Jump to content


Photo

About B+W


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Alex Corn

Alex Corn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • NYC

Posted 06 July 2006 - 10:02 PM

Hi,
I am shooting a feature in about a month and a half, and I have a question about shooting black and white. We are going for a clean look with very little grain. My question is this: how is the grain structure of 7222 (200T/250D) compared to 7217 (200T)? Is there a huge difference? I only ask becuase I have heard that color negative is less sharp becuase when developed all that remains are the dye couplers, where as with straight black and white negative the halide crystals themselves remain. I am assuming that the newer 7217, being vision2, has a better (read: finer) grain structure than the older double-x, but I could be mistaken. Is there a big difference, or should I just stick with shooting the B+W?

Thanks, Alex
  • 0

#2 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 06 July 2006 - 10:27 PM

Hi,
I am shooting a feature in about a month and a half, and I have a question about shooting black and white. We are going for a clean look with very little grain. My question is this: how is the grain structure of 7222 (200T/250D) compared to 7217 (200T)? Is there a huge difference? I only ask becuase I have heard that color negative is less sharp becuase when developed all that remains are the dye couplers, where as with straight black and white negative the halide crystals themselves remain. I am assuming that the newer 7217, being vision2, has a better (read: finer) grain structure than the older double-x, but I could be mistaken. Is there a big difference, or should I just stick with shooting the B+W?

Thanks, Alex



Yes, the 7217 is much finer grained than 7222, which is rather grainy, especially with 16mm. If your lighting package is adequate enough, you may want to consider 7231. The finer grained cousin to 22 is much slower of a stock but has great latitude and will render a beautiful black and white image. Shoot some tests to see what works for you.

chris
  • 0

#3 Alex Corn

Alex Corn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • NYC

Posted 06 July 2006 - 10:34 PM

Yes, the 7217 is much finer grained than 7222, which is rather grainy, especially with 16mm. If your lighting package is adequate enough, you may want to consider 7231. The finer grained cousin to 22 is much slower of a stock but has great latitude and will render a beautiful black and white image. Shoot some tests to see what works for you.

chris



Thanks for the reply. I'm shooting test with the '31 and '22 this saturday, but my lighting package is not that big and I really dont want to make my life too difficult, so I was considering throwing some color neg into the mix. I probably will at this point. Is there any truth to the notion that color neg is less sharp than B+W neg, all else being equal?
  • 0

#4 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 06 July 2006 - 11:24 PM

Thanks for the reply. I'm shooting test with the '31 and '22 this saturday, but my lighting package is not that big and I really dont want to make my life too difficult, so I was considering throwing some color neg into the mix. I probably will at this point. Is there any truth to the notion that color neg is less sharp than B+W neg, all else being equal?



I am not so sure. As a blanket statement saying all color neg is less sharp than b&w?? Many people shoot color negative and desaturate it in post, I really like the look of true b&w and don't mind the grain. Some say that over exposing by a half to two thirds a stop helps with a "too grainy" image. But that is what testing is for. Try pushing the 31 one stop and see if that is exceptable. I have often thought of doing this, but have not got around to it. Please post back with your results.

chris
  • 0

#5 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 07 July 2006 - 12:08 PM

Is there any truth to the notion that color neg is less sharp than B+W neg, all else being equal?


---Until 30 or 40 years ago, yes. Since then there have been major developments in color film, but not much in B/W cine stocks. Today's DXN isn't much different than the original c. 1960 version.

B/W reversal is sharper than than B/W negative. TXR has a snappier, cleaner grain than DXN.

---LV
  • 0

#6 Paul M. Sommers

Paul M. Sommers
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 09 July 2006 - 09:22 PM

Control is an issue. If you shoot b/w, that's all they get. Everyone makes the commitment and no one can change their mind. I always feel that the more you keep it in camera the better.

Test the 7266 Tri-x reversal stock. It is crazy beautiful. the contrast range is perfect. I shot a 1940's episode and was so pleased with the results. I only wish it was made in 35mm.

Paul M. Sommers
  • 0

#7 Alex Corn

Alex Corn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • NYC

Posted 12 July 2006 - 11:14 AM

So I just got the tests back today, and the results are interesting. First I shot the 7222 and 7231 overexposed about 2/3 a stop so I could bring down the levels and therefore the grain in transfer, and that worked well. The '31 looked great, a little contrasy, but good for what I want to achieve on this project. The 7222 is just too grainy for what I want, which is dissapointing. The second round had me shooting the '22 and '31 again, but underexposing a stop and pushing a stop in the lab. These were both too grainy to use, which is what I figured, but it was worth a shot. The final round was 7217 overexposed 2/3 a stop, and this was amazing. The grain was almost non-existant, I was very impressed. For 16mm, it looked great. So the choice now is whether the extra cost if the '17 will outweigh the need for extra lights with the '31. Decisions decisions....
  • 0

#8 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 12 July 2006 - 11:23 AM

So I just got the tests back today, and the results are interesting. First I shot the 7222 and 7231 overexposed about 2/3 a stop so I could bring down the levels and therefore the grain in transfer, and that worked well. The '31 looked great, a little contrasy, but good for what I want to achieve on this project. The 7222 is just too grainy for what I want, which is dissapointing. The second round had me shooting the '22 and '31 again, but underexposing a stop and pushing a stop in the lab. These were both too grainy to use, which is what I figured, but it was worth a shot. The final round was 7217 overexposed 2/3 a stop, and this was amazing. The grain was almost non-existant, I was very impressed. For 16mm, it looked great. So the choice now is whether the extra cost if the '17 will outweigh the need for extra lights with the '31. Decisions decisions....


Your results are as expected. If you want the "gritty" grain look of silver-image B&W negative, shoot 7222. 7231 has finer grain. 7217, 7212, or 7201 should be very fine grain and sharp, with very "smooth" texture. Faster color negative films will have more graininess, but of the "smooth" variety.
  • 0


Opal

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

The Slider

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Tai Audio

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Opal

FJS International, LLC