Jump to content


Photo

Old, classic film look


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#1 Steven Budden

Steven Budden
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts
  • Other
  • San Francisco

Posted 15 June 2005 - 02:53 PM

I'm filming with a bolex and wondering if it is possible to get that look of very early films, by the lumiere brothers for instance. In a dvd I saw of many directors using that early Lumiere cinematograph to make their own shorts, the films looked so beautiful. I can't imagine this has much to do with the camera? Perhaps the film speed? I assume it has something to do with the lens and the film stock? I'm wondering if there is any way to duplicate that with modern stock? What lenses would be suitable? Kind of like old Muybridge photos. I suppose if I could hand wind I could get that flicker from the exposure varying slightly as the speed of the wind varied?

Any help appreciated.

Thanks!

Steven
  • 0

#2 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11937 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 June 2005 - 07:31 PM

Hi,

Hand wound can get you flicker, if you do it sufficiently badly!

But in what way did you find the images beautiful? The very earliest stuff would have been mono stock that was sensitive only to blue, and you can duplicate that by shooting a modern panchromatic stock with a deep blue filter. Skies look bright, leaves and women's lips look dark (big smoky eye makeup in early movies perhaps motivated by this.) It might also look very contrasty compared to modern stock, and you can shoot, even push, current hi-con black and white film for similar effect. Also, early lenses might have vignetted, darkening the corners of the image. This is still something that's done intentionally in telecine, and you can do it there or even on your desktop computer.

Or, are you seeing the faults that exist in any very old film - things like scratches, dirt, instability, which are also very evocative of an era?

Phil
  • 0

#3 Steven Budden

Steven Budden
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts
  • Other
  • San Francisco

Posted 15 June 2005 - 07:41 PM

Hi,

Hand wound can get you flicker, if you do it sufficiently badly!

But in what way did you find the images beautiful? The very earliest stuff would have been mono stock that was sensitive only to blue, and you can duplicate that by shooting a modern panchromatic stock with a deep blue filter. Skies look bright, leaves and women's lips look dark (big smoky eye makeup in early movies perhaps motivated by this.) It might also look very contrasty compared to modern stock, and you can shoot, even push, current hi-con black and white film for similar effect. Also, early lenses might have vignetted, darkening the corners of the image. This is still something that's done intentionally in telecine, and you can do it there or even on your desktop computer.

Or, are you seeing the faults that exist in any very old film - things like scratches, dirt, instability, which are also very evocative of an era?

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Thanks!

Actually, what I found beautiful was in part those things you mentioned, but in part I felt like there wasn't that much contrast. Many of the films had a slightly washed out look, like certain Steiglitz photos of figures in fog. Not the high contrast of classic film... I should've said maybe pre classic? Almost antique. They were delicate and subtle almost like a graphite drawing. Maybe they didn't have light meters back then so they would just eyeball it?

Have you seen that selection of shorts? I think it was called Lumiere and Company?

Steven
  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 15 June 2005 - 08:04 PM

There's something ephemeral about old images that look frail -- although if you see a good print of a Silent Era film with a negative or copy in good condition, it looks very modern in some ways, sharp & fine-grained. I saw a new print of Buster Keaton's "The General" on the big screen and it looked fantastic. Of course, that's not pre-1900.

The softness of the lenses and the lack of anti-halation backings help give those movies a somewhat diffused quality; diffusion filters on b&w film may help, older uncoated lenses too. Some had a tendency to fall-off in brightness towards the center, although that was mostly done with an iris in front of the lens in later Silent Era films.

The pulsing of the image has less to do wth hand-cranking and more to do with the method of processing on racks back then, causing uneven development, made worse over time due to aging. But hand-cranking at lower frame rates (like 16 fps) also contributes to the sense of "surging" motion.

There is efx software that simulates some of the pulsing & decay of old movies.
  • 0

#5 Nate Downes

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

Posted 15 June 2005 - 09:28 PM

Also, use older lenses. I have several pre-1920 lenses I use for just this effect, and they're super-easy to find as well. Also, use super-slow stocks, like Plus-X reveral, and cross-process them to further reduse the ASA, helps get things as close as possible. Another option is to shoot on Fomapan, which has a very old-fashioned look as it is, and combine it with the older lenses for the right effect.
  • 0

#6 Mike Lary

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

Posted 15 June 2005 - 11:04 PM

[quote name='Steven B' date='Jun 15 2005, 11:53 AM']
In a dvd I saw of many directors using that early Lumiere cinematograph to make their own shorts, the films looked so beautiful."

Sorry I can't help you achieve that aesthetic, but I have to comment on the Lumiere project. I really enjoyed watching most of those shorts. David Lynch's piece was amazing. It was interesting to see the different approaches each director took toward making a short without editing or modern equipment. Everytime I see one of those cameras surface at auction, I have to wipe a little drool. ;) It would be a lot of fun, and a big privelege, to get my hands on one and shoot a roll.
  • 0

#7 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 17 June 2005 - 09:15 AM

In a dvd I saw of many directors using that early Lumiere cinematograph to make their own shorts, the films looked so beautiful."

...Everytime I see one of those cameras surface at auction, I have to wipe a little drool. ;) It would be a lot of fun, and a big privelege, to get my hands on one and shoot a roll.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


John Dowdell, Chief Colorist at Technicolor Creative Services in NYC used an old 1911 Willamson hand cranked camera to shoot a demo using modern film stocks to show the kind of quality you could get from modern film, even with very old equipment. When transferred on a Spirit telecine, the quality from the 90-year old camera was amazing. John has presented his demo at various seminars, and a DVD "Film - A Medium for All Resolutions" is available from him:

http://www.cinewomen...2/takenote.html

http://www.digitalme...ights/tech.html

http://www.technicol...unchesMajor.htm
  • 0

#8 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 17 June 2005 - 02:44 PM

I've seen a few of thse old cameras sell for really high prices on ebay.
I assumed people were buying these just as collectors, but do you think any of these guys are picking these up to shoot with?

How would you rate the lenses? (They would have to be pretty damn good, if the footage with modern stocks looked amazing)

MP
  • 0

#9 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 17 June 2005 - 03:10 PM

How would you rate the lenses?  (They would have to be pretty damn good, if the footage with modern stocks looked amazing)

MP

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I saw the demo about three years ago. I recall that Mr. Dowdell used the tools available on his telecine to compensate for the deficiencies (unsteadiness, flare) of the old camera and lenses. And this is 35mm viewed on a NTSC monitor from a DVD, so I don't think he is suggesting the Williamson for a feature film. ;)
  • 0

#10 Nate Downes

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

Posted 17 June 2005 - 10:10 PM

OH come on there John, it would be a real novelty to produce a feature using such ancient equipment. I've often considered shooting a film on my filmo, just for the experience and to say "I've done this!"
  • 0

#11 Herb Montes

Herb Montes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • Other
  • Gulf Coast of Texas

Posted 20 June 2005 - 12:53 PM

One online dealer of the classic hand cranked cameras can be found here:

http://www.samdodge.com/

My first 16mm film was shot with a handcranked camera. It was formerly a B&H Filmo 70 which had been stripped down for use as an Air Force gun camera. When I got it surplus it had no lens, viewfinder or motor. I stuck a handcrank on the shaft coming out of the body. Made a wireframe viewfinder and stuck a lens on it. I shot a roll of outdated Kodachrome which I had a friend process with black and white reversal chemicals. The results looked like one of those films made at the turn of the century. Yellowish cast, flicker, and high contrast. I still have that camera though I can now handcrank any of my Bolexes or old Cine Specials. I also have two Russian made 35mm cameras which came with handcranks. I can imagine handcranking several thousand feet of film for an entire feature. You would have to develop a strong arm to do that. ;)
  • 0

#12 Nate Downes

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

Posted 20 June 2005 - 06:39 PM

That reminds me Herb, I've been trying to figure out how to open up my Filmo in order to have a similar conversion. I've always wanted a hand-cranked camera, and may as well use the camera I have now for it.
  • 0

#13 Robert Hughes

Robert Hughes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Minneapolis

Posted 20 June 2005 - 09:02 PM

You don't need to open up a Filmo or Eyemo to hand crank it. Every filmo from the 70-DA on at least has a slot for hand crank, it takes 8 frames per turn. If you're shooting 24 fps you'll need to turn it 3 cranks a second, which gets tiresome after awhile. You can even crank it backward for a few seconds, but then you're fighting the winding spring.

Edited by Robert Hughes, 20 June 2005 - 09:04 PM.

  • 0

#14 Nate Downes

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

Posted 20 June 2005 - 10:52 PM

I have a 70A, not a 70DA.
  • 0

#15 Steven Budden

Steven Budden
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts
  • Other
  • San Francisco

Posted 21 June 2005 - 01:12 AM

How does one crank a bolex? Do you use the rewind crank forward or do you use a handle in the motor drive shaft?

I was wondering about that. I had an epiphany that I could just use the rewind crank forward but then I found out it wouldn't really work because of different claw system? I dunno.

Herb, that sounds interesting. SO you got that old look? I suppose editing without a workprint could give some of the scratches and things. George Kuchar suggests to do this so a film feels like a rediscovered treasure which has been cleaned up as much as possible.

I've been interested to in hand developing. For 100 ft spools it wouldn't be so hard right?

Steven
  • 0

#16 Herb Montes

Herb Montes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • Other
  • Gulf Coast of Texas

Posted 21 June 2005 - 09:03 AM

I've taken my Filmo apart before but it was easy since it doesn't have a spring motor. I think it was a 70DA since the original mounting place for the handcrank socket it still there. Instead a shaft that connected directly to the drive came out of the hole where the winding key was.

You can handcrank a Bolex using the rewind crank after disconnecting the spring drive. The crank won't stay in place so I have considered building a special handcrank plate that mounts to camera using the bolt holes for the motors. You can handcrank a Cine Special as well. I also have a Kodak K100 which has a socket for a handcrank though I haven't found one for the camera yet.

I have a Konvas 35mm movie camera with a handcrank, it has a 200 foot capacity magazine. I also have a Rodina 35mm pin registered movie camera which came with a handcrank along with two electric motors and 400 foot magazines. I'm adapting an animation drive for this camera. Both of these cameras expose 8 frames per turn of the crank. I find it takes a bit of practice to crank these at 16 fps and keep the speed consistent. 24 fps speed will really wear your arm out.

When my friend processed the film he just had a 25' tank for double regular 8mm. So for my old 100 foot roll of 16mm Kodachrome he processed it in a sink. The results really looked homemade.
  • 0

#17 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 21 June 2005 - 11:28 AM

I saw the demo about three years ago.  I recall that Mr. Dowdell used the tools available on his telecine to compensate for the deficiencies (unsteadiness, flare)  of the old camera and lenses.  And this is 35mm viewed on a NTSC monitor from a DVD, so I don't think he is suggesting the Williamson for a feature film.  ;)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I have the DVD, yes they had to do some post image stabilization - a bit jittery in the transfer. No compensation for flare problems that I can see, othing unduly bright in the scene. Looks pretty nice actually :)

-Sam
  • 0

#18 Steven Budden

Steven Budden
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts
  • Other
  • San Francisco

Posted 21 June 2005 - 05:38 PM

Herb,

Sounds like you have a whole room full of cameras! I'll scrounge around for some of those models you mentioned and start working on the hand cranking idea. It seems like if you were going to build a handcrank system for the bolex you might as well make one that attaches to the drive shaft. Why in my bolex SBM manual does it say IMPORTANT: Do not use the rewind crank for filming!. Of course, that's all it says. It actually makes one want to try it? I asked someone and they said it was because of a different claw system. But you say you've gotten decent results with it?

Anyone have any advice for processing 16mm black and white 100' spools in an apartment? I've tried to read up on it but mostly what I came up with was for 8mm.

Thanks! That gives me plenty to think about.

Steven
  • 0

#19 Herb Montes

Herb Montes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • Other
  • Gulf Coast of Texas

Posted 22 June 2005 - 07:01 AM

Not a whole lot but three Bolexes, three B&H 240 models, a K100 (soon to get another), three 35mm (one still needs asasembly), a bunch of Super 8mm and regular 8mm cameras. Projectors, editors, one 35mm upright Moviola, splicers, rewinds and such. And a huge lack of room! :lol:

I had found several online sites on home processing. For 100 feet of 16mm there is the Arkay G3 tank I have seen at camera shows and occasionally on eBay. You might get inconsistent results with this rewind tank. You would get better processing with a Lomo tank made for 100 feet. A Russian dealer, Olexandr, sold these on his site though I don't know if he still has any in stock. I can post some links later today if you need them.
  • 0

#20 Nate Downes

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

Posted 22 June 2005 - 12:08 PM

Well, since we're discussing camera collections:
16mm
Filmo 70A
Keystone A7
Bell and Howell 200EE
Cinkvox
2 Zenit K-3

Super8
Chinon 1206SM
Chinon 200/12XL
Vivitar 84A
Vivitar 100D

Regular 8
Bolex L8
Bell and Howell Filmo Sportster
Kodak Brownie

I want a 35mm, but they're too pricy for me at this time. I also want an upright moviola, but try finding one for a good price in southern florida.
  • 0


Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Opal

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS