPs, directors don't know the first thing about film. They know how to light and make storyboards and that's it, and they will be happy when film is gone.

 

You are clearly very angry, and your personal attacks and picking apart every sentence are making me and several other people angry. Maybe you had better go cool off before you post on here anymore. I've got film to develop...

 

I am trying to have an intelligent conversation. You are the one making up things to argue about. You misread what I say, or just plain act like you disagree when you are actually saying the exact same thing I just did.

 

I'm not showing off my knowledge of film. I was relaying info from an article I read that I thought was reliavent to this thread. YOU were the one who butted in with an "I know better than the pros" attitude. I simply tried to present rational arguments and suggestions as to why they may have choosen this method.

 

Yes, some directors and DOPs don't know s**t about film. And those people are already shooting digital. Libatique is a guy who has a track record that show he knows how to use film. The films he has shot speak for themselves. I am not saying he is the greatest cinematographer who ever lived or anything, but he is definitely a guy who knows what he is doing.

 

 

 

I am not angry, just annoyed at your attacks. I have nothing against you personally, but you seem to have something against me. You follow my posts around and seem to be trying to find a way to take up a contradictory opinion wether it makes sense or not. Stop it. It's a waste. As for making other people angry I doubt it. I seem to have angered you for some reason. And I have had a lengthy disagreement with one other person, but I wouldn't assume he is angry at me.

 

And I don't pick apart each of your sentences. I respond to each point you make individually. There is a big difference. I do it for clarity. I figured it was especially helpful in your case because you misread my posts so often.

 

The only one treating this like a blog and trying to show off their knowledge here is you. In this very thread I was simply trying to present some ideas as to why they may have chosen to do what they did on Tigerland. You on the other hand were pontificating about how you know better than a respected working cinematographer and how wrong and stupid he was for doing it the way he did. The only one blogging here is you man. I mean look at that last sentence: "I've got film to develop...". You are just trying to sound like you are an authority. In fact I have film to develop as well but you don't see me bragging about it like it would somehow make me an authority on the subject.

 

 

 

Now can we get this thread back to "films shot on 16mm" rather than "Borowski knows more about film than every DOP in the entire world". Seriously. Cut it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

city of god (cidade de deus) was shot on S16 I believe.

with Aaton XTRprdo and A-minima.

postprod was via a DI I think.

 

CITY OF GOD was shot in both Super 16mm and 35mm:

 

Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)

Super 16 (source format)

Super 35 (source format)

 

Printed film format

35 mm (spherical) (partial blow-up)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add a correction (unless someone here knows that imdb.com is wrong) - they list Truly, Madly, Deeply as being shot on 35mm.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103129/technical

 

 

Matt Pacini

 

 

IMDB is often wrong, they list a film I worked on as shot on HD when it was 35mm. Matt, the Nizo I bought from you way back is still going strong, thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMDB is often wrong, they list a film I worked on as shot on HD when it was 35mm. Matt, the Nizo I bought from you way back is still going strong, thanks again.

 

You can change that film you worked on to 35mm by hitting 'update' on it's tech specs page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't add to the extensive amount of films listed here. Seems to be covered. It might be interesting, also, to know if there were any reasonably well-known films shot with Ultra-16. Anyone know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old topic, but could continue to be updated:

 

"Black Swan" (2010) although I think some of Black Swan was shot digitally, not on film.

"Beasts of the Southern Wild" (2012)

"Moonrise Kingdom" (2012)

"Fruitvale Station" (2013)

“Carol” (2015)

"Certain Women" (2016)

“Jackie” (2016)

"The Old Man and the Gun" (2018)

"Mid-90's" (2018)

 

I'm sure there are others , including feature-length documentaries .

 

I was surprised on the original thread that no one mentioned the famous surfing documentary "The Endless Summer" (1966).

And reaching further into the past , all the Walt Disney "True Life Adventure" nature films were shot on 16mm (blown up to 35mm for distribution) , although many of those were two-reelers such as "Seal Island" , "Bear Country", and others , but "The Living Desert" (1953) , "The Vanishing Prairie" (1954) , and "The African Lion" (1955) were feature length. (a complete list is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True-Life_Adventures ) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off the top of my head

 

Theeb 2014

Suffragette 2015

The Wall 2017

Mother 2018

 

Pav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We shot the first act of "STEVE JOBS" in 16mm.

 

G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hurt Locker.. first 16mm feature to win best film gong... all the Loach /Ackroyd films till The wind that shakes the barley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

London to Brighton

Cube

Adulthood

Koyaanisqatsi

The Constant Gardener (segments)

Primer

Following

Dog Soldiers

Clerks

Chasing Amy

This is England

Vera Drake

Dead Mans Shoes

This is Spinal Tap

Best in Show

Moonrise Kingdom

Beasts of the Southern Wild

The Hurt Locker

Leaving Las Vegas

Slacker

Last King of Scotland (mostly)

 

TV:

Spooks

Nathan Barley

Garth Marengi's Darkplace

Hustle

Top Boy (Anamorphic 1.33X for 2.39)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't Night of the Living Dead shot on 16mm reversal?

Marty

No, you are thinking of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Night of the Living dead was shot on 35mm, and edited on 16mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another one to add to the original , long-ago , list :

 

Metropolitan - directed by Whit Stillman, Cinematographer John Thomas. Super 16 . Arri .

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Just Cinema Gear



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Tai Audio



    CineLab



    Paralinx LLC



    Serious Gear



    Metropolis Post



    Glidecam



    Wooden Camera



    Abel Cine



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    FJS International



    G-Force Grips



    Ritter Battery



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Visual Products


×
×
  • Create New...