[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Eclair Cameras: T-max versus 7245
Hi, Julian
Thanks for the info. It's been a long time since I've shot 16mm and I'm
thinking of shooting a feature film in 16mm B&W. I'm tempted to use 7276 or
7278. What's the speed of these films? I'll end up blowing up the whole
movie to 35mm by myself. I have a blow up printer. Now, as for the lenses.
My ACL is regular 16mm, which I prefer to S16, because my philosophy is if I
want to shoot a bigger format, I'll shoot 35mm. I just don't want the
hassles of working with S16 all the way from production to final print in
35mm. So the lenses I have are the Angenieux 12-120mm. I have a 25mm
Angenieux that was made for the Bell & Howells, it's the f/0.95. I also have
a Soligor 28-50mm with the Nikon mount and I have the adapter for the
c-mount. I have a 10mm Schneider I bought on eBay, but it turned out the
rear element is separated, the glass that is, and the seller doesn't have
the money to take it back, so I'm stuck with it. I don't know if it will be
sharp. It's not badly separated. It's barely noticeable. I'm trying to find
if I can get it repaired for a reasonable amount. If you know something
about how I should do this let me know. Anyway, that's a lot of questions.
If I go with Schneiders then if I can get the 10mm repaired. I have the
28-50-75mm set from my Arri 2c, which I can use.
Cordially
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Williamson" <julian3rd@earthlink.net>
To: <EclairACL@topica.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Eclair Cameras: T-max versus 7245
Vic:
Kodak 7222 and 7231 are the only two B&W negative stocks that I know of;
there are also Kodak's reversal stocks, 7276 and 7278. I really do like
the
contrasty look of the reversal stocks -- exposed correctly, and if you
project the original camera negative, it looks better to my eye than a
print
of the negative stocks. But you can't always be projecting your camera
original... And since I make several prints of my films for festivals,
and
because I need the exposure latitude, I shoot 7222 and 7231, and sometimes
push either stock 1 stop.
The bottom line, as anyone will tell you on this group, is test, test,
test
and experiment to find the look you want. The lens you shoot with makes a
world of difference, too, both in perceived graininess of the image and
contrast. Old Angie zooms look quite different than Zeiss primes.
Good luck,
julian
> From: Alexander <mo007@earthlink.net>
> Reply-To: EclairACL@topica.com
> Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 08:20:26 -0700
> To: EclairACL@topica.com
> Subject: Re: Eclair Cameras: T-max versus 7245
>
> Hi, Julian
>
> So what's the best B&W movie film to shoot on?
>
> Vic
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Julian Williamson" <julian3rd@earthlink.net>
> To: <EclairACL@topica.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 3:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Eclair Cameras: T-max versus 7245
>
>
>> Ian:
>>
>> Are you talking about bleach-bypassing a B&W print? I'm most familiar
> with
>> the still B&W process and didn't realize that B&W prints were
"bleached".
>> Could you explain?
>>
>> Or were you talking about bleach bypassing a color print of a b&w
> negative,
>> which brings me to my next question: Who has printed B&W negative to a
>> color printstock, and what does it look like, especailly if
> bleach-bypassed?
>> I'm looking for a contrasty, warmish tone from a black and white
negative
>> and wonder how printing to color printstock would perform.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> julian
>>
>>> From: Ian <i_turpen@hotmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: EclairACL@topica.com
>>> Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 11:52:42 -0700
>>> To: EclairACL@topica.com
>>> Subject: Re: Eclair Cameras: T-max versus 7245
>>>
>>> If you wanted to retain more silver, you could bleach bypass the B&W
> print
>>> or use a scalable process to skip 50% of the bleach, which would give
> you
>>> better blacks and more contrast.
>>>
>>> I've never read of anyone doing this with B&W.
>>>
>>> Alpha Cine in Seattle doesn't charge a set-up fee for this, but they
> don't
>>> offer a scalable process.
>>>
>>> When I was the Head Processor at Bono Film in Virginia, we processed
> some
>>> Nike commercials that were shot on Optical Soundtrack Filmstock which
> was
>>> high contrast and low ASA, but wasn't as extreme as Hi-Con or
Kodalith.
>>>
>>> I always liked the look of Black & White Reversal compared to Negative
> which
>>> always looked milkier to me.
>>>
>>> I think anything shot with more lights at a lower ASA rating is always
> going
>>> to look richer and more resemble technicolor, except for the color
dyes
> they
>>> used.
>>>
>>> -Ian
>>>
>>>> From: Leo Vale <leoavale@yahoo.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Reply-To: EclairACL@topica.com
>>>> To: EclairACL@topica.com
>>>> Subject: Re: Eclair Cameras: T-max versus 7245
>>>> Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 09:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- Mark <super16acl@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> Issues of grain aside ... I believe that real B&W
>>>>> film, photographed and lit
>>>>> correctly for B&W contrast, has a unique look when
>>>>> projected that can't be
>>>>> duplicated when color neg is printed in B&W. Perhaps
>>>>> I'm being too Artsy here.
>>>> --- I'll buy that about the B/W. If nothing else,
>>>> there's the use of color filters for fine tonal
>>>> control. You can't really use that on color stock for
>>>> a B/W print or transfer.
>>>>
>>>>> All I know is that when I see an original 35mm print
>>>>> of Citizen Kane, or the B&W
>>>>> Nykvist/Bergman films of the 50s, there has been
>>>>> nothing like that look to
>>>>> come out on the silver screen since the demise of
>>>>> real B&W, (except perhaps
>>>>> SHINDLER'S LIST and some of WOODY ALLEN'S MOVIES).
>>>>
>>>> --- "Print" and "real B&W" point to the problem.
>>>> I spent two and a half years restoring Fox Movietone
>>>> Newsreels, so I got to look at a lot of nitrate fine
>>>> grains and prints. Another six years of restoration
>>>> work gave me a chance to see more nitrates.
>>>> Modeern B/W prints just don't ccompare, they look so
>>>> anemic next to a nitrate print.
>>>> 1000' of nitrate is and feels heavier than 1000' of
>>>> acetate. The nitrate has more silver. That shows on
>>>> the screen. Velvety blacks and rich tones.
>>>>
>>>> Shortly after acetate replaced nitrate, manufacturers
>>>> drasticly reduced the amount of silver in photographic
>>>> film. The way that ASA film speed is determined had
>>>> to be modified to account for this. And, of course,
>>>> the manufacturers have been cutting back on the silver
>>>> ever since.
>>>> I suspect that one of the reasons for the richness of
>>>> the color in three-strip Technicolor negs and even of
>>>> Eastman color neg from the early 50s is due to the
>>>> higher silver content.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know that anything can be done about this.
>>>> I'm inclined to think that B/W is a lost art.
>>>> I also think that all B/W movies should be in 'Scope
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> yours in TohoScope,
>>>>
>>>> --- LV
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________
>>>> Do you Yahoo!?
>>>> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
>>>> http://calendar.yahoo.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
>>> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: elroro@propagandaindustries.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84xYK.bdbHPA.ZWxyb3Jv
Or send an email to: EclairACL-unsubscribe@topica.com
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
==^================================================================