Jump to content


Photo

shoot feature project on 16mm B&W vs video/simulated 16mm?

16mm

  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 greg quinn

greg quinn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Producer
  • san diego

Posted 06 February 2017 - 07:59 PM

I'm in the planning stages for shooting a suspense-genre feature film - probably around the 80 minute mark.

 

I'd like to shoot the thing on 16mm B&W Kodak Double-X, but my back of a napkin calculations are that it will close to double the acquisition cost.

 

Are we at a point where we can close-enough simulate a 16mm film look, especially texture/grain in video in post?

 

Another question: I plan to telecine the negative and post in video - folks do that, right? 

 

Thanks


  • 0


Support Cinematography.com and buy gear using our Amazon links!
PANASONIC LUMIX GH5 Body 4K Mirrorless Camera, 20.3 Megapixels, Dual I.S. 2.0, 4K 422 10-bit, Full Size HDMI Out, 3 Inch Touch LCD, DC-GH5KBODY (USA Black)

#2 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 947 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 07 February 2017 - 05:36 AM

If you choose to go with video to LOOK like 16mm, multiple people here have told me the Blackmagic Pocket is the most cost effective option for that general look. If you're looking for additional grain, Davinci Resolve has some nice plug-ins that could solidify what you're going for.

 

Another option to explore is the Bolex D16, however I fear it could be overpriced for what it's promising.


  • 0

#3 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 07 February 2017 - 08:43 AM

Have you received quotes from labs and kodak or Orwo? For approximately 32000 feet of film what were your numbers? You could probably get a very good deal from Orwo. BW S16 to ProRes4444 is quite affordable.
  • 0

#4 Dirk DeJonghe

Dirk DeJonghe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 592 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Kortrijk,Belgium

Posted 07 February 2017 - 09:00 AM

You can get along nicely with Prores 422 in case of B&W, only the first number 4 (Luminance) if of importance.


  • 0

#5 Mike Maliwanag

Mike Maliwanag
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 February 2017 - 11:32 PM

If you have a budget, why not shoot a test with 16mm B&W footage and digital footage with grain added to it. I understand money can be an issue, but if you can shoot on film, why not do it? Most camera rental houses should cut you a deal with rentals because at this point 16mm/super 16mm cameras are big paper weights. Also some post houses should also cut you a deal if you have a feature you plan on scanning. Hope this helps!


  • 0

#6 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1575 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 08 February 2017 - 09:38 PM

We would be happy to make you a quote for developing B&W and scanning on the Scan Station or Spirit.

 

We can bundle the two together for a good package price.

 

PM me if interested.


  • 0

#7 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 10 February 2017 - 09:21 AM

I'm in the planning stages for shooting a suspense-genre feature film - probably around the 80 minute mark.

 

I'd like to shoot the thing on 16mm B&W Kodak Double-X, but my back of a napkin calculations are that it will close to double the acquisition cost.

 

Are we at a point where we can close-enough simulate a 16mm film look, especially texture/grain in video in post?

 

Another question: I plan to telecine the negative and post in video - folks do that, right? 

 

Thanks

 

Yes, video post is the norm.

If you choose to go with video to LOOK like 16mm, multiple people here have told me the Blackmagic Pocket is the most cost effective option for that general look. If you're looking for additional grain, Davinci Resolve has some nice plug-ins that could solidify what you're going for.

 

Another option to explore is the Bolex D16, however I fear it could be overpriced for what it's promising.

I really would not use the Digital Bolex for a feature. It is has been discontinued. The Blackmagic Pocket cam is a stretch as well. Clearly using this camera would be very cheap up front, but with lots of un-certainty. I have experienced lots of unwanted fixed pattern noise in low light situations that could not be graded out. It varies from camera to camera, that is why I would NOT use it.


Edited by Chris Burke, 10 February 2017 - 09:22 AM.

  • 0

#8 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 947 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 10 February 2017 - 10:19 AM

Do you just prefer to use super35 sensors in "cropped mode"?


  • 0

#9 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 10 February 2017 - 10:54 AM

No, I prefer film.
  • 0

#10 Michael Rodin

Michael Rodin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Moscow

Posted 10 February 2017 - 10:56 AM

I'm in the planning stages for shooting a suspense-genre feature film - probably around the 80 minute mark.

 

I'd like to shoot the thing on 16mm B&W Kodak Double-X, but my back of a napkin calculations are that it will close to double the acquisition cost.

 

Are we at a point where we can close-enough simulate a 16mm film look, especially texture/grain in video in post?

Not even remotely. Tabular-grain film is extremely diffucult to match texture-wise, old-style B&W like 7222 - plain impossible.

Kodak might give you a big discount if you're shooting a B&W feature, and there's ORWO, Foma and Slavich which are cheaper to begin with. Camera rental and offline-quality telecine cost close to nothing. You'll be able to negotiate processing costs as well.


  • 0

#11 greg quinn

greg quinn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Producer
  • san diego

Posted 10 February 2017 - 11:21 AM

Thanks for all the responses - I haven't been able to get back to the thread till now.

 

One reason for planning 16mm is to future-proof the project. I was at a MeetUp indie producer meeting in LA a few months ago, and unless I'm missing something, acquisition even for low budget projects seems to be ideally 4k. I'm not sure 16mm will scan that high, otherwise something as simple as the Blackmagic Pocket mentioned by Macks might conceivably work, notwithstanding artifacting.


  • 0

#12 greg quinn

greg quinn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Producer
  • san diego

Posted 10 February 2017 - 11:29 AM

Not even remotely. Tabular-grain film is extremely diffucult to match texture-wise, old-style B&W like 7222 - plain impossible.

Kodak might give you a big discount if you're shooting a B&W feature, and there's ORWO, Foma and Slavich which are cheaper to begin with. Camera rental and offline-quality telecine cost close to nothing. You'll be able to negotiate processing costs as well.

Appreciate this. Do you have the name of someone at Kodak to contact?


  • 0

#13 Michael Rodin

Michael Rodin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Moscow

Posted 10 February 2017 - 01:28 PM

Only at Kodak Moscow. So if you decide to film in Russia, you welcome! :)

There's a number of Kodak distributors in US - makes sense to contact them all, I think, as they can all have different deals/discounts. Foma and ORWO you can contact directly I suppose.

Slavich, by the way, seems to have quit coating film. Tasma in Kazan still does but they don't offer motion picture gauges.


  • 0

#14 greg quinn

greg quinn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Producer
  • san diego

Posted 10 February 2017 - 01:31 PM

Only at Kodak Moscow. So if you decide to film in Russia, you welcome! :)

There's a number of Kodak distributors in US - makes sense to contact them all, I think, as they can all have different deals/discounts. Foma and ORWO you can contact directly I suppose.

Slavich, by the way, seems to have quit coating film. Tasma in Kazan still does but they don't offer motion picture gauges.

 

thanks Michael!


  • 0

#15 Pavan Deep

Pavan Deep
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 304 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • UK

Posted 10 February 2017 - 01:57 PM

When someone is planning to shoot a feature it’s become normal for people to say ‘if you have the budget try shooting on Super 16’. I have heard this many times, this assumes that if you are planning a feature film using Super 16 is going to cost more. This assumption is slightly misleading as making a feature is going to be expensive no matter what format is used. Super 16 can be expensive, it just depends on how you shoot, it doesn’t always cost more, but the workflow is more complicated and slower as there's processing and scanning to consider.

 

Pav


  • 0

#16 Michael Rodin

Michael Rodin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Moscow

Posted 10 February 2017 - 03:02 PM

I'd call the film workflow easier as it's standartized and getting a natural (subjectively pleasing) image takes less work - from cinematographer, G&E, art, post.. From a producer's POV it might look different, maybe.


  • 0

#17 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 947 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 10 February 2017 - 06:42 PM

No, I prefer film.

I mean, my post was implying that if one could not get their hands on film.


  • 0

#18 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 11 February 2017 - 12:55 PM

Probably the panasonic gh4, now the gh5. since the end result would be black and white, with rather deep focus and some noise/grain, you could use a solid 1/2 in or 1/3 inch camera like a sony ex3 or ex1R....panasonic hpx370


  • 0

#19 greg quinn

greg quinn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Producer
  • san diego

Posted 12 February 2017 - 05:05 PM

GH5 footage looks amazing -  

(watch it at 4k - wow!)

 

Not the look I'm after, but amazing nonetheless


  • 0

#20 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 947 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 12 February 2017 - 06:42 PM

That might be one of the only camera test videos I've seen where the content itself is actually interesting.


  • 0




Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Glidecam

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc