[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Eclair Cameras: T-max versus 7245


7276 is 50 daylight; 7278 is 200.  Hope you'll reconsider the S16 question.
The larger image size really does make a much better blowup.  Depending on
your shooting schedule, you may be able to justify renting a modern S16 zoom
lens for your camera during production.  (if you decide to convert your
camera)  Be aware that the blowup process will boost contrast somewhat as
well, and the reversal stocks are already pretty punchy.

The Angenieux 12-120 is not one of their better lenses, neither is the 25mm
Angeniux prime.  Never used the Soligor.  If well collimated, the Schneiders
should serve you well, though you're lacking on the wide end; look for some
16 & 10mm schneiders on e-bay to match if you can; I think most will cover
S16 as well.  I wouldn't trust the 10mm with the seperated back element.
Collimation and flange depth are critical on the wide end, and it's not
really possible to judge well just looking on the ground glass.  Bernie
O'Doherty in Boston is a fine lens and camera tech, and very fair and
upfront about his charges -- though I'm sure others on the list have their
faves as well...  Have your lenses collimated and your camera serviced
before you begin, and, again, if you're going to use the lenses you have, I
would use the Schneiders, as long as they're well collimated :)

Best of luck,


From: Alexander <mo007@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: EclairACL@topica.com
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 21:03:01 -0700
To: EclairACL@topica.com
Subject: 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.



----- 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


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
contrasty look of the reversal stocks -- exposed correctly, and if you
project the original camera negative, it looks better to my eye than a
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,
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,
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,

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?


----- 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


Are you talking about bleach-bypassing a B&W print?  I'm most familiar
the still B&W process and didn't realize that B&W prints were
Could you explain?

Or were you talking about bleach bypassing a color print of a b&w
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
I'm looking for a contrasty, warmish tone from a black and white
and wonder how printing to color printstock would perform.

Thanks in advance,

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
or use a scalable process to skip 50% of the bleach, which would give
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
offer a scalable process.

When I was the Head Processor at Bono Film in Virginia, we processed
Nike commercials that were shot on Optical Soundtrack Filmstock which
high contrast and low ASA, but wasn't as extreme as Hi-Con or

I always liked the look of Black & White Reversal compared to Negative
always looked milkier to me.

I think anything shot with more lights at a lower ASA rating is always
to look richer and more resemble technicolor, except for the color


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

--- "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).

MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*

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!