Jump to content


Photo

Schindler's List


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Jon Petro

Jon Petro
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Film Loader

Posted 02 October 2007 - 06:56 PM

Anyone know the specs on Schindler's List. I believe the AC Article would be from '93 so I can't get it online.

I am assuming the interiors were 5222, and the exteriors were 5231. Although I thought I read somewhere that the whole thing was shot on 5222.

I think the grain looks fantastic, but what really gets me are the blacks. I don't think I have ever seen such deep blacks. Was this film pushed a stop or two throughout? Or is that the nature of the stocks? I have seen some recent black and white films like Good Night and Good Luck and there seems to be a ton more gray. I do believe this was shot on Color Negative though, so that might explain it.

If anyone knows how Janus shot this I would appreciate being filled in. I tried searching the forum with no luck.

Thanks,

Jon Pivko
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 02 October 2007 - 09:49 PM

Yes, Plus-X and Double-X were used. I think the blacks are mainly due to his contrasty lighting and the fact that he went for a dense negative with hot highlights and dark shadows. Anyway, if you are trying to judge based on the DVD, black levels are a function of the video transfer and what level you want to make the blacks.

What's nice about b&w stocks is that they respond well to pushing; they get a little grainier and more contrasty as you push them but they look good still. But I don't think Kaminski did a lot of pushing (mainly because in the old AC article, he was complaining about how much light he needed to use).
  • 0

#3 Jon Petro

Jon Petro
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Film Loader

Posted 02 October 2007 - 10:23 PM

Yes, Plus-X and Double-X were used. I think the blacks are mainly due to his contrasty lighting and the fact that he went for a dense negative with hot highlights and dark shadows. Anyway, if you are trying to judge based on the DVD, black levels are a function of the video transfer and what level you want to make the blacks.

What's nice about b&w stocks is that they respond well to pushing; they get a little grainier and more contrasty as you push them but they look good still. But I don't think Kaminski did a lot of pushing (mainly because in the old AC article, he was complaining about how much light he needed to use).


Thanks for the info. I did a forum search for 5222 instead of Schindler's List and there was a ton of info about it, so my bad.


I never saw this film in theaters as I was only 9 when it was released. I am curious about the grain on a big screen. I feel like Black and White is a great format for indie films that can't afford to worry about color temperature, however if you have to use twice the amount of light I suppose it throws that theory out the window. And from a business perspective I would just imagine it is harder to sell an indie on black and white than color simply because so many movie-goers scoff at black and white. I used to until I was about 14 unfortunately. It's like the equivalent if a foreign film to some people in my opinion.

David, do you think pushing a color stock will make it look more contrasty later when converted to black and white? Or should the "crushing" be done in a DI? What do you thin would be the best way to shoot color and achieve the look of Schindler's List?

Thanks,

Jon Pivko
  • 0

#4 Zamir Merali

Zamir Merali
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Director

Posted 02 October 2007 - 10:27 PM

One question I've always had about Schindler's List is what kind of film this picture was printed on. It was obviously shot on black and white film and I'm assuming it was printed on black and white film because its hard to print black and white on a colour film without getting a colour cast. How did they have the one sequence with the red girl then if it was printed on black and white?
  • 0

#5 Saul Pincus

Saul Pincus
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 114 posts
  • Director

Posted 03 October 2007 - 12:08 AM

One question I've always had about Schindler's List is what kind of film this picture was printed on. It was obviously shot on black and white film and I'm assuming it was printed on black and white film because its hard to print black and white on a colour film without getting a colour cast. How did they have the one sequence with the red girl then if it was printed on black and white?

Any section or individual shot featuring a color image (the red girl, or the framing sequences in color) was hand-spliced into each release print. Except for this, Schindler's List was printed on genuine black and white stock.
  • 0

#6 Jon Petro

Jon Petro
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Film Loader

Posted 03 October 2007 - 06:42 AM

Any section or individual shot featuring a color image (the red girl, or the framing sequences in color) was hand-spliced into each release print. Except for this, Schindler's List was printed on genuine black and white stock.



Haha, wow. My goal would be to get to a place in life where I can say, hand-splice this into a few thousand release prints pronto, thank you.

I wonder how many films recently have done anything like that.
  • 0

#7 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 03 October 2007 - 10:45 AM

Haha, wow. My goal would be to get to a place in life where I can say, hand-splice this into a few thousand release prints pronto, thank you.

I wonder how many films recently have done anything like that.


"Rumblefish" did that for the colorful fish. Also, Kurosawa's "High & Low", which had a pink cloud of smoke rise up when a briefcase is burned that the police marked.

The release prints can come apart around the splice, plus there is a focus shift.

You can increase the contrast of a color neg stock a little by pushing; otherwise, most would either add the contrast digitally ("Good Night & Good Luck", "The Good German", etc.) or by copying the color neg onto a higher contrast b&w element (some prints of "The Man Who Wasn't There" were printed from color neg onto high-con b&w soundtrack stock.)

There is also now a high-contrast Fuji neg, Vivid 160T.
  • 0

#8 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2422 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 03 October 2007 - 11:40 AM

Surely sound stock is negative-working- or did they go to interpos first?
  • 0

#9 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 03 October 2007 - 01:18 PM

Surely sound stock is negative-working- or did they go to interpos first?


Interpositive stock is a "negative" stock, print stock is a "negative" stock -- all stocks are... except for "reversal" stocks. A negative of a negative is a positive. Interpositive and internegative is the same stock. If you make a negative of a negative, you get a positive. And if you make a negative of that positive, you get another negative.
  • 0

#10 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 October 2007 - 04:27 PM

(some prints of "The Man Who Wasn't There" were printed from color neg onto high-con b&w soundtrack stock.)

We used that one for my last film. Amazing contrast, unfortunately it is much more expensive than regular stock and only comes in 1000 foot rolls.
  • 0

#11 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2422 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 04 October 2007 - 05:16 AM

Interpositive stock is a "negative" stock, print stock is a "negative" stock -- all stocks are... except for "reversal" stocks. A negative of a negative is a positive. Interpositive and internegative is the same stock. If you make a negative of a negative, you get a positive. And if you make a negative of that positive, you get another negative.


I'm aware of that which is why I chose my terms carefully. Perhaps 'negative-working' is an unfamiliar term to you.
I'll rephrase the question.
Presumably the scene printed on sound stock had to go to interpos first, then to be printed again to yield a neg for the neg cut.
  • 0

#12 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 04 October 2007 - 09:54 PM

I'm aware of that which is why I chose my terms carefully. Perhaps 'negative-working' is an unfamiliar term to you.
I'll rephrase the question.
Presumably the scene printed on sound stock had to go to interpos first, then to be printed again to yield a neg for the neg cut.


No, it was used as a print stock for making direct contact prints from the original color neg.

Other release prints were on color print stock with a b&w image, so one of the dupe intermediate steps was b&w.
  • 0

#13 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2422 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 05 October 2007 - 10:54 AM

I've just taken the unusual step of reading your post properly.
Sorry, for some reason I got 'some PARTS' rather than some PRINTS into my brain. Your explanation is perfectly clear.
I do know my printing pathways but my reading needs some work. Thanks for your patience.
PS Can't wait for series 2 of 'Big Love' to cross the pond.
  • 0


FJS International, LLC

Opal

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

CineLab

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Opal

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

CineTape

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly