Shooting B&W - 16mm or HD?

Also B&W film stock hasn't changed at all in the last like 20 years, where as color film stock has experienced a huge over haul with stocks like Kodak Vision 2.

B&W film will be way more grainy than if you shot color (Vision 2) then desaturated it in post.

There's a great article on the matter in the Casino Royale issue or American Cinematographer.

I want through the same debate and chose HD, then decided to keep the color, ha ha. :2vrolijk_08:

- Greg
 
There seems to be more advances in color negative technology but Kodak is still developing their black and white films. They just introduced a new one just last month: http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuer...88a807d5fe1&pq-locale=en_US&CID=pressreleases

Do color films really have finer grain that b&w? I looked at that ASC article (http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynamic/December2006/CasinoRoyale/page1.php#) and it only seems to mention that the cinematographer used an older black-and-white stock because he wanted a really contrasty image without midtones. And as far as I know B&W has less grain at ISO's than color film. I thought that was why B&W films can be pushed to insane speeds like 6400 (http://www.gdargaud.net/Photo/BlackWhite.html). Films like T-Max 400 are said to be some of the finest grained stuff around.


Now you've gotten me curious. Do any film experts know which stock lends itself chemically to finer grain: b&w or color? On second thought maybe I'll post that question elsewhere. I don't want to hijack this poor thread.

davide

EDIT:
OK, here's what I found.

T-Max 100 (purported to be the finest grained 100iso b&w film) has a granularity value of 8 (lower is better).
Provia 100 (said to be one of the finest grained 100iso color film) aslo has a granularity of 8.
So it looks like the two are pretty evenly matched. There is a film on the market, Gigabit, that markets itself as being higher resolution and lower grain than any other film. I believe it's only black-and-white, like Tech Pan.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

The technical side of making movies has changed a lot since I got into 40 years ago, and I would recommend that you consider the cheapest and easiest path, simply because it is the cheapest and easiest.

I sincerely doubt that you won't get much than 15% to 30% more storytelling improvement going to film for the expense most likely far, far less if at all, and I'm sure that the expense is far, far, far more than 15 to 30% more cost.

Cheaper is more likely to get it done, too.

And I'm equally sure that there won't be any more distribution either. :grin:
 
If you don't have a lot of film experience, your wallet may experience a sharp intake of breath. Film is expensive. If you don't have a GREAT DP and AC(s), your film may get screwed up (hair in the gate, flashed, misthreaded, etc.) You will pay a lot more for stock, lab and (deep breath) telecine. I love doing telecine, but I don't love the $400.00 to $600.00 an hour for a Spirit bay, which is what you really want with S16.

I am constantly reminded that my HVX, with good lighting and movement looks remarkably like S16. Nobody will care anyway, they will only care if your film is well written, lit, acted, directed and has good audio. I consider my HVX my replacement for my SR-2 and I really enjoy shooting with it a lot more because the cash register isn't ringing every time I hit the record button. Improvisational comedy becomes possible. Experimentation becomes possible. Film is too expensive and leashes you with being ultra conservative because you are running out of stock and or money to process your exposed stock.

My vote is for HD. HD, in general can easily be made to look "film noir" if you have a good DP.

Dan
 
MikeGunter said:
Hi,
I would recommend that you consider the cheapest and easiest path, simply because it is the cheapest and easiest.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to flame, or start anything, but I think that's bad advice. I know Mike is just referring to formats, but still, it sounds bad.

I do agree story, writing, lighting, acting, and sound are all more important than format, but do what is right for your film, not what is easiest.

Don't rule anything out because it's too 'hard". You are on the right track by researching and asking questions! Take your time, do the work, it'll pay off in the end.

- Greg
 
Another question stuck me, does the shades of grey look the same in both film & HD?
What I mean is that if you shot something green, will it have the same "color" no matter if you choose film or HD
 
The amount of shades of gray has to do with your latitude. Most HD cams have less latitude then most film stocks. (Note I said most, exceptions of course exist)

And no, the color green is even reproduced differently from film stock to film stock and is also reproduced differently from HD cam to HD cam. The differences are often very subtle but they are different none the less.

Like I said, it depends on your film stock and camera (including camera settings).
 
consider 35mm film

consider 35mm film

I can get you short ends -- strip tested -- for 12-15 cents per foot. You can shoot 35mm and telecine to whatever the current format is. Digital is always improving, so you can re-telecine in the future and you'll always have the best results when you output.

Developing negative is 10 cents per foot. Film runs at 90 ft per minute, so you can shoot 100 minutes of film and develop it for about $2000.

SD telecine will be about $500. Depending on your budget, it might be an option.

How long is your film? Is it fully scripted or are you going to imporvise a lot? Those are the considerations.

Even if you're shooting a feature film. 50,000 ft of film will cost you under $15,000 for everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top