Jump to content


Photo

Super 16 black and white stocks


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Andy Brodie

Andy Brodie

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Director

Posted 08 September 2008 - 11:02 PM

First, great forum/resource you have here. Glad to have found it.

Quick question...

Which black and white stocks are best suited for shooting in the Super 16 format?

Is it right that Kodak now only makes single-perf 16mm stocks?

Thanks!
  • 0

#2 Marc Roessler

Marc Roessler
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Other

Posted 09 September 2008 - 02:31 PM

Really any single-perf stock will work for super 16.
For b&w stocks, i suppose you want to shoot negative, so there are two Kodak choices: 7222 and 7231.
More information on Kodaks webpage:
http://motion.kodak....Films/index.htm

Other than that, you may want to try the Orwo stocks.
  • 0

#3 Adam Frisch FSF

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

Posted 09 September 2008 - 03:01 PM

Watch out though as the B/W stocks don't have a rem jet backing. And when you use them with the SR3's all metal and shiny pressure plate, you can get seriously washed out and halated footage in bright environments. Many Aaton's have a striped pressure plate, which is even worse.
  • 0

#4 Serge Teulon

Serge Teulon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London UK

Posted 09 September 2008 - 06:19 PM

Adam is right....you could shoot colour, desaturate and print B&W.
Worked for me.
  • 0

#5 Richard Tuohy

Richard Tuohy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 482 posts
  • Other
  • Daylesford, Australia

Posted 09 September 2008 - 07:11 PM

Watch out though as the B/W stocks don't have a rem jet backing. And when you use them with the SR3's all metal and shiny pressure plate, you can get seriously washed out and halated footage in bright environments. Many Aaton's have a striped pressure plate, which is even worse.


I never thought of this! Must do it some time.
Anyway Adam, looks like the answer depends on the surface of your camera's pressure plate. This is not a super 16 thing for black and white, but rather a camera thing. But yes, you would have to go out of your way to get a double per black and white stock, so any normally acquired bw will be single per (ie., '1R') so will work with super 16. Out of the choice of kodak bw neg, in my opinion, go for 7231 plus-x.
  • 0

#6 Andrew Koch

Andrew Koch
  • Sustaining Members
  • 243 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Burbank, California

Posted 09 September 2008 - 07:27 PM

Which black and white stocks are best suited for shooting in the Super 16 format?

Thanks!


This is a subjective thing. The issue is what look are you going for? 7222 Double-X is extremely grainy and 7231 Plus-X is less grainy, but still quite grainy in S16. If you want a grainy look, one of these might be suitable for your purposes. The other issue is that there is no remjet backing as mentioned before. These stocks have much less dynamic range than the modern color stocks. You get about 6 stops total and then it's pretty much gone. The idea of overexposing and printing down does not apply to these stocks. You need to nail your exposures. The other issue is the speed. Plus-X is 64t/80D and Double-X is 200T/250D. So you are not going to be able to shoot in as low of light as something like the 7218. All of these things can be considered disadvantages and for certain projects they would be. But a lot of these "disadvantages" could give you just the look you are after. I personally love the look of Plus-X. It has that old movie look and I love the halation. You are not going to get the same feel from desaturating color stock. Whats great about shooting on black and white for day exteriors is that you can make use of black and white filters. (Ex: The red 25, to make the faces brighter and the sky darker. Laszlo Kovacs did this brilliantly in "Paper Moon" using Double-X. Of course he was shooting on 35mm so he didn't have the graininess issue)

To be fair, you can achieve similar effects with color stock in post by messing with the different color channels, but this can create noise so make sure you test this out. If any of you guys or gals have done something like this, please let me know how it worked for you as I have only done this with still photography.
  • 0

#7 Hampus Bystrom

Hampus Bystrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 132 posts
  • Student
  • Stocktown

Posted 11 September 2008 - 09:15 AM

Hey, rather than making a new thread I'm just going to ask a similar question.
You have to excuse me, Andy, but any answer I get might help you aswell. So;

I'm going to shoot some super16 b/w, and I'm going for a DI since the festival which I'm applying for
doesn't need a print. I've recieved a few ominous advise about how you should not use reversal
if you are going for a print, but since I'm not, is it okay to use Tri-X reversal for a "serious" film?
I've looked at quite a few samples of both Plus-X neg, Double-X neg, Tri-X reversal and I have to say
that I pretty much prefer the look of Tri-X reversal.
But these samples were low-quality youtube clips and I can't even begin to imagine that they do any justice
at all to the stocks in question.
  • 0

#8 Ira Ratner

Ira Ratner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts
  • Other
  • Coral Springs, Florida

Posted 17 September 2008 - 05:29 AM

Just a guess, but I bet you the actual film will look even GRAINER than as it appears to you on YouTube. (Lower res on YouTube means less detail...and grain is detail which gets lost in the sauce.)

Have you been to any 35mm still camera web sites, where people are more apt to post hi-res images? The thing is, it's been so long since I shot 35mm still, I don't know how the available 35mm still stocks match up to any 16mm equivalents.
  • 0

#9 Nate Downes

Nate Downes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1638 posts
  • Florida, USA

Posted 17 September 2008 - 05:55 AM

Just a guess, but I bet you the actual film will look even GRAINER than as it appears to you on YouTube. (Lower res on YouTube means less detail...and grain is detail which gets lost in the sauce.)

Have you been to any 35mm still camera web sites, where people are more apt to post hi-res images? The thing is, it's been so long since I shot 35mm still, I don't know how the available 35mm still stocks match up to any 16mm equivalents.

Not really, I shoot Tri-X on Super8 and find it less grainy than the 35mm equivelent. They reformulated both Tri-X and Plus-X reversal a few years back, to a dramatic improvement in gain.
  • 0

#10 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1406 posts
  • Other
  • Basel, Switzerland

Posted 16 October 2008 - 04:45 AM

Orwo Universal-Negativ 54, panchromatically sensitised, ISO 100, grey triacetate base
Orwo P 100, panchro., ISO 100, blue polyester base
Orwo Negativ 74 plus, panchro., ISO 400, grey triacetate base
Orwo Leader Film 20, ortho., around ISO 12, colourless triacetate base
Orwo Ton-Film 12 d(igital), ortho., around ISO 12, colourless polyester base, anti-halation undercoat
Eastman-Kodak Plus-X negative 7231, panchro., ISO 80, grey triacetate base
Eastman-Kodak Double-X negative 7222, panchro., ISO 250, grey triacetate base
Kodak Panchromatic Sound Recording Film 2374, around ISO 20, grey polyester base
Eastman EXR (Extended Range) Sound Recording Film 3378E, orthochromatic, around ISO 12, grey polyester base
Eastman High Contrast Panchromatic Film 3369, around ISO 32, grey polyester base
Eastman Fine Grain Duplicating Panchromatic Negative Film 7234, around ISO 32, grey triacetate base
Eastman Fine Grain Duplicating Positive Film 7366, non sensitised, around ISO 10, colourless triacetate base
Eastman High Contrast Positive Film II 7363, ortho., around ISO 15, colourless triacetate base, anti-halation undercoat
Eastman Fine Grain Release Positive Film +302, non sensitised, around ISO 10, colourless triacetate or polyester base
Kodak Plus-X reversal 7265, panchro., ISO 100, grey triacetate base
Kodak Tri-X reversal 7266, panchro., ISO 200, grey triacetate base
Gigabitfilm, 0.068 mm thickness, panchro., ISO 40, colourless polyester base
* Ilford FP 4 plus, panchro., ISO 125, grey triacetate base
* Ilford HP 5 plus, panchro., ISO 400, grey triacetate base
________________________________________________________

* Minimum order quantity: 108 rolls of 100 foot
  • 0

#11 Richard Tuohy

Richard Tuohy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 482 posts
  • Other
  • Daylesford, Australia

Posted 16 October 2008 - 05:28 AM

Orwo Universal-Negativ 54, panchromatically sensitised, ISO 100, grey triacetate base
Orwo P 100, panchro., ISO 100, blue polyester base
Orwo Negativ 74 plus, panchro., ISO 400, grey triacetate base
Orwo Leader Film 20, ortho., around ISO 12, colourless triacetate base
Orwo Ton-Film 12 d(igital), ortho., around ISO 12, colourless polyester base, anti-halation undercoat
Eastman-Kodak Plus-X negative 7231, panchro., ISO 80, grey triacetate base
Eastman-Kodak Double-X negative 7222, panchro., ISO 250, grey triacetate base
Kodak Panchromatic Sound Recording Film 2374, around ISO 20, grey polyester base
Eastman EXR (Extended Range) Sound Recording Film 3378E, orthochromatic, around ISO 12, grey polyester base
Eastman High Contrast Panchromatic Film 3369, around ISO 32, grey polyester base
Eastman Fine Grain Duplicating Panchromatic Negative Film 7234, around ISO 32, grey triacetate base
Eastman Fine Grain Duplicating Positive Film 7366, non sensitised, around ISO 10, colourless triacetate base
Eastman High Contrast Positive Film II 7363, ortho., around ISO 15, colourless triacetate base, anti-halation undercoat
Eastman Fine Grain Release Positive Film +302, non sensitised, around ISO 10, colourless triacetate or polyester base
Kodak Plus-X reversal 7265, panchro., ISO 100, grey triacetate base
Kodak Tri-X reversal 7266, panchro., ISO 200, grey triacetate base
Gigabitfilm, 0.068 mm thickness, panchro., ISO 40, colourless polyester base
* Ilford FP 4 plus, panchro., ISO 125, grey triacetate base
* Ilford HP 5 plus, panchro., ISO 400, grey triacetate base
________________________________________________________

* Minimum order quantity: 108 rolls of 100 foot


Hi simon,
I didn't think gigabit film was available in 16mm...
Also, you list the 7234 as 32 asa. I have often wondered about using this stock as a camera stock. How confident are you that it is as fast as that? Have you ever shot it as a camera stock? I got a price from kodak aus for this stock and it was quite expensive and I needed to buy 2 x 2000' (it was Aus$660 per 2000'). If you have shot it or heard of it being shot, I would be keen to know as I am nervous of investing over $1200 in it, but would if it were worth it.
cheers,
richard
  • 0

#12 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1406 posts
  • Other
  • Basel, Switzerland

Posted 17 October 2008 - 03:49 AM

Hi simon,
I didn't think gigabit film was available in 16mm...
Also, you list the 7234 as 32 asa. I have often wondered about using this stock as a camera stock. How confident are you that it is as fast as that? Have you ever shot it as a camera stock? I got a price from kodak aus for this stock and it was quite expensive and I needed to buy 2 x 2000' (it was Aus$660 per 2000'). If you have shot it or heard of it being shot, I would be keen to know as I am nervous of investing over $1200 in it, but would if it were worth it.
cheers,
richard

I used it as camera stock. It gives nicely soft negatives (that is what the film is made for), prints well (naturally). Today far too grainy compared to Gigabitfilm. ISO 32 was my estimation, you can expose at ISO 25, the emulsion's latitude takes it. You know, the batches are not so severely selected like with real camera stocks. Yes, they sell it to labs, so nothing like 400 or 100 ft. Gigabitfilm is my pet, I introduced it as 16-mm alternative to cinematography in 2005. I still have a few kilometers of it. Because of the thickness you can load 800 feet into a 400-ft. magazine. It is perforated along one edge, 0.3000".
  • 0

#13 Todd Anderson

Todd Anderson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 October 2008 - 12:48 PM

Watch out though as the B/W stocks don't have a rem jet backing. And when you use them with the SR3's all metal and shiny pressure plate, you can get seriously washed out and halated footage in bright environments. Many Aaton's have a striped pressure plate, which is even worse.



Adam, can you explain in a little more detail the problems one will encounter using Black and White stocks in a Aaton? I have an XTR and a XTRPlus, so I guess when you refer to having a 'striped pressure plate', I would say my magazines looked to have that 'stripe' pattern. Which you can see here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/.....=tab=Watching

But anyhow, what kind of 'bright environments' are you specifically talking about. Exteriors with a backlit subject? Shooting into the sun, and that sort of thing... or just bright ambient light in general? No problems shooting a low key scene with hard light, like say using Fresnels and that sort of thing, as long as not much light is being directed towards the lens?

Thanks.
Todd
  • 0


Ritter Battery

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Tai Audio

CineLab

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Glidecam

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

The Slider

CineTape

Technodolly