Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What is the best 16mm kodak stock to shoot with???

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » What is the best 16mm kodak stock to shoot with???

Author

Topic: What is the best 16mm kodak stock to shoot with???

Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene

Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 09-06-2002 03:06 PM

This question is mainly aimed towards Mr. Pytlak, but anyone with experience shooting or viewing 16mm film is welcomed to chime in.

I am looking towards the future and possibly financing and indie picture. I am wanting to shoot on 16mm, but want to know what would be the best film for this task. Shooting will be mixed between day and night, but primarily night shots. It is also action intensive. I want a film with very deep colors and contrast.

Also, and I know I have seen this before somewhere, so I should know this, but it is possible to shoot anamorphic on 16mm right? I believe I have seen anamorphic packages somewhere. Also, what about camera types, brands, etc. I have a lot of faith in the arri series, but any suggestions are welcome.

Dave

| IP: Logged

Jeff Taylor
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 601
From: Chatham, NJ/East Hampton, NY
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 09-06-2002 03:09 PM

Can't give you a better tip than Arri, but yes you can shoot 16 scope. I'll wait for John P to chime in on film stocks.

| IP: Logged

Mike Fitzgerald
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 224
From: Castle Hayne, NC, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 09-06-2002 03:39 PM

You might want to give Brian at Joe Dunton Camera a call. I am sure he can help you out with this information also. The number there is 910-343-1089 they are in Wilmington North Carolina.

------------------
Fitz

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-06-2002 04:01 PM

Get the Kodak motion-picture camera stock catalog. There's a wide range of choices for color negative stocks, from 50ASA to 800ASA; personally, I love the look of 7293, but that may not suit your production. You might want to think about shooting in super-16 if your ultimate goal is a 35mm blowup. Regular-16 is probably a better choice if you aren't sure about spending $10-20k on a blowup and want to be able to make regular 16mm prints for festivals, screenings, etc.

Choose your lab carefully; some of them actually care about 16mm projects and others will only answer the phone if you are shooting 35mm. I've been happy with Magno Sound in NYC and Commonwealth Films in Richmond, VA., but there are probably some good choices on the west coast as well. Foto-Kem is probably one worth looking into.

Although it's "possible" to shoot 16mm scope, I've never heard of anyone actually doing it. Does anyone make "modern" (e.g. Zeiss, Cooke, etc.) anamorphic 16mm camera lenses?

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 09-06-2002 04:10 PM

Kodak has a wide range of 16mm camera films to choose from:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/films.shtml

For low light and maximum flexibility, you should probably use Kodak's family of color negative film:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/negative/

In 16mm, it's always best to use the slower films to get finer grain, but it really depends on the "look" you want.

Shooting "Super-16" is a good idea, as you can easily transfer it to HD 16:9 video, or use an optical printer or digital intermediate to get 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 35mm prints. "Scope" lenses are available, but that format is not often used for 16mm production. If low budget "scope" is your goal, consider 2-perf Techniscope or 3-perf "Super-35" as your origination format.

The Kodak website has links to labs and vendors:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/industry/industryRes.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/industry/industryOrg.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/industry/dyn_labs.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/industry/dyn_TH.shtml

The Association of Film and Video Laboratories has an excellent manual for filmmakers that discusses lab procedures:
http://www.acvl.org/manual.htm

Kodak likewise has excellent tutorial publications:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h2/
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

| IP: Logged

Joe Beres
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 606
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 09-06-2002 04:38 PM

Dave,
I cannot recommend the Kodak Vision stocks highly enough. I have had and have seen great results with them. I assume that indie will probably mean as cheap as possible, meaning low light situations at times. If that is at all the case, Vision is the way to go. I was shocked at how fine-grain the 500 speed film was. The 800 looked more grainy, but still yielded a nice image with very little available light. I have always used Kodak stocks and have never felt like I needed something they did not offer. They are dependably consistent and they offer a range of products that would suit most every need. I would definitely recommend that you shoot some tests so that you know what the stocks can offer and what you can expect. I have never shot 16mm anamorphic, but I've been told that Gaspar Noe's Seul Contre Nous (I Stand Alone) was shot in that format and then blown up to 35 for it's release at home and abroad. I believe it's available on DVD. It certainly isn't a film for everyone, certainly not your kids, but it could give you a look at some of the possibilities.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 09-06-2002 04:54 PM

Dave, don't be a fool! Shoot it on digital video, preferably with consumer-grade equipment. You'll save a ton of money and stand a greater chance of being hailed as a creative genius. No pesky processing, dirty negatives, etc. to worry about. And being digital, the quality will be superior. The "film look" is highly overrated and quickly becoming an anachronism. Audiences want digital.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 09-06-2002 05:06 PM

I must agree with David here, shoot digital! Any old MiniDV camera will suffice just fine for this since it is a digital camera. Besides, just imagine how wonderful it will be to have your name added to the honorary roster of George Lucas and Steve Sodaburger! You could even be interviewed about why shooting digital is so much better than film, and have your name next to Sodaburger's in the same sentence! What could possibly be better?

I'm drooling over the thought right now: "Full Frontal II - A Dave Williams digital"

| IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 09-06-2002 10:26 PM

Has anyone here ever used color reversal? I've been wanting to play around with it a bit, and was wondering if anyone had a stock they'd recommend.

| IP: Logged

Joe Beres
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 606
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 09-07-2002 08:29 AM

The Kodak reversal stocks are great as well. (I swear I am not getting paid by them) I have used their 7240 and 7250 extensively. Reds really pop with 7240.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 09-07-2002 09:10 AM

The color reversal films are best suited to applications where you project the processed camera original, and don't need to make alot of copies. A reversal print film is available for making a few copies. For making many prints, an internegative is made. The contrast is optimized for direct projection, and is a bit high for optimum telecine transfer. Many cinematographers like to use the reversal films to get a different "look", tending to higher contrast and color saturation. Proper exposure is important with reversal camera films (less latitude than negative films), but any mishandling of the original during cutting shows up as less visible black dirt and cinches, rather than the obvious white ones on negative.
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/reversal/
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/5399.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/h15272.shtml

Newton Thomas Sigel used cross-processed Kodak reversal film (5285) to get a unique gritty "look" in the movie "Three Kings":
http://www.moviemaker.com/issues/45/35.html
http://www.cameraguild.com/technology/testing_limits.htm

| IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 09-07-2002 10:38 AM

Thanks, guys. I'll have to try some of those.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-07-2002 05:36 PM

I've never shot color reversal, but B&W Tri-X reversal is interesting. Camera originals look great, although it gets grainy and contrasty when printed.

And of course Kodachrome reversal is still available and looks as good as or better than the best IB Tech prints.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-07-2002 06:02 PM

Panavision has the Panavision X16 camera that accepts all the panavision line of lens.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.