Jump to content


Photo

20 year old 16mm filmstock


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Daniel Carruthers

Daniel Carruthers
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Canada

Posted 23 December 2007 - 12:51 PM

Hi
Im looking into shooting some 20 year old 16mm 320asa film stock.
And Ive seen some tests heres a link.Visit My Website
I did not shoot this, but from what Ive been told the blacks are quite milky, though its hard to judge anything on youtube but from what I see is grain from a dirty mag, or is all that from the old filmstock which is falling apart??also it looks really foggy especially in the cuts, which I assume its not edited but from starting and stopping the camera, why would the image do that?? Do all stocks do that regarless of the age, or is it because the stock is old and foggy and what Im seeing is the beginning of a shot not fully exposed at the tails of each shot ??
Also any tips on acheiving the best image possible with a 16mm stock that is this old? I was thinking of overexposing it by 1 stop in order to get past the foggy level and would that help the black from being less milky?
any other tips, or should I just embrace the crappyness of this stock and even push it and underexpose it to get a crap image almost like 8mm?
I might get this stock for free and I dont have a subject matter yet to shoot, so I dont yet have any goals yet to achieve a certain look, so good or bad is not an issue yet?

Dan
  • 0

#2 Mike Lary

Mike Lary
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Other

Posted 23 December 2007 - 01:48 PM

A snip test would give you an idea what you're dealing with. A lab can cut a small piece off the roll and test it to see how far gone it is. Otherwise, you have absolutely no idea what effect overexposing by a stop or two would accomplish, let alone whether or not the film is even usable.
  • 0

#3 Daniel Carruthers

Daniel Carruthers
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Canada

Posted 23 December 2007 - 01:52 PM

A snip test would give you an idea what you're dealing with. A lab can cut a small piece off the roll and test it to see how far gone it is. Otherwise, you have absolutely no idea what effect overexposing by a stop or two would accomplish, let alone whether or not the film is even usable.


But the stock has been tested. but I know its not done the way I was thinking of shooting it
  • 0

#4 Mike Lary

Mike Lary
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Other

Posted 23 December 2007 - 08:04 PM

But the stock has been tested. but I know its not done the way I was thinking of shooting it

Has the stock been tested by a lab?
  • 0

#5 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 December 2007 - 09:11 PM

If you haven't tested it, do a test yourself. Get a densitometry-test result chart back from the lab and compare it with modern stock charts. Then adjust as necessary.

Otherwise hope for the best and shoot away . . . You will have a lot of grain, as good finer grain-structure 320T stock is only being around for less than 10 years.

Some people write down every step of the shooting/ lab procedures in any case. This, to be able to replicate and/ or adjust settings should they feel necessary to repeat, analyze, compare the end results.

Last year I tried 10 year old 320T. I shot it low contrast, low light, key was t4 on my lens. Then pulled the film 1 stop in the lab and, contrary to expectations, it exploded the grain and ruined most of the detail on the darker mid-tones areas of the image. Blacks were bleak and the only parts that remained well defined were the lighter mid-tones.

I would shoot it late afternoon exterior, sun-lit interior (not dusk) daylight with filtration to compensate, based on my previous results. Or if you have big lights, shoot night/ lower lit indoors. I would stay away from low lit, shadowy, deep contrast situations, and or pushing/ pulling lab processing.

Good luck.
  • 0

#6 Daniel Carruthers

Daniel Carruthers
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Canada

Posted 24 December 2007 - 12:54 AM

no I guess it wasnt tested by the lab? maybe I'll look into that.
  • 0


Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Opal

Tai Audio

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Glidecam

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab