Transposing color film to black / white

D

dadoboy

Well-known member
I'm shooting a short using my own Super 16mm camera. We first thought of shooting plus-x and double-x but for this particular story, I'm not happy with the latitude and graininess of the old b/w stocks. So another option I am thinking of is transposing color negative to a black and white look in telecine.

I've seen a few commercials where this was done (one with Kanye West in it I think), but I can't recall any narrative films having done this. Anybody recall a narrative feature or short where this was done?

I am aware the other option is to shoot 2/3" HD and transpose that, but personally I don't like the look of video transposed to black and white. It would be great if Kodak could make a Tmax-like movie negative but that aint ever going to happen I think.

Thanks.
 
Excellent article Ryan! Looks like you were the perfect person to answer my question.
Don't ask me why - but I haven't seen any of the films you mentioned except for Sin City (and wasn't too thrilled with the "harsh" look on that).
My wish to go color has a lot to do with how grainy 7222 and 7231 is on 16mm. S35mm grain would be acceptable to me, but budget requires I use my S16mm arri.

Question for you or anyone else who might know about telecine technologies: I won't be doing a DI, it's too expensive for a non commercial short. Most likely do a telecine at Fotokem or TED's in LA. I've long suspected that most telecine machines, like 35mm film scanners, are tuned and designed for color negative. For instance a Nikon Coolscan will do a better job with a 35mm color neg than B/W Tmax neg. Anyone have any insight into that? Seems to me, shooting b/w is an uphill battle in post, though I would still go for it if I could shoot in S35.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Films which were shot Color and then went to B&W in post:

Film
Good Night and Good Luck shot by Robert Elswit ASC
The Man Who Wasn't There, shot by Roger Deakins, ASC, BSC
Pleasantville, shot by John Lindley, ASC
Control, shot by Martin Ruhe

Check out this article I wrote, I think it will come in handy.

http://ryanpatrickohara.blogspot.com/2008/07/black-and-white-2.html
Click to expand...

Your quote from the Kodak response, namely, 'we're keeping these films this way, because our customers demand it'... reminds me of the explanation why Kodak papers, of say the 30's were so different from the 70's. Well, according to the answers I got from various sources... Kodak 'decided' in the 50's that their papers would have a flatter, less 'rich' look, because portrait photographers of the 50's preferred to sell their customers that kind of image (as in women with pancake make up and low contrast to 'cover' any age lines, etc...)... So, most 'fine' B&W printing was not done on Kodak, but other papers that had higher silver content, or less 'color cast' to make for pleasing portraiture...

Personally I'd rather look to how to implement digital means to obtain certain 'looks', if that is the goal. Sure, one can shoot on an old stock, even if it is still in production, but I really wonder about these sorts of things... A few years ago I ran across an 'artist' who purposely finds old unexposed color film, shoots, develops, and prints it, just for those wyrd color shifts that occur when the film ages...

In that regard, I'd look to using the RGB channel math functions that I think all of the current popular NLE's have to some degree or another to come up with better B&W (technically monochrome...) renditions than just simple desaturation and contrast boost...
 
dadoboy said:
I'm shooting a short using my own Super 16mm camera. We first thought of shooting plus-x and double-x but for this particular story, I'm not happy with the latitude and graininess of the old b/w stocks. So another option I am thinking of is transposing color negative to a black and white look in telecine.

I've seen a few commercials where this was done (one with Kanye West in it I think), but I can't recall any narrative films having done this. Anybody recall a narrative feature or short where this was done?

I am aware the other option is to shoot 2/3" HD and transpose that, but personally I don't like the look of video transposed to black and white. It would be great if Kodak could make a Tmax-like movie negative but that aint ever going to happen I think.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Since I did not do any moving picture film shooting in the ancient days, I don't know what the exact differences between the Plus-X of still film and the Plus-X of movie film are. But Plus-X was a very fine grained film, just you had to rate it at about IS0 32-64, that is, tons of light... So, if you see 'grain', it is most likely because it was under exposed and 'overdeveloped' to compensate.

Tri-X still film, which may be something on the order of double-X, was very sensitive to the type of devloper, and the standard Kodak developers often either enhanced 'grain' effect, or in an attempt to compensate, eroded the grain and led to a some what 'mushy' grain pattern... but perhaps the processing for still films could not be easily applied to moving picture film... and so alternatives to Kodak processing may not have been available...
 
By nature of the small surface area of 16mm film, when compared to 35mm still film, the grain characteristics of 16mm will be much more apparent. If you do shoot 16mm plux-x with proper exposure and good contrast, the grain won't be that apparent. However, plus-x with its effect tungsten exposure index of 64ASA is impractical for shooting indoors and so I end up shooting mostly with the double-x.

I've shot a lot of black and white in my NYU film school days way way back, and a few shorts afterwards. Some of it came out quite beautiful I gotta say with very pleasing grain characteristics. But for this particular project which is themed on magical realism, I want a very fine grain and more dynamic range shooting on S16mm, thus my question was posed.

A comparison of 16mm black and white film vs. 35mm still film in terms of the perception of grain isn't very valid because of the different image areas exposed and subsequently printed to HD vs optical print to still 8x10(?) enlargers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top