Jump to content


Photo

Reversal film


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 John Adolfi

John Adolfi
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 342 posts
  • Producer
  • Fulton, N.Y.

Posted 09 August 2006 - 03:53 PM

So Kodak has only one reversal film for sale? 100D? Are you guys getting anything else from elsewhere?
Reversal that is.
  • 0

#2 Bryan Darling

Bryan Darling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Director
  • Sacramento, CA

Posted 09 August 2006 - 04:16 PM

Depends on what gauge your talking about.
  • 0

#3 Dan Horstman

Dan Horstman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 94 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Washington, DC

Posted 09 August 2006 - 05:13 PM

I would suggest keeping an eye on ebay.

I've scored a lot of reversal film there for really cheap...and it has all turned out ok (I cross process it...haven't run any of it VNF)
  • 0

#4 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 09 August 2006 - 06:16 PM

Does all modern 16mm reversal look like old Outdoor stuff from BBC Dramas and stuff.
  • 0

#5 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 09 August 2006 - 06:22 PM

Does all modern 16mm reversal look like old Outdoor stuff from BBC Dramas and stuff.


The only 16mm color reversal stock now for sale is Ektachrome 100D (7285), which is a modern E6 slide film, very sharp, super-saturated, fine-grain, and high in contrast.
  • 0

#6 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 09 August 2006 - 08:16 PM

Thanks, David.
  • 0

#7 John Adolfi

John Adolfi
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 342 posts
  • Producer
  • Fulton, N.Y.

Posted 10 August 2006 - 02:56 PM

David, If you were going to shoot home movies what format would you use and why?
  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 10 August 2006 - 03:03 PM

David, If you were going to shoot home movies what format would you use and why?


If by "home movies" you mean stuff on vacation and of my dog playing in the yard... I'd get a DV camera.

But if you mean "small personal short films", I don't know. I'd probably consider one of the prosumer 24P HD cameras now. I've spent enough time in telecine bays to know how much of a financial burden that part of filmmaking is...

Either that or bite the bullet and get a 35mm Arri-2C that I can use for silent stuff and B-roll work on my features.
  • 0

#9 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 10 August 2006 - 03:13 PM

Er, David. I've been looking at my budget for film and Telecine for 16mm and stuff, and I've been thinking, the costs are ludicrous, do you think I should use Video instead of 16mm, I don't really want to, but I may have no choice.
  • 0

#10 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 10 August 2006 - 03:22 PM

Er, David. I've been looking at my budget for film and Telecine for 16mm and stuff, and I've been thinking, the costs are ludicrous, do you think I should use Video instead of 16mm, I don't really want to, but I may have no choice.


If you can afford 16mm film, do it -- it can look fantastic. But if you can't, you can't. I don't want to have to save up money everytime I want to use the camera I already own, you know what I mean? But I don't have the same amount of discretionary income that some other people here have (i.e. I have a wife.)

Super-8 is also a nice format and some savings in stock can help pay for telecine work.
  • 0

#11 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 10 August 2006 - 03:32 PM

Thanks very much, do you know whether Super 8 Vision can supply the same crisp, fresh look as 16mm Vision.
  • 0

#12 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 10 August 2006 - 03:37 PM

Thanks very much, do you know whether Super 8 Vision can supply the same crisp, fresh look as 16mm Vision.


It's a smaller negative and therefore softer and grainier than a bigger negative format. Simple law of photography -- real estate matters.

However, there are certainly ways of getting the best out of the format. When I used to shoot Super-8 regularly back in the 1980's, I showed some of my stuff at local festivals and some people thought it was 16mm. But it meant using mostly Plus-X b&w reversal, which is very slow, sharp, and fine-grained. And the fact that it was a b&w image meant that your eye didn't compare it as closely to 35mm color negative photography.

You know, at some point you just have to shoot, on anything. Don't try and start out making stuff you think you can sell to the market as professional work; you HAVE to pass through a period of experimentation and testing just to get all of your mistakes out of the way. There's no real reason to be so obsessed over the picture quality at this stage in your life. It doesn't have to be perfect; you just need to be able to shoot, shoot, shoot at this point.
  • 0

#13 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5069 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 10 August 2006 - 03:57 PM

Does all modern 16mm reversal look like old Outdoor stuff from BBC Dramas and stuff.


The film inserts on BBC dramas used to be shot on neg.

The reversal was used on news and current affairs, lower budget documentaries and the location inserts on the "magazine" programmes that are now shot on video.
  • 0

#14 David W Scott

David W Scott
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 132 posts
  • Director
  • Toronto

Posted 10 August 2006 - 04:06 PM

It's a smaller negative and therefore softer and grainier than a bigger negative format. Simple law of photography -- real estate matters.

However, there are certainly ways of getting the best out of the format. When I used to shoot Super-8 regularly back in the 1980's, I showed some of my stuff at local festivals and some people thought it was 16mm. But it meant using mostly Plus-X b&w reversal, which is very slow, sharp, and fine-grained. And the fact that it was a b&w image meant that your eye didn't compare it as closely to 35mm color negative photography.

You know, at some point you just have to shoot, on anything. Don't try and start out making stuff you think you can sell to the market as professional work; you HAVE to pass through a period of experimentation and testing just to get all of your mistakes out of the way. There's no real reason to be so obsessed over the picture quality at this stage in your life. It doesn't have to be perfect; you just need to be able to shoot, shoot, shoot at this point.



I don't mean to cut in to your conversation here, but there's a lot of wisdom in what David says.

I like your enthusiasm -- if that's all that mattered, I suspect you'd be shooting 65mm just to learn. But there are more economical ways to get to the same place.

If you have to pay your own way to learn cinematography, allow me to suggest the following multi-pronged approach.

- Learn 35mm by shooting stills with a cheap manual 35mm SLR and a simple incident light meter. Shoot slides (reversal) so that you have no safety net. If your exposure is off, there's no autolab printing machine that will correct for you. You can learn to work with the depth of field and focal lengths that you will be using in 35mm cinematography. (I know the frame sizes are slightly different.)

- Learn motion picture film by shooting Super 8 with a good all-manual camera. Splurge and spend $100-$200 to get a camera with multiple frame rates, time lapse, etc. A good Super 8 camera offers features that are VERY expensive on 16mm cameras. Spend a few bucks more to get a decent projector, and then shoot reversal film. By projecting your own work, you can learn fast and save on telecine costs. If you've got something really good, then splurge and get a cheap RANK transfer at an indie-friendly place like CineLab.

- Learn to shoot actors and sync sound with a cheap DV camera. Go fully manual -- apply the techniques you learned from 35mm and Super 8.

I didn't pull these ideas out of the air -- film schools often take this approach.

Once you've mastered these skills, and have a script that you DESPERATELY WANT TO MAKE, you'll be able to find some 16mm or 35mm gear for long enough to get your film made. If you are serious, have a plan, and have learned how to pull it off, people will back you. From Kodak on down the line.
  • 0

#15 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 10 August 2006 - 04:27 PM

Thanks, David, I'll probably buy a Nikon R10 or Canon 1014XLS and shoot everyone I find, an' I ain't taking no prisoners.
  • 0

#16 Richardson Leao

Richardson Leao
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 363 posts
  • Other
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 11 August 2006 - 12:06 AM

I have started recentely with 16mm and believe me, it does not need to be expensive. You can get short ends very cheap: www.drrawstock.com and also, if you do the processing of the film by yourself (i have a rewind and a spiral tank and the spiral produces much nicer results without the pain of rewinding it), the costs become really low. I first started with super 8 (using a Nizo 560 that costed 5 euros on ebay). Great camera w time lapse, different fps. Then I bought a K3, also with single frame and different fps. I did an intervalometer for it using an electromechanical solenoid and now I am in love with my Kinor 16. Short ends as I mentioned are cheap and they are the way to go if your budget is limited. Also, check Orwo BW films (www.dakan.dk). It costs ~70E for 120m. Great results.
  • 0

#17 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 11 August 2006 - 11:55 AM

Sweet, thanks.

:D :D :D :D :D
  • 0

#18 Tim Carroll

Tim Carroll
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2165 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 11 August 2006 - 12:17 PM

I have started recentely with 16mm and believe me, it does not need to be expensive. You can get short ends very cheap: www.drrawstock.com and also, if you do the processing of the film by yourself (i have a rewind and a spiral tank and the spiral produces much nicer results without the pain of rewinding it), the costs become really low. I first started with super 8 (using a Nizo 560 that costed 5 euros on ebay). Great camera w time lapse, different fps. Then I bought a K3, also with single frame and different fps. I did an intervalometer for it using an electromechanical solenoid and now I am in love with my Kinor 16. Short ends as I mentioned are cheap and they are the way to go if your budget is limited. Also, check Orwo BW films (www.dakan.dk). It costs ~70E for 120m. Great results.


What spiral tank do you have and where did you acquire it?

Thanks,
-Tim
  • 0

#19 Jack Honeycutt

Jack Honeycutt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 August 2006 - 07:21 PM

So Kodak has only one reversal film for sale? 100D? Are you guys getting anything else from elsewhere?
Reversal that is.

While 100D does not look like K40, it is still a lovely stock.

Last time I bought some from Kodak, they sold it on 400 spools (not 100 ft). I made four, 100 ft rolls of it. Very handy.
  • 0

#20 Richardson Leao

Richardson Leao
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 363 posts
  • Other
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 14 August 2006 - 01:14 AM

It's a LOMO tank that takes 15m. and I bought it in ebay. I know Olexandr (http://www.geocities.../russiancamera/) used to have some smaller one for sale.

What spiral tank do you have and where did you acquire it?

Thanks,
-Tim



By the way, ORWO BW films (as FOMA BW), are actually negatives but they CAN be processed in 'reversal'. I tryed myself and they end up great.


I have started recentely with 16mm and believe me, it does not need to be expensive. You can get short ends very cheap: www.drrawstock.com and also, if you do the processing of the film by yourself (i have a rewind and a spiral tank and the spiral produces much nicer results without the pain of rewinding it), the costs become really low. I first started with super 8 (using a Nizo 560 that costed 5 euros on ebay). Great camera w time lapse, different fps. Then I bought a K3, also with single frame and different fps. I did an intervalometer for it using an electromechanical solenoid and now I am in love with my Kinor 16. Short ends as I mentioned are cheap and they are the way to go if your budget is limited. Also, check Orwo BW films (www.dakan.dk). It costs ~70E for 120m. Great results.


  • 0


Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

CineLab

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC