You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Reversal stock
- Thread starter Lazlo
- Start date
David Mullen ASC
Active member
Reversal film is designed to produce a projectable positive original after processing, rather than produce a negative that needs to be printed onto another piece of film (not so much of an issue with a telecine where a negative image can be reversed into a positive one while it is being transferred.)
All camera film is basically a "negative" system in that exposure causes silver halide to become developable so that the brightest parts of the image will produce the darkest (densest) portions of the film -- i.e. a negative image of the positive world. Except that reversal films have a process in which the image is "reversed" from a negative into a positive one during processing (it's a bit complicated to explain but essentially the density that is normally formed is then removed, leaving density in the opposite areas -- i.e. the darkest parts of the original subject are now also the densest parts of the film.) Slide film in still photography is a reversal film.
Unusual processing includes "cross-processing" -- i.e. processing a reversal film in a negative process, so it never gets reversed. The results are very contrasty, grainy, with strong but odd colors.
Then there's "skip-bleach processing" where the bleach step is skipped, leaving black silver in the color film that is normally removed in the fixer and wash steps, causing the contrast to be higher and colors to be softened, plus some graininess.
All camera film is basically a "negative" system in that exposure causes silver halide to become developable so that the brightest parts of the image will produce the darkest (densest) portions of the film -- i.e. a negative image of the positive world. Except that reversal films have a process in which the image is "reversed" from a negative into a positive one during processing (it's a bit complicated to explain but essentially the density that is normally formed is then removed, leaving density in the opposite areas -- i.e. the darkest parts of the original subject are now also the densest parts of the film.) Slide film in still photography is a reversal film.
Unusual processing includes "cross-processing" -- i.e. processing a reversal film in a negative process, so it never gets reversed. The results are very contrasty, grainy, with strong but odd colors.
Then there's "skip-bleach processing" where the bleach step is skipped, leaving black silver in the color film that is normally removed in the fixer and wash steps, causing the contrast to be higher and colors to be softened, plus some graininess.
F
FilmUnited
Guest
Mr. Mullen, I am also curious about the reversal stock. Could you name any films that have been shot reversal that I could take a look at? I have shot 35mm slide film many times but I'm still unsure about what situation would be appropriate for shooting live action reversal.
Also, does the actual film or processing cost more?
Corey
Also, does the actual film or processing cost more?
Corey
David Mullen ASC
Active member
VERY few 35mm features have been shot in color reversal. "Buffalo 66" is the most famous example, shot on the old VNF Ektachrome stocks of the 1970's (just obsoleted this year by Kodak) and processed normally into a positive image, thus requiring an optically-printed dupe negative to be made (contact printing the IN would have put the emulsion on the "wrong" side.) The opening flashback in "Blow" was shot on modern E6 Ektachrome, processed normally, and optically-printed to a dupe negative.
Some movies have cross-processed color reversal into a negative -- the middle section of "Three Kings" and big sections of "Clockers" and "U-Turn." Cross-processed reversal shots show up as flashbacks, etc. in scenes in movies like "Hidden", "From Hell", "The X-Men".
Color negative is by far more common. In 16mm, color reversal was popular until the late 1970's though.
Some movies have cross-processed color reversal into a negative -- the middle section of "Three Kings" and big sections of "Clockers" and "U-Turn." Cross-processed reversal shots show up as flashbacks, etc. in scenes in movies like "Hidden", "From Hell", "The X-Men".
Color negative is by far more common. In 16mm, color reversal was popular until the late 1970's though.
Also, how many feet of film is usually shot during about an hour and half feature in total? How much film could you shoot like, a 16mm 10min short on and get away with it, and how do DP's calculate how much film they will need on a given shoot? How much does processing cost for cinema vs. cost of film?
Sorry with all the questions, but also how do DP's manage to shoot long action sequences, since the magazines usually only run up to 1000' which is about ten mintues? Are you always changing magazines and putting in more film? Thanks!!!
Sorry with all the questions, but also how do DP's manage to shoot long action sequences, since the magazines usually only run up to 1000' which is about ten mintues? Are you always changing magazines and putting in more film? Thanks!!!
David Mullen ASC
Active member
How much film you shoot is partially budget related -- obviously with more money, you can shoot more film. I can tell you from personal experience that on my 35mm features, the lowest amount total I have shot was 72,000' and the most was 200,000' -- but the average was 100,000', which is typical for a film in the half-mil to one million dollars budget range. That's kinda of convenient if you figure the average script is 100 pages or the final movie is 100 minutes, in that it works out to be one 1000' can per script page, so if you are shooting 5 pages that day, you should plan on shooting 5,000'.
Technically, that's a 10:1 ratio but it doesn't really mean you can shoot ten takes of every shot (since each shot can overlap how much of the scene it covers.) Practically, that's more like an average of three takes. But obviously you will use up more film shooting many takes of a two minute master as opposed to a 20 second close-up or a 5 second insert shot.
With 16mm, figure that a 400' roll is the equivalent of a 1000' roll in 35mm.
Ten minutes is pretty long; the average shot in a movie is only a few seconds sometimes, certainly rarely more than a minute. Most scenes are under ten pages. And action scenes can be made up of lots of very short shots. It's rare to need a roll that is longer than 10 minutes for a single shot.
In theory, if you shoot 5000' a day, that's loading a 1000' roll five times during the day. But in reality, you have rolls of different sizes (a Steadicam shot may use a 400' to reduce the weight of the camera) sometimes because you are shooting up short ends. So how often you reload can vary wildly. If you know you are going to be shooting very long takes that are very emotional, you want to load up the largest rolls you can in order to reload less often. In TV sitcom shooting in 35mm, which is often like shooting a live play, they will use special 2000' rolls and magazines.
Technically, that's a 10:1 ratio but it doesn't really mean you can shoot ten takes of every shot (since each shot can overlap how much of the scene it covers.) Practically, that's more like an average of three takes. But obviously you will use up more film shooting many takes of a two minute master as opposed to a 20 second close-up or a 5 second insert shot.
With 16mm, figure that a 400' roll is the equivalent of a 1000' roll in 35mm.
Ten minutes is pretty long; the average shot in a movie is only a few seconds sometimes, certainly rarely more than a minute. Most scenes are under ten pages. And action scenes can be made up of lots of very short shots. It's rare to need a roll that is longer than 10 minutes for a single shot.
In theory, if you shoot 5000' a day, that's loading a 1000' roll five times during the day. But in reality, you have rolls of different sizes (a Steadicam shot may use a 400' to reduce the weight of the camera) sometimes because you are shooting up short ends. So how often you reload can vary wildly. If you know you are going to be shooting very long takes that are very emotional, you want to load up the largest rolls you can in order to reload less often. In TV sitcom shooting in 35mm, which is often like shooting a live play, they will use special 2000' rolls and magazines.
So then, the amount of film initially ordered is based really on the length of the script? Do you usually order all the film at once, or do you order it along the way? Also, how many different film stocks is typical? Just the daylight and tungsten stocks? Im sure this varies a lot with the shoot. Thanks.
David Mullen ASC
Active member
Like with all aspects of low-budget moviemaking, how much is budgeted for film stock may have little to do with reality, just on how much one can afford to buy and process. But you will break down a script into what stocks you need and base the amount on the number of pages plus other factors. What type of stock you pick will be determined by the look you want and the practical needs of the location or lighting package, etc.
Some DP's will shoot as many as five or more different stocks, others will use one stock for everything. It gets to be impractical to use too many stocks because of inventory issues (keeping track of all the short ends that are created) and loading issues, and these problems are worse if you are at a distant location without a nearby film stock dealer.
It is not unusual to buy half or more all at once, then have it picked up weekly, etc. I usually put in an order for the whole movie with the producers, acknowledging that it may change, so they know what stocks I'm thinking of using -- and then put in a separate list to cover the first two weeks of shooting. After that, I'm basically ordering about a week's worth at a time, then towards the end, whatever is needed to finish the shoot. You may be quoted "x" cents per foot for one stock and a slightly lower price for another stock you also were planning on using, so if you end up using more of the first and less of the second, the producers may start to lean on you ("you said you were only going to shoot 30,000' of 5218! We're paying ten cents per foot more for that stock...") This is why you don't want to get too clever and plan on shooting with lots of stocks. I usually try and limit myself to three stocks max for a show. Many movies are shot with two stocks, a medium-speed and a fast tungsten-balanced stock.
Some DP's will shoot as many as five or more different stocks, others will use one stock for everything. It gets to be impractical to use too many stocks because of inventory issues (keeping track of all the short ends that are created) and loading issues, and these problems are worse if you are at a distant location without a nearby film stock dealer.
It is not unusual to buy half or more all at once, then have it picked up weekly, etc. I usually put in an order for the whole movie with the producers, acknowledging that it may change, so they know what stocks I'm thinking of using -- and then put in a separate list to cover the first two weeks of shooting. After that, I'm basically ordering about a week's worth at a time, then towards the end, whatever is needed to finish the shoot. You may be quoted "x" cents per foot for one stock and a slightly lower price for another stock you also were planning on using, so if you end up using more of the first and less of the second, the producers may start to lean on you ("you said you were only going to shoot 30,000' of 5218! We're paying ten cents per foot more for that stock...") This is why you don't want to get too clever and plan on shooting with lots of stocks. I usually try and limit myself to three stocks max for a show. Many movies are shot with two stocks, a medium-speed and a fast tungsten-balanced stock.
David Mullen ASC
Active member
10 cents a foot is a fairly low price, but that is still $10,000 if you shoot 100,000' on a feature, and doesn't include stock purchasing nor telecine costs. If you are paying 50 cents a foot for the stock, that's $50,000 plus the $10,000 for the processing, and then telecine may add thousands more on top of that. A feature that shoots 100,000' of 35mm negative will probably spend about $70,000 on stock, processing, and telecine unless they get some great deals, use recanned stock, etc.
A telecine is the traditional way to transfer film to digital (usually to a standard definition video format onto videotape) for offline editing, for a number of reasons (if you get your dailies on DV tape, for example, and then you can digitize the footage into your computer using a DV deck in the editing room, then save the tapes in case you need to re-digitize the footage.) While it's possible to drag your hard drive into a telecine bay and transfer directly to that, most transfer companies are not set-up well to do that and it creates some issues (like if the hard drive has a problem, is it their fault or your fault?) It's hard for them to shuttle back and forth over the recording using their telecine bay controls, etc. Using the decks at the telecine house tends to be more reliable. For small amounts of footage transferred at high resolution (like using a Spirit Datacine in "data mode" at 2K resolution) -- often for special effects work -- they might transfer to a client's hard drive or to a computer tape format.
A film scanner is similar except that it usually is non-continuous (i.e. it stops at each frame and scans it) while a telecine can scan film faster, usually in motion as it moves past a sensor. Film scanners tend to be pin-registered as well. So the general rule is that film scanners are more expensive, slower, but higher quality and tend to be used more for high-end theatrical feature film work like digital effects or digital intermediates, but not for material just destined for video display.
A telecine is the traditional way to transfer film to digital (usually to a standard definition video format onto videotape) for offline editing, for a number of reasons (if you get your dailies on DV tape, for example, and then you can digitize the footage into your computer using a DV deck in the editing room, then save the tapes in case you need to re-digitize the footage.) While it's possible to drag your hard drive into a telecine bay and transfer directly to that, most transfer companies are not set-up well to do that and it creates some issues (like if the hard drive has a problem, is it their fault or your fault?) It's hard for them to shuttle back and forth over the recording using their telecine bay controls, etc. Using the decks at the telecine house tends to be more reliable. For small amounts of footage transferred at high resolution (like using a Spirit Datacine in "data mode" at 2K resolution) -- often for special effects work -- they might transfer to a client's hard drive or to a computer tape format.
A film scanner is similar except that it usually is non-continuous (i.e. it stops at each frame and scans it) while a telecine can scan film faster, usually in motion as it moves past a sensor. Film scanners tend to be pin-registered as well. So the general rule is that film scanners are more expensive, slower, but higher quality and tend to be used more for high-end theatrical feature film work like digital effects or digital intermediates, but not for material just destined for video display.
I have wondered. I never understood the philosophy of offline and online editing. I have heard of it particularly in HD editing, why is that? What is it? Also, lately I've really been itching to shoot on some real film. I can develop it myself (with black and white), but what do you recommend?
1. Don't shoot on film
2. 8mm Super 8mm
3. Spring wound 16mm
4. Something else?
I really want to know if I want to go into filmmaking or not, before I shell out any cash for filmschool. I love making films, but it just seems like such a undependable source of living (unless you're in the ASC)! lol. For a personal question, what kind of projects have you mostly worked on? Low budget, 50k, or higher budget 100k and up? To what extent does the pacing of a shoot differ as projects get bigger? How do you communicate with the gaffer? Are you in charge, or are they in charge??? Do they just set up the lights, or do they actually have as much input into the creative process as the DP? Thanks!!!
1. Don't shoot on film
2. 8mm Super 8mm
3. Spring wound 16mm
4. Something else?
I really want to know if I want to go into filmmaking or not, before I shell out any cash for filmschool. I love making films, but it just seems like such a undependable source of living (unless you're in the ASC)! lol. For a personal question, what kind of projects have you mostly worked on? Low budget, 50k, or higher budget 100k and up? To what extent does the pacing of a shoot differ as projects get bigger? How do you communicate with the gaffer? Are you in charge, or are they in charge??? Do they just set up the lights, or do they actually have as much input into the creative process as the DP? Thanks!!!
David Mullen ASC
Active member
>it just seems like such a undependable source of living (unless you're in the ASC)!
Not even then...
I got out of film school in 1991, but I had been making my own films in Super-8 for a decade before I even when to graduate film school when I was 27. In the past thirteen years, I have shot 29 features I think, mostly low-budget. Two were made for about $100,000, five in the $200,000 to $500,000 range, most in the $500,000 to 1 million dollar range, some in the under-6 mil range, and recently they have finally been getting higher. Not sure my agent would appreciate me broadcasting the budgets of the films I have shot but I certainly feel qualified to be shooting with a bigger budget (truth is, it takes more skill to work with less money! And do good work, that is...)
I wouldn't mess with developing your own movie film -- the rolls are awfully long compared to still camera cassettes.
Super-8 and DV are two good tools for the beginner to learn with before you start messing with 16mm.
Because I came up in the low-budget world, working with a wide variety of Gaffers, some good, some not so good, I've pretty much had to learn lighting on my own and I am very specific -- probably TOO specific when I'm working with a good Gaffer because it's a bit insulting -- about what lights to use on the set. Certainly if I am stumped or unsure, I'll pick the brain of the Gaffer, or talk through my thought process with them to see what they think. I listen to their input even if I don't always use it. Sometimes they will suggest a different way of achieving the same lighting effect I want but perhaps their way is more efficient, etc. so I listen. If you work long enough with the same Gaffer, and they are good, you can start to be less specific about the types of lights and just describe the general effect ("I want a soft key light coming from the left" rather than saying "I want a 2K Baby Junior through a 4'x4' frame of Light Grid Cloth.") Because they already know how you like to light things. But when starting out with a new Gaffer, I tend to be hyper-specific about what I want.
Not even then...
I got out of film school in 1991, but I had been making my own films in Super-8 for a decade before I even when to graduate film school when I was 27. In the past thirteen years, I have shot 29 features I think, mostly low-budget. Two were made for about $100,000, five in the $200,000 to $500,000 range, most in the $500,000 to 1 million dollar range, some in the under-6 mil range, and recently they have finally been getting higher. Not sure my agent would appreciate me broadcasting the budgets of the films I have shot but I certainly feel qualified to be shooting with a bigger budget (truth is, it takes more skill to work with less money! And do good work, that is...)
I wouldn't mess with developing your own movie film -- the rolls are awfully long compared to still camera cassettes.
Super-8 and DV are two good tools for the beginner to learn with before you start messing with 16mm.
Because I came up in the low-budget world, working with a wide variety of Gaffers, some good, some not so good, I've pretty much had to learn lighting on my own and I am very specific -- probably TOO specific when I'm working with a good Gaffer because it's a bit insulting -- about what lights to use on the set. Certainly if I am stumped or unsure, I'll pick the brain of the Gaffer, or talk through my thought process with them to see what they think. I listen to their input even if I don't always use it. Sometimes they will suggest a different way of achieving the same lighting effect I want but perhaps their way is more efficient, etc. so I listen. If you work long enough with the same Gaffer, and they are good, you can start to be less specific about the types of lights and just describe the general effect ("I want a soft key light coming from the left" rather than saying "I want a 2K Baby Junior through a 4'x4' frame of Light Grid Cloth.") Because they already know how you like to light things. But when starting out with a new Gaffer, I tend to be hyper-specific about what I want.
David Mullen ASC said:VERY few 35mm features have been shot in color reversal. "Buffalo 66" is the most famous example, shot on the old VNF Ektachrome stocks of the 1970's (just obsoleted this year by Kodak) and processed normally into a positive image, thus requiring an optically-printed dupe negative to be made (contact printing the IN would have put the emulsion on the "wrong" side.) The opening flashback in "Blow" was shot on modern E6 Ektachrome, processed normally, and optically-printed to a dupe negative.
Some movies have cross-processed color reversal into a negative -- the middle section of "Three Kings" and big sections of "Clockers" and "U-Turn." Cross-processed reversal shots show up as flashbacks, etc. in scenes in movies like "Hidden", "From Hell", "The X-Men".
Color negative is by far more common. In 16mm, color reversal was popular until the late 1970's though.
16 mm reversal was mostly used for tv news reels and documentary before video came out inthe late 70s. Basically because you would gain time in processing (one process and you're done instead of 2 with a neg/pos chain)
"Delicatessen" was bleach skipped for instance
David Mullen ASC
Active member
>"Delicatessen" was bleach skipped for instance
Yes, but not the negative, the prints were. There aren't a lot of examples where the negative was skip-bleach processed because the effect is more extreme and less controllable.
"Saving Private Ryan" for example did a 100 IR level of ENR processing to the prints (slightly less strong than a skip-bleach) but "Minority Report" did a skip-bleach process to the negative.
If you are going to intercut skip-bleach footage with normal footage, it generally has to be done to the negative since when you do it to the print, it has to be done to the entire reel. Unless you do it to a dupe intermediate, like Eduardo Serra did on "Jude" for sections of the movie. "Three Kings" did a skip-bleach process to the negative for the first section of the movie (cross-processed reversal for the second part of the movie). The planet day exteriors for "Pitch Black" were done using a skip-bleach process to the negative, as was the Auschwitz flashback in "The X Men". Sections of "Amores Perros" also used a skip-bleach process to the negative.
But more films have done something to the prints instead, if not a full skip-bleach (all silver left in), then a partial silver retention process like ENR, ACE, or CCE. "Seven" for example used the CCE process for the prints, as did "Sleepy Hollow."
Now with digital intermediates becoming more common, people are opting to adjust the look of the film digitally rather than use a photo-chemical process and then make normal prints, so the look is built into the negative that is created by the digital intermediate process.
Yes, but not the negative, the prints were. There aren't a lot of examples where the negative was skip-bleach processed because the effect is more extreme and less controllable.
"Saving Private Ryan" for example did a 100 IR level of ENR processing to the prints (slightly less strong than a skip-bleach) but "Minority Report" did a skip-bleach process to the negative.
If you are going to intercut skip-bleach footage with normal footage, it generally has to be done to the negative since when you do it to the print, it has to be done to the entire reel. Unless you do it to a dupe intermediate, like Eduardo Serra did on "Jude" for sections of the movie. "Three Kings" did a skip-bleach process to the negative for the first section of the movie (cross-processed reversal for the second part of the movie). The planet day exteriors for "Pitch Black" were done using a skip-bleach process to the negative, as was the Auschwitz flashback in "The X Men". Sections of "Amores Perros" also used a skip-bleach process to the negative.
But more films have done something to the prints instead, if not a full skip-bleach (all silver left in), then a partial silver retention process like ENR, ACE, or CCE. "Seven" for example used the CCE process for the prints, as did "Sleepy Hollow."
Now with digital intermediates becoming more common, people are opting to adjust the look of the film digitally rather than use a photo-chemical process and then make normal prints, so the look is built into the negative that is created by the digital intermediate process.
A
ajboyer
Guest
I've got a b/w reversal problem.
I recently shot a film on Kodak's new stock of 7265 b/w tri-x reversal film with an EI of 100.
I goofed royally. I was shooting in clear daylight but my meter was misread, causing three rolls of my film to be over exposed by 3 1/3 stops.
This is ridiculously a lot, and I'm planning on just re-shooting. But my question: if I processed the film and pulled it two stops, what would the effect be? Or is the money to process it even worth it?
I recently shot a film on Kodak's new stock of 7265 b/w tri-x reversal film with an EI of 100.
I goofed royally. I was shooting in clear daylight but my meter was misread, causing three rolls of my film to be over exposed by 3 1/3 stops.
This is ridiculously a lot, and I'm planning on just re-shooting. But my question: if I processed the film and pulled it two stops, what would the effect be? Or is the money to process it even worth it?
"Delicatessen" was bleach skipped for instance
I realize I made a mistake... it wasn't skip bleach it was skip accelerator... anyway, David is right, the positive was, not the neg...
(I was working at Eclair when Yvan Lucas did the timing).
As to Mr Boyer's quote, it is a real problem when you overexpose reversal. I can't tell what it would look like in such a case but I assume the whites would be saturated anyway and the blacks wouldn't be pure either... also you certainly would loose resolution.
A
ajboyer
Guest
hey, update on the over-exposed film:
looks pretty good! Processed it normally and doesn't look more than a stop over! Kodak's new Plus-X b/w stock is some great stuff!
looks pretty good! Processed it normally and doesn't look more than a stop over! Kodak's new Plus-X b/w stock is some great stuff!
Alessandro Machi
New member
good for you. I was going to suggest pull it one stop, but I was also wondering if you were really three stops over.
AS for reversal film.
http://www.spectrafilmandvideo.com is kicking but with their Velvia ASA 50 and Ektachrome 100D (both in super-8, don't know if it is available in 16mm). It's really nice looking stuff. The Velvia Super-8 when properly exposed can look like almost like 16mm with just a tinge of contrast thrown in.
AS for reversal film.
http://www.spectrafilmandvideo.com is kicking but with their Velvia ASA 50 and Ektachrome 100D (both in super-8, don't know if it is available in 16mm). It's really nice looking stuff. The Velvia Super-8 when properly exposed can look like almost like 16mm with just a tinge of contrast thrown in.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 3,763
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 3,111
Network Sponsors
