Jump to content


Photo

color neg. for black and white question


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Edward P. Davee

Edward P. Davee
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Director

Posted 21 June 2009 - 12:12 AM

Despite significant differences in appearance, It seems it's fairly common (though usually with some reluctance) for folks to shoot plus-x for outdoor and tri-x for indoor scenes, cutting between the two within the same project.

I'm wondering if anyone has used a high speed color neg desaturated in post with a DI, instead of tri-x for indoor shots. Would this perhaps, with further contrast adjustments, potentially be a closer match to the look of plus-x?
I suppose it would be unusual to see lower light situations having less grain and a smoother look than the daylight footage since that's the opposite of what we're used to, but I wonder how the two would work together.

Would the difference in grain size and quality be more or less distracting than the differences between plus-x and tri-x?

basically I'm just wondering if it's possible to get a desaturated color neg such as 7219/5219, to match the look of plus-X neg better than tri-x does.

Hope that makes sense.
  • 0

#2 Saul Rodgar

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

Posted 21 June 2009 - 12:28 AM

Entire movies released on B/W have been shot on Kodak color negative, i.e. The Man Who Wasn't There, Control ,etc.

If you plan on shooting negative and reversal, I recommend keeping it color neg all the way and desaturating in post instead. Something like 7201 and 7205 / 7207 or 7212 and 7217, etc. That way you can match it in post to your heart's content.

Or you can cross process your reversal stocks, but stock and processing tests will be needed, although they are always recommended any time one is starting a project.

I have mixed Tri and Plus X and they match fine though. I have even gotten away with push processing Tri X and mixing it with Plus X in the same project, but not the same scene.

It really depends how one is shooting th stocks and what effect one is trying to achieve, but ultimately it is up to one to shoot some tests and decide for oneself or shoot the project and live with the results. ;)

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 21 June 2009 - 12:29 AM.

  • 0

#3 Edward P. Davee

Edward P. Davee
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Director

Posted 21 June 2009 - 12:55 AM

Thanks Saul. I was wondering specifically about 7231 plus-x neg, not reversal. I've got a black and white S-16 project coming up that I originally wanted to shoot on 7231 for a more classic film feel, but I also have several night time and indoor scenes, and limited lighting gear, I will probably go with all color neg as you say, but I can't help but obsess about the real deal. Hard to let go.

I like a little grit and harshness for this but even plus x in 16mm is perhaps a little grainier than I'd like, so tri-x, though I love both stocks, is certainly out of the question for this.

I will do some more tests!

thanks,
Edward
  • 0

#4 K Borowski

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

Posted 21 June 2009 - 01:15 AM

Perhaps the source of confusion is that the higher-speed neg. stock is Double-X, not Tri-X.

It's, what, E.I. 200 or 250? It's been a while I forget.

It definitely matches better with Plus-X though than the reversal pair matches. "Pi" shows a pretty glaring set of discrepancies when they switch between the two.

Now won't I feel like an idiot if someone comes on here and says it was Plus and Double, unless they pushed the latter.
  • 0

#5 Edward P. Davee

Edward P. Davee
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Director

Posted 21 June 2009 - 03:34 AM

oops.you're right, I meant double-x. sorry thanks for clearing that up.
  • 0

#6 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 21 June 2009 - 07:18 AM

Perhaps the source of confusion is that the higher-speed neg. stock is Double-X, not Tri-X.

It's, what, E.I. 200 or 250? It's been a while I forget.

It definitely matches better with Plus-X though than the reversal pair matches. "Pi" shows a pretty glaring set of discrepancies when they switch between the two.

Now won't I feel like an idiot if someone comes on here and says it was Plus and Double, unless they pushed the latter.


No I think you are right Karl, as I remember reading that they went to great lengths to shoot on reversal. Can't remember why, there might have been some kind of budgetry advantage, or maybe they just wanted the look.
  • 0

#7 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 21 June 2009 - 09:35 AM

No I think you are right Karl, as I remember reading that they went to great lengths to shoot on reversal. Can't remember why, there might have been some kind of budgetry advantage, or maybe they just wanted the look.



Yes it was budgetary. You can shoot bw reversal and blow directly up to 35 negative. This is still a very cheap way to get to 35 and it supposedly yields great results. It all boils down to look and which one you want. you may want to try pushing the 7231 for indoor scenes or upping your lighting package for the indoor stuff. I dunno, are the shots inside small/ close up? you could get away with the 31 exclusively. I will be shooting a trailer for a horror feature we want in bw and will be doing testing with 7231, 7219 desaturated, 7266 and 7265 both photochemical and DI finishing. I will try a little 7222, but I feel it is a bit too muddy for my taste. The 7265 and 7266 may be too fine grained for our purposes, but I will share my findings here with all of yees.

chris
  • 0

#8 K Borowski

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

Posted 21 June 2009 - 04:23 PM

Yes it was budgetary. You can shoot bw reversal and blow directly up to 35 negative. This is still a very cheap way to get to 35 and it supposedly yields great results. It all boils down to look and which one you want. you may want to try pushing the 7231 for indoor scenes or upping your lighting package for the indoor stuff. I dunno, are the shots inside small/ close up? you could get away with the 31 exclusively. I will be shooting a trailer for a horror feature we want in bw and will be doing testing with 7231, 7219 desaturated, 7266 and 7265 both photochemical and DI finishing. I will try a little 7222, but I feel it is a bit too muddy for my taste. The 7265 and 7266 may be too fine grained for our purposes, but I will share my findings here with all of yees.

chris



As an aside, I am surprised I made such an amazingly coherent post last night, considering the rather large quantity of spirits I had consumed.


As far as getting cheaply to 35mm, I thiink that Plus-X Rev. (65? I haven't shot it since it was the '76 and '77) is a real winner, especially if you can afford to light for it indoors. Of course, I would demand that the lab come up with a way to develop it at its true original 50-speed, not that environmentally friendly bleach crap process they sloshed together.

Tri-X? Eh, IDK. Considering its grain, you might consider the extra expense of shooting Double-X and making a master positive of that footage.

Honestly, it might even cut together better.


Too bad Kodak's B&W stocks are out of the '50s. While the old-school, '50s monster movie look is quite nice, they have some really superb T-grain films that have done a much better job for 22 years now. They say they wouldn't work in the current D-97 developer process, or whatever it is, but these films, unless you are looking for big grain, would be stellar in 16mm, and I think they would definitely be worth the trouble of either having to contact print, blow up to 35mm print directly, or reverse engineer a reversal process and a working exposure index for.

Kodak kind of has a self-fulfilling prophecy in place here: "You ought to shoot our color film because B&W stocks are so grainy." [because we don't want to go through the minimal trouble of re-perfing our T-Max films for 16- and 35mm).


Speaking of direct 16mm negative to 35mm blowup, I heard that, despite its expense, it could yield comparable quality and pay for itself with a big enough print run.

Has anyone on here had experience with this?
  • 0

#9 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 21 June 2009 - 05:38 PM

As an aside, I am surprised I made such an amazingly coherent post last night, considering the rather large quantity of spirits I had consumed.


As far as getting cheaply to 35mm, I thiink that Plus-X Rev. (65? I haven't shot it since it was the '76 and '77) is a real winner, especially if you can afford to light for it indoors. Of course, I would demand that the lab come up with a way to develop it at its true original 50-speed, not that environmentally friendly bleach crap process they sloshed together.

Tri-X? Eh, IDK. Considering its grain, you might consider the extra expense of shooting Double-X and making a master positive of that footage.

Honestly, it might even cut together better.


Too bad Kodak's B&W stocks are out of the '50s. While the old-school, '50s monster movie look is quite nice, they have some really superb T-grain films that have done a much better job for 22 years now. They say they wouldn't work in the current D-97 developer process, or whatever it is, but these films, unless you are looking for big grain, would be stellar in 16mm, and I think they would definitely be worth the trouble of either having to contact print, blow up to 35mm print directly, or reverse engineer a reversal process and a working exposure index for.

Kodak kind of has a self-fulfilling prophecy in place here: "You ought to shoot our color film because B&W stocks are so grainy." [because we don't want to go through the minimal trouble of re-perfing our T-Max films for 16- and 35mm).


Speaking of direct 16mm negative to 35mm blowup, I heard that, despite its expense, it could yield comparable quality and pay for itself with a big enough print run.

Has anyone on here had experience with this?



Or maybe release the chromogenic black and white like they have in still film, perhaps one that is ECN process. A few years back John Pitlak wrote that they did tests and found no improvement in using T-max as a motion picture stock. I have a hard time with that but take him at his word. Really do miss his input here.

I am a huge fan of the 31 and of 22 in 35mm less so in 16mm. the 7266 and 65 really do kick ass though. They are very modern stocks and aren't as hard to light as people say they are. They have the same latitude as miniDV, so if you have worked with that format, black and white reversal isn't that much more difficult if at all
  • 0

#10 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1403 posts
  • Other
  • Basel, Switzerland

Posted 22 June 2009 - 11:33 AM

I am a huge fan of the 31 and of 22 in 35mm less so in 16mm. the 7266 and 65 really do kick ass though. They are very modern stocks and aren't as hard to light as people say they are. They have the same latitude as miniDV, so if you have worked with that format, black and white reversal isn't that much more difficult if at all

Don't mean to disappoint you but x231 and x222 have not been altered or improved upon since about 1957. There are more modern black-and-white stocks available: Orwo UN 54, ISO 100, Orwo N 74, ISO 400. Ilford Pan F plus, FP 4 plus, HP 5 plus from a certain quantity on in 35 and 16. Fujifilm 71112, ISO 80, up to 1000 ft. All these perforated BH.1866 (35) and .2994/.3000 (16).

If not in need of type N perf you can try all the stills photography stocks: Luckypan SHD 100 new, 1000', Luckypan SHD 400 new, 1000'. Efke 25/50/100. Fomapan 100, 200, 400, Fomapan R(eversal). Fuji Neopan 100/400/1600. Russian Polypan F. Gigabitfilm 40 BH.1866, Gigabitfilm 32 HDR KS.1870. Gigabitfilm 40 in 16, perforated along one edge (2.7 mils thickness)
  • 0


The Slider

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Opal

Tai Audio

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

CineTape

CineLab

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Technodolly