Jump to content


Photo

Jeremiah Johnson stock


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 jaysonwilko

jaysonwilko
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • P.A.
  • Missouri

Posted 09 July 2011 - 05:32 PM

Does anyone have a clue what stocks were used for the 1972 film Jeremiah Johnson? I want to say Kodachrome (RIP) but wonder if anyone has this info officially.
  • 0

#2 Tom Jensen

Tom Jensen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1234 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 09 July 2011 - 06:18 PM

Does anyone have a clue what stocks were used for the 1972 film Jeremiah Johnson? I want to say Kodachrome (RIP) but wonder if anyone has this info officially.


The best I can figure is 5254 color negative with and iso of 100. 47 replaced it in the mid to late 70's.
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 16267 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 09 July 2011 - 06:20 PM

Yes, it would have been 5254, 100T.
http://motion.kodak....-1979/index.htm
  • 0

#4 jaysonwilko

jaysonwilko
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • P.A.
  • Missouri

Posted 09 July 2011 - 06:27 PM

Thanks guys. Most helpful.
  • 0

#5 K Borowski

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

Posted 09 July 2011 - 06:28 PM

No no certainly not.

I want to say that this film was 35mm, although I suppose it could've been a 16mm blowup (very unlikely).

Probably the standard 100T (David Mullen would know the stock number instantly), same as the stock used the last season of Star Trek.




Really, that is trivial to the look. Just like you don't [credibly] say the look of a film is due to the digital movie camera, you need to give credit where credit is due: The CINEMATOGRAPHER's use of lighting, filtration, (digital manipulation) and then, secondarily, pushing, pulling or flashing, (bleach retention) are responsible first and foremost for the look of the film.

Find out who the CINEMATOGRAPHER AND GAFFER were and then go from there. Practically all the big-budget Hollywood films of the period, Patton, Bonnie and Clyde, Silent Running, The Red Baron, Logan's Run, Barry Lindon, My Fair Lady, The Subject Was Roses, Grand Prix, along with TV shows Star Trek and Gunsmoke, I Dream of Jeannie, Bewitched, were shot with the same 0.65 gamma 50- or 100T Kodak stock. Notice the wide range of looks and moods created nonetheless.

Even in 16, the standard then was low-con ECO slow reversal film with a low contrast suited for duplication. So the look was a product of the system, not the camera stock. Some of the look was by necessity: A popular technique then with a max speed of 100 was to underexpose a stock and push a stock, and get somewhat-OK density by printing up. This allowed EIs of almost 400 to be used with some degree of success. I think this was, at times combined with flashing.


The use of hard lighting in this era, contrast, that you attribute to Kodachrome stock was accomplished through production design and lighting. There was also the trend towards "''60s zooms" shakey cameras, but styles varied wildly from Cinematographer to Cinematographer. Due to the iron curtain, a very different style of filmmaking coeexisted in Soviet countries.


DAMN, beaten by ten minutes! One other thing to consider, with todays' stocks, is that they are slightly lower in contrast, a slow stock with a slight push (200T would be close) should get you very close to the look you're after, shooting 35mm, or S16mm shot wide open on 7201t.



I'm a pro-Kodak guy, but usually recommend both manufacturers. Fuji wouldn't match well here though, as most production in the U.S> then was Eastman.

Edited by K Borowski, 09 July 2011 - 06:32 PM.

  • 0

#6 K Borowski

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

Posted 09 July 2011 - 06:46 PM

Prints wee Technicolor, so taht was part of the look too.

Stock WAS 35mm as per IMDB, so '54 100T.


Duke Callaghan DP and Ted Haworth, Art Director are two far larger parts to the look you are OVERlooking ;-)
  • 0

#7 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2096 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 10 July 2011 - 04:37 AM

As far as remember it was Panavision Anamorphic and looked beautiful .
  • 0


Glidecam

Cinelicious

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

Zylight

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

K5600 Lighting

Robert Starling

Sound and Picture

NIBL

Pro 8mm

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Abel Cine

Robert Starling

Pro 8mm

Cinelicious

NIBL

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

The Slider

K5600 Lighting

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Sound and Picture

Zylight

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS