Jump to content


Photo

What are some "cheap" things film makers could do to lighten your day


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Charles MacDonald

Charles MacDonald
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1157 posts
  • Other
  • Stittsville Ontario Canada

Posted 28 January 2007 - 09:42 PM

Their was a thread on 16mm Group proposing that a film manufacturer start making an expensive free-be to get folks more interested in using film, which got me wondering if their are actually things that folks wish for and have not thought about.

To give an idea of the sort of little thing I am thinking off, since the cans were marked EKC Safety film, Kodak 16mm 400Ft cans have been big enough to take a 16mm Projector reel. Not a big thing, but I was surprised that the Fuji 400 ft 16mm Square can would not, even though it is big enough for a 400ft camera spool. In other words it needs to be a silly millimeter (or 4) Bigger. It is too bad, as the square shape would sit on a bookshelf rather then needing special racks.

Kodak also uses a coating in their cans now that is puposed to avoid the metal contributing to Vinigar syndrome. I belive they are the only one.

One idea that came to me is for the film makers to add a little colour to the cores in the film, this would probaly cost next to nothing - (they used to be yellow way back when) and even if the colour was the same for an entire batch, the labs would be returning film on various colour cores and so editing or classifing rolls would be easier. (you could know that the next scene was all on the green cores, while the location stuff was on Blue cores.

Kodak does colour code the tape they seal the cans with so there is a precident..

Anyway, what other minor changes would make your day better?
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 28 January 2007 - 10:47 PM

My requests are more major than that. They are:

1. Make a slower-speed companion to low-con Expression 500T for day exterior work. Maybe 100D so that it's different from the other color neg stocks, or maybe 200T. Or 100T.

2. Make a negative stock that looks like a slide film (saturated and high-contrast), for people not doing a D.I. who want that look. If there will only be one, make it medium speed (maybe 250T.)

3. Make a 1000T stock. It would take the steam out of the "HD needs less light" arguments and help avoid using HD for super low-light work and trying to mix it with film.

4. Sell Vision 2383 and Vision Premier 2393 print stock at the same price so filmmakers won't have to argue with distributors all the time over the print stock to be used for the release.

5. Package your 50D and 100T neg stocks for Super-8 work.

6. Get rid of the old 64T Ektachrome being used now for Super-8 and replace it with a modern E6 stock that is 40T (so that it exposes correctly in Super-8 cameras) and looks more like Kodachrome K40 or Ekatchrome 100D 7285. I'm sure the 35mm slide film market would shoot it too.
  • 0

#3 Patrick McGowan

Patrick McGowan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 173 posts
  • P.A.
  • Brooklyn, NY

Posted 28 January 2007 - 11:07 PM

Why did Kodak stop making 320T? Did they? I'm sure this has been asked before, but I haven't found an answer.
  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 28 January 2007 - 11:54 PM

Why did Kodak stop making 320T? Did they? I'm sure this has been asked before, but I haven't found an answer.


Do you mean Vision 320T color negative or Ektachrome 320T slide film (because I think they still make that)?

Vision 320T was a lower-contrast color negative film. Once Kodak improved the grain of the lower-contrast Expression 500T stock (5284 was replaced by 5229), there didn't seem much reason to make 320T when 500T 5229 was faster yet just as fine-grained (if not finer-grained) and sharper to boot, yet had the same lower-contrast look with soft colors.

I did some nice work on 320T but had to rate it at 200 ASA just to get an image on the big screen with decent blacks and tight grain. Now I can get the same quality with 5229 rated at 320 ASA.

It's similar to the reason that Kodak got rid of 800T -- people were getting better results (less grain) pushing 500T 5218 by one stop.
  • 0

#5 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 29 January 2007 - 12:32 AM

2. Make a negative stock that looks like a slide film (saturated and high-contrast), for people not doing a D.I. who want that look. If there will only be one, make it medium speed (maybe 250T.)


I hope there would be two, one slower and *really* fine grained for those of us who may be ("may" that's optimistic !) might be using it in S16...

(all the others are good ideas too...)

-Sam Wells
  • 0

#6 Brian Pritchard

Brian Pritchard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 328 posts
  • Other
  • Stoke-on-Trent, UK

Posted 29 January 2007 - 03:37 AM

One idea that came to me is for the film makers to add a little colour to the cores in the film, this would probaly cost next to nothing - (they used to be yellow way back when) and even if the colour was the same for an entire batch, the labs would be returning film on various colour cores and so editing or classifing rolls would be easier. (you could know that the next scene was all on the green cores, while the location stuff was on Blue cores.


Coloured cores were used for many years but it was found that some of the coloured ones contributed to decomposition, both Nitrate and Vinegar Syndrome. There were some grey Ilford cores which actually decomposed themselves. I believe that the white cores used now, certainly by Kodak, are regarded as inert. Most film archives use only the white archival cores throwing away the coloured ones.

Brian
  • 0

#7 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 29 January 2007 - 06:12 AM

This just happened to me: Video to be shot in candlelit light, just barely augmented to get the "real" feel of the lights actually doing the lighting. S-16. Wanted to avoid the 500T from Kodak, but still go with Kodak.

Doesn't leave me with much option.

Next one down is the 200T, which was just a bit too slow for this. Kodak - bring back a Vision2 320T or a 400T, or we're forced to go to Fuji for those shoots.
  • 0

#8 Charles MacDonald

Charles MacDonald
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1157 posts
  • Other
  • Stittsville Ontario Canada

Posted 03 February 2007 - 12:27 AM

3. Make a 1000T stock. It would take the steam out of the "HD needs less light" arguments and help avoid using HD for super low-light work and trying to mix it with film.
....
6. Get rid of the old 64T Ektachrome being used now for Super-8 and replace it with a modern E6 stock that is 40T (so that it exposes correctly in Super-8 cameras) and looks more like Kodachrome K40 or Ekatchrome 100D 7285. I'm sure the 35mm slide film market would shoot it too.


3. I remember using some EKTAPRESS 1600 still film some years back, it was both nice ond strange to be shooting hand held stills on the sidewalk downtown at night. (using steetlight and light from signs and windows) I wonder how much work would be involved to make a 2000T ecn stock?

Remember when the 250 and 400 Movie stocks came out and TV shows like Hill Street blues used then to make a real "gritty" / "natural" look, with "office style" lighting rather then the overlit stage look of earlier TV shows.

If a super speed stock - which one would expect to be no more gariny than the EKTAPRESS - Wre available , what sort of style might it inspire?

6. Again a bit more money would have ot be spent The 64T was picked as it is already in production and the idea was they could just send a master roll out of the warehouse to the shop that packages super 8. It arrenetly was not that simple, but having a true 40T stock would make it posible to bring a lot of supper 8 cameras back from bottom drawers. They have had a one-two punch as Plus-x is now rated at 100, where they probaly could deal with 50. Only a very few Super 8 units, ever expected to get film at other than 40 or 160, and so many (including some nice fancy ones) are are lost with the currently available Super 8 stock.
  • 0

#9 Matthew Buick

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

Posted 07 February 2007 - 06:21 PM

Get rid of the old 64T Ektachrome being used now for Super-8 and replace it with a modern E6 stock that is 40T (so that it exposes correctly in Super-8 cameras) and looks more like Kodachrome K40 or Ekatchrome 100D 7285. I'm sure the 35mm slide film market would shoot it too.


I totally agree.

What was Kodak thinknig when they decided to replace 40 with 64? Many lovely cameras are now unusable, if Kodak really wanted to maintain this incredible format they'd chose to replace K40 with a DECENT film, one that ALL cameras can meter.

If that godawful E64 isn't gone, or a quality alternative offered within 24 months I'm defecting to Fuji.

I encourage you to do the same, Kodak may finally take notice.
  • 0

#10 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11934 posts
  • Other

Posted 07 February 2007 - 06:50 PM

Hi,

Charge more reasonable rates. Simple as that.

Phil
  • 0

#11 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 07 February 2007 - 07:06 PM

Not hire ink jerkers to run their company, and let said ink jerkers make decisions about legacy parts of the business that are the foundation upon which said business was built, for one.

Hi,

Charge more reasonable rates. Simple as that.

Phil


Phil, processing costs for ECN-2 film typically cost about 1/6 as what still photographers get charged for essentially the same thing. Raw stock costs are 1/2 what they are for still photographers as well. Moviemakers get new stocks 2-3 times every ten years. Still photographers often wait seven or eight, for the same improvements. Need I go on? The price of silver has tripled in the past few years, and petrochemicals, thanks in part to me and millions of others like me that burn large amounts of fossil fuel needlessly in this country every day, have enjoyed similar increases in price, due to humanity's expenditure of millions of years worth of stored chemical energy in mere decades.

Kodak also continues to make "charity products" like E6 film, Super 8 film, B&W film (especially reversal), and they even kept the likes of Video News Film around more than two decades after the Video News Market abandoned this namesake product. K64 continues to be made, I don't know why, despite a huge drop in the consumption of all slide films, let alone any K-14 products.

They continue to produce niche products like double perf 16mm stocks, and 70mm film so that bass-ackward folks like me can continue to shoot their high-tech film with decidely low-tech, ancient contraptinons, many of which are older than their operators by a good margin.

Feel free to disagree, just my tuppence.
  • 0

#12 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11934 posts
  • Other

Posted 07 February 2007 - 08:16 PM

Hi,

Yeah but they're still too expensive. It's plastic, which is still cheap, coated (very carefully) with chemicals containing absolutely minute amounts of silver.

The source of the expense is because it's manufactured in a place and manner which encourages it, and because they can get away with it.

The source of the expense in the UK is because they can get away with it, and probably don't particularly notice or care about markets outside the US.

I bet it doesn't cost this much in Bombay.

Phil
  • 0

#13 Charles MacDonald

Charles MacDonald
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1157 posts
  • Other
  • Stittsville Ontario Canada

Posted 07 February 2007 - 08:25 PM

Charge more reasonable rates. Simple as that.

You want them to increse prices by 50%.. that is about the difference between Movie and Still Film.
  • 0

#14 GeorgeSelinsky

GeorgeSelinsky
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 718 posts

Posted 07 February 2007 - 09:04 PM

Hi,

Yeah but they're still too expensive. It's plastic, which is still cheap, coated (very carefully) with chemicals containing absolutely minute amounts of silver.

The source of the expense is because it's manufactured in a place and manner which encourages it, and because they can get away with it.

The source of the expense in the UK is because they can get away with it, and probably don't particularly notice or care about markets outside the US.

I bet it doesn't cost this much in Bombay.

Phil


I think film more than any time in history is getting a run for its money these days. I mean, with HD coming in so strong it's really becoming a problem. Labs are starting to lower prices, short ends are selling for less. cameras also. Now's probably a better time than ever to be shooting 35.

I own a 35mm camera that delivers images that are better than those HDTV cameras that would be within my budgetary reach (granted, I've got old glass on mine but even that's better imho). If I sprung for the latest HDTV camera right now, two years later I'd already be getting nervous and wanting to upgrade. I have a video camera that I got which cost 2 grand back in 1997 and is now worthless. My Arri cost me 5 g's, it's 3 decades old, and I'm going to keep using it whenever I can unless I have a project with a big shooting ratio.

- G.

Edited by GeorgeSelinsky, 07 February 2007 - 09:06 PM.

  • 0


Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

The Slider

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Opal

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Opal

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider