Christopher Nolan got Kodak to cut Double-X in 65mm size to use it on Oppenheimer, where it will be printed onto 2383 color print film for the analog master. FotoKem had to drain and reset their 65mm machines ones or twice a week, depending on if they shot color or BW film.
@@bngr_bngr Yes, some scenes will be in black and white. Though, not sure which. Though some speculate that black and white will be used in flashbacks.
I am a professional photographer who has been using film & film only ever since 1990 & even though I am not a cinematographer, I am familiar with this film stock; especially since CineStill & Film Photography Project have this stock ready for still-photography & they have the D96 developer as well (there is a Positive D97 process, Colorlab in the U.S. offer this chemical process). This film stock has always been respected because it carries that Kodak B&W aura: strong tonal ranges when the light is balanced or direct, which is dynamic in itself, when that kind of tonal range occurs, you can either abide to the Zone System or walk away from it, but the point is, you have a median. Filters play a huge role in B&W film & you mentioned filters briefly but I would encourage anyone to look into filters if they are interested in B&W film. Pushing or pulling film can achieve results that standard processing & developing might not & that is a B&W film pitch worth trying if you are into still or motion film photography. Kodak found something in Double X & they kept it going. This was educational content, thank you.
So I’ve been intrigued in shooting Eastman double x because I have access to a community Darkroom and they got chemicals on deck. How does this film stock perform in normal photography or street vs a regular hp5?
@@TheWutangclan1995it depends on your lighting conditions. This film is rated at 200/250, so that is a nice median to push up to 320 or 400 or to pull down to 160, 125 or 100. It is a versatile film stock that can handle box speed or a push or pull. Again, if you have a sunny day or an overcast day, this film will get you through Street Photography. HP5 was originally a 200 speed film so your mention of it is ideal. I usually pull HP5 & it does well because its emulsion was built from a 200 exposure index foundation. However, ILford has a more even grey tonal range than Kodak's emulsion. This film Double X film stock is vivid with its blacks which can be striking when it blends with white, now HP5 will have a nice deep grey to white ratio.
When Wim Wenders shot "Der Himmel über Berlin" in 1987, he decided to shoot the perspective of the Angels in black and white but needed cinematographers who KNEW how to properly light a scenery for black and white. Because black and white and colour film are not lit the same way. He had hired folks who were very experienced in shooting on black and white film back in the old days. You can see that in a lot of old movies. Especially Film Noir where lighting a scenery became a distinctive artform. Lighting certain parts of the motive and turning others darker and creating an visually appealing contrast. While for colour things look a lot different. If you shoot something yourself keep that in mind. That is why turning a scene filmed in color to black and white often results in a pretty boring looking picture. If you shoot a scene especially for black and white in mind, it looks vastly different, much better and more interesting.
La Notte was shot on Dupont negative. Try to search La Notte on RUclips and check the production titles at the beginning of the movie. The Ferrania P30 was born at the end of the fifties to replace oldest Ferrania black and white film stocks, like the C6 and the C7, and was used mainly for newsreels and low budget productions like the early Pier Paolo Pasolini's films. Big productions as the Oscar winning La Ciociara by Vittorio De Sica are just exceptions. The most part of the Italian black and white masterpieces in the early sixties like La Dolce Vita, Fellini's 8½, La Notte, L' Avventura, l'Eclisse, ... were shot on Dupont negative emulsion.
If you’re into film photography, I highly recommend Cinestill BWXX which is essentially Kodak Double-x motion picture black-and-white film stock for photography
@@bngr_bngr that number just refers to the size of the film gate in the camera, so the frames you take on a 35mm camera will be bigger and rotated 90° compared to film exposed in a motion picture camera. But the film itself is the same
I’d be fascinated if you made a video on the photochemical colour timing process, and covered why some select filmmakers still insist on using it over a Digital Intermediate. (e.g. Paul Thomas Anderson, Quentin Tarantino and Chris Nolan)
When I shot photo journalism in the 1970s, Tri-x was the fast film of choice. I didn't use Plus-x, but I did use Pan-x, the slower finner Kodak film when I could control the light.
If you want a black & white classic look but film stock isn’t in your budget, take a look at the Leica Monochrom. It’s still expensive, and one review I saw of the camera showed it to have video capabilities although limited. However, if you’re shooting B&W stills and your client would like to see the results immediately, the Leica Monochrom comes much closer to looking like B&W film than using a color digital sensor and desaturating in post. To my eyes, B&W on a color sensor looks gray and washed out. For those who suggest simply shooting B&W film stock in an SLR instead of a Leica Monochrom, shooting real film stock is an option for stills, but then you’re in a waiting game for processing unless you have a dedicated home lab that is squeaky clean where there is no dust, fuzz, random hairs etc to cause problems. Plus clients can’t see results on a monitor right away if you’re doing client work, or shooting material that needs to be published asap. I’ve shot and processed a lot of B&W film myself in a home lab, and in a school lab before digital cameras were a viable alternative to film. Real B&W film doesn’t make people and places look flat the way that color sensors do when B&W looks are added in post. B&W movies shot on film have more depth as well, helping the images to pop off of the screen and feel less flat. I’ve never shot with a Leica Monochrom but to my eyes, its results look far superior to me than what color digital sensors can reproduce. Thank you for this valuable video and valuable information. It is much appreciated. If your curious about digital sensors being used for B&W images, review interviews with the DP of the film Mank. I haven’t seen Mank but I did watch an interview with its DP and they came up with a custom digital solution to get a B&W film look from a digital sensor by working with RED on a Ranger Helium Monochrome sensor according to RED’s website. - Cheers 😊
I pushed Double-X at EI 500 on an overcast day in a Canon A-1. The results were unbelievably good. This film shines in low contrast and low light situations.
In spite of myself, I enjoyed your video about the different film stocks used to create stunning images. It reminded me of the various 35mm and 120 films I used, like Fujichrome, Kodachrome, Pan-X (32 asa) Kodacolor and Tri-X (400 asa). How I miss my Nikon Fe2 camera!
heay man! huge thatnks to you for constant effort in creating this magnificent catalogue of knowlege! i learned so much within just couple of month! i ve been doing fotography for 10 years. i owned a studio in Ukraine with bunch of light and mastered it. naturally i developed into video shooter, i think, as many who came from still to moving image :) ocasianally i was shooting shorts and ads for fashion industry, but i never was embraced by idea to become dop or directoor or to be involved in a serious cinematography, although i always admire it. ive been watching movies since childhood, predator, back to the future, terminator 2 and so on. and i know that it is like a major pattern, when the movie-seed was planted in childhood, it very often grow into certain, very cinematic mindset. for last 5 years i ve been shooting music videos, ads, and fashion films - intuitively, without knowing the rules of aspect rations, camera moves, major dependencies between lenses and emotions they creating. simply guided by cinematic vision established by our beloved movies from 80-90-2000s. you gave me the knowlegde to interprete my intuition and to use in wisely! thats the purpose of our civilisation: wise one spread the knowledge for wisdom of others. and i so much appreciate your effort! tonns of happines to you dude!
Nice video. But let me say that La Notte by Michelangelo Antonioni, that you show here, was shot on Dupont. Dupont was another black and white negative emulsion used for many Italian movies as La Dolce Vita, Fellini's 8½, Antonioni's L' Avventura and L' Eclisse, The Battle of Algiers by Gillo Pontecorvo and many other.
Thank you for this. It challenges me to revisit my digital black and white photography and try to make it more pleasing to me. I've been taking pictures and making photographs for 50 years or so, and my greatest pleasure was doing black and white with my own darkroom, using an Apo-Rodagon enlarging lens, and the chemistries, films and papers I liked. In comparison with the results I was able to obtain then, my current efforts with digital black and white are largely disappointing. I think the potential must be there, but I'll have to identify the camera settings, lenses, and post processing software and techniques necessary to replicate the film results I remember. I'm using Sony cameras, and have a good collection of lenses, mostly vintage, and use Lightroom and Nik Silver Efex Pro 2 for processing. A question I would have about your video is: who is filming in digital color and then converting to black and white? I would think there are advantages to that (and perhaps disadvantages, too).
You will need to get a monochrome camera if you want "real" b&w experience. Or at least a converted color camera with Bayer filter removed. The rest should be identical to b&w film, color filters etc. Monochrome digital camera is expensive though so be aware of that
@@qiuboujun I just recently bought an old Schneider Kreuznach Xenar lens, 38mm f2.8 and have found that in combination with the black and white creative style in my Sony a7II, I can get results comparable to those of the film era. I suspect that the inherent contrast and the resolving power of the lens contribute greatly to the result and the Sony software program is able to render the desired look. The Xenar is SK's version of the Zeiss Tessar, four elements in three groups. What part the lens plays and what part the program, I don't know. I can get the effect with this combination, but more experimentation is needed.
I had never heard of Kodak Double-X film until I watched above, and this is very interesting. I've been shooting stills since the mid 1970's. Double-X was not available in still format 35mm or 120/220 still formats but apparently was available in sheet film according to a 1977 Kodak Professional Photoguide. I have to wonder why this is. If it's such a terrific film why did Kodak not manufacture it for still photographers, as they obviously made it in 35mm movie format? Which brings me to a couple of other Kodak films, starting with Kodak Tri-X. Tri-X actually won (plaque) an Academy Award in 1955 for Tri-X. It was roughly a stop faster than Double-X which had an ISO (almost certainly ASA then) of 200/250, while Tri-X was 400. The slower Plus-X (ISO 125) was introduced as a movie film in 1938, and was significantly better than Tri-X for grain and smoothness. The point of all of this is that I'd like to know if you're crediting Double-XX for movies shot with Tri-X or Plus-X. This may not be the case but I can't I can't seem to find that information on line.
For anyone interested in shooting with 5222, but lack the budget: Black & white film exists on one dimension and therefore can be profiled almost identically using input/output coords. The only difference that will remain is the grain, but with some effort, even that can be profiled. This can be done with digital acquisition or even by using other B&W film stocks.
You can't replicate film digitally. Film is too idiosyncratic to replicate digitally. There are too many veriables for it to be successfully replicated and it isn't worth the effort. If you want to shoot on film, wait until you can afford it. Because you cannot in anyway successfully replicate film without it looking like a sloppy iMovie filter. If a movie with as big of a budget as Mank couldn't successfully replicate film, then I don't see how some dude on BlackMagic Resolve could either. It's not worth the effort. Make with what you have. If you want to use film on a budget, Super8 is surprisingly good and is more reminiscent of earlier filmstocks with its grain. It's great for shortfilms as well and the processing/scanning is so much cheaper than that of professional cinefilms. Again. Replicating film digitally is a waste of time.
@ActuallyHoudini Lol. You need to let go of these dogmatic beliefs. From what background do you speak with such authority? Even colour print film is being coherently emulated with enough data points & scattered data interpolation. I cannot speak to whether Fincher wanted Mank to have filmic traits or look exactly like film but that does not disprove my point. B&W film *literally* exists on one dimension (lightness to darkness). If I expose a piece of B&W film with light for a controlled amount of time multiple times, the measured density will be the same (or close enough that the differences are imperceptible). You can use this fact to expose a grayscale ramp at different exposures from clipped blacks to clipped whites. If you do this for both film and digital you can use the digital measurements as an input (in Nuke or Fusion or Python) and use the film density measured (or scanned film measurements) as the output. There will be differences due to development and such but those differences do not make up the crux of the look. If you have 0 knowledge of colour science, I don't expect you to fully understand this, but respectfully, stop speaking on a subject you aren't well versed in as it only leads to misinformation and more dogma.
@@Amaraldo "Lol. You need to let go of these dogmatic beliefs." A passionate opinion is not dogma. I am not the one enforcing my beliefs onto others with allegations of cult-like devotation. It is up to the director to get the shot they want, not me. I am merely adding truth the the matter. "From what background do you speak with such authority?" I came from a family of people involved within film and television. My brother is a professional photographer and traditionally trained actor. I have spent the last six years researching the history of filmmaking as well as its present. My knowledge on film even bored the archivist at the BFI when I was shocked they didn't have the David Lynch 'Rabbit' shorts available on the system. The truth of the matter is that I know my shit. And no two-bit filmschool grad can beat me at what I know best. Even if my family had no connection to filmmaking, acting and television I would still have the knowledge I have accumilated over the years. I am no sham. I am an autistic idiot with too much free time who doesn't like to be tested on their special interests and hyperfixastions. To say the least. "Even colour print film is being coherently emulated with enough data points & scattered data interpolation." Yes, because Kodak's Vision3 cinefilm is the last remaining coulour negative cinefilm that is still being produced. The reason that it's been mimicked is because it is the only one that exists left. That is the film-maker's standard. So that's why Arri Alexas and RED cinema cameras can look identical to Vision3. Because that's what they chose to replicate, as its a very clear low-grain filmstock that's in commen use. When they try to replicate other filmstocks, that's where they fail. "I cannot speak to whether Fincher wanted Mank to have filmic traits or look exactly like film but that does not disprove my point." He did. He explicitly said there was nothing that digital-filmmaking couldn't replicate. And that failed. Mank had a budget of $25million and failed miserably with its attempt at recreating old orthochromatic filmstock through VFX work. The Lighthouse, a film shot on the budget of $11million, was able to recreate orthochromatic film-stock by simply using vintage lenses and shooting through a cyan filter onto black and white film. Which you probably already know, as hopefully we watched the same video above. The solution was simple but Fincher still made a mess. " B&W film literally exists on one dimension (lightness to darkness). If I expose a piece of B&W film with light for a controlled amount of time multiple times, the measured density will be the same (or close enough that the differences are imperceptible). You can use this fact to expose a grayscale ramp at different exposures from clipped blacks to clipped whites. If you do this for both film and digital you can use the digital measurements as an input (in Nuke or Fusion or Python) and use the film density measured (or scanned film measurements) as the output. There will be differences due to development and such but those differences do not make up the crux of the look." And that last part you wrote is where your house of cards crumbles. The process of development in its chemical baths and techniques of doing so is what makes cinefilm film. You might be able to replicate what happens when the light exposes the film. But a sensor is not film. It is a sensor. You can't develop a sensor. The sensor stays the same. Film does not. Film is like switching between 24 sensors at a time. All exposed to the same light for the same amount of time but each still visually differant to each other. When you shoot on higher-grain filmstocks that's when it truly can be admired. A sensor can't reinvent itself 24 times over and over and over. It is stationary. Sterile. Film has that advantage. When you get it developed, the certain je ne sais quoi shines through. And that little glimmer can change from lab to lab. It's not just about the chemical baths, its about the people who develop that for you. You can't replicate that through a sensor. You can't replicate that its a physical three dimensional object in your hands that has been lovingly developed through the passion of those who care. They are not just the crux of the look. They're why people still love film to this day. You know your stuff in your world, you just don't know mine. And as you can't see that the sensor and film are differant things of differant origin, you end up with this misguided artificiallity where your not even capable of understanding the beautiful chaos of film and that any attempt of replication leads to the ugly thing that is sterality. There is much more to film than the light it captures. "If you have 0 knowledge of colour science, I don't expect you to fully understand this, but respectfully, stop speaking on a subject you aren't well versed in as it only leads to misinformation and more dogma." I can say the same to you, friend. You have your expertise, I have mine. I know my shit, you know yours. I like what I like when I can hold it in my hand. You like what you like when its a bunch of ones and zeroes. So what were you saying about dogma?
@ActuallyHoudini You are beyond help, I'm afraid. You have elevated and romanticised film to a scary degree. Film has good qualities and that is why it is emulated but it isn't magic. Film looks as good as it does because the engineers and chemists at Kodak and such spent over a century working to improving it. You are too caught up in the film vs digital dichotomy. Why do you assume I have no history or knowledge of film lol? Arri rec 709 does not look like film lol. Not even close. A lot of data & math has to be implemented to even get it close to either vision3 contact printed to 2383 or to a cineon scan look. You can apply the same methodology to other film stocks with the correct data lol. There is no reason Ektachrome or Provia or Velvia or an older, grainier stock cannot be modeled. "And that last part you wrote is where your house of cards crumbles. The process of development in its chemical baths and techniques of doing so is what makes cinefilm film. You might be able to replicate what happens when the light exposes the film. But a sensor is not film. It is a sensor. You can't develop a sensor. The sensor stays the same. Film does not. Film is like switching between 24 sensors at a time. All exposed to the same light for the same amount of time but each still visually differant to each other. When you shoot on higher-grain filmstocks that's when it truly can be admired. A sensor can't reinvent itself 24 times over and over and over. It is stationary. Sterile. Film has that advantage. When you get it developed, the certain je ne sais quoi shines through. And that little glimmer can change from lab to lab. It's not just about the chemical baths, its about the people who develop that for you. You can't replicate that through a sensor. You can't replicate that its a physical three dimensional object in your hands that has been lovingly developed through the passion of those who care. They are not just the crux of the look. They're why people still love film to this day. You know your stuff in your world, you just don't know mine. And as you can't see that the sensor and film are differant things of differant origin, you end up with this misguided artificiallity where your not even capable of understanding the beautiful chaos of film and that any attempt of replication leads to the ugly thing that is sterality. There is much more to film than the light it captures. " This is romanticised dogma. Nothing more. How can you say so much and still say nothing at all?
Ilford makes Ortho 80 ISO film. I wonder if Jaron Blashke could've contacted Ilford and had them make 400' or 1000' foot lengths, instead of using Eastman XX and filtering it.
You didn't mention that there is black and white film that can be developed with colour chemistry, although no cine film like this is currently available.
so it would be actually cheaper to shot this digitally and change it in post then shot it on the actual B/W film? Is it time consuming and difficult? or is it like a LUX(still not sure If I understand what that is, but I think its changes the color and texture of digital). How close can you get to actual film stock? Is the difference really noticeable to the average viewer?
it would probably be cheaper, but you cant completely recreate film in a digital camera. it's one of those things that you cant explain unless you have shot with film (i only shoot stills)
@@fab9207 Im not a DP, but Ive worked in front of the camera(SAG/AFTRA) for almost two decades, and yet I know very little about the technical side. Just trying to educate myself.
![Black & White Street Photography in LA [Kodak Tri-X 400]](/img/1.gif)
Christopher Nolan got Kodak to cut Double-X in 65mm size to use it on Oppenheimer, where it will be printed onto 2383 color print film for the analog master. FotoKem had to drain and reset their 65mm machines ones or twice a week, depending on if they shot color or BW film.
That's gonna look insane. The IMAX experience is gonna be extraordinary.
I don’t get it. The trailer was in color. Are parts of the movie shot in B&W?
@@bngr_bngr Yes, some scenes will be in black and white. Though, not sure which. Though some speculate that black and white will be used in flashbacks.
@@bagnome that sounds cool to mix it up.
I've been trying to dig up some more information on that... Could you please share where you read about it? Thank you!
I am a professional photographer who has been using film & film only ever since 1990 & even though I am not a cinematographer, I am familiar with this film stock; especially since CineStill & Film Photography Project have this stock ready for still-photography & they have the D96 developer as well (there is a Positive D97 process, Colorlab in the U.S. offer this chemical process).
This film stock has always been respected because it carries that Kodak B&W aura: strong tonal ranges when the light is balanced or direct, which is dynamic in itself, when that kind of tonal range occurs, you can either abide to the Zone System or walk away from it, but the point is, you have a median.
Filters play a huge role in B&W film & you mentioned filters briefly but I would encourage anyone to look into filters if they are interested in B&W film.
Pushing or pulling film can achieve results that standard processing & developing might not & that is a B&W film pitch worth trying if you are into still or motion film photography.
Kodak found something in Double X & they kept it going.
This was educational content, thank you.
So I’ve been intrigued in shooting Eastman double x because I have access to a community Darkroom and they got chemicals on deck. How does this film stock perform in normal photography or street vs a regular hp5?
@@TheWutangclan1995it depends on your lighting conditions. This film is rated at 200/250, so that is a nice median to push up to 320 or 400 or to pull down to 160, 125 or 100.
It is a versatile film stock that can handle box speed or a push or pull.
Again, if you have a sunny day or an overcast day, this film will get you through Street Photography.
HP5 was originally a 200 speed film so your mention of it is ideal. I usually pull HP5 & it does well because its emulsion was built from a 200 exposure index foundation.
However, ILford has a more even grey tonal range than Kodak's emulsion. This film Double X film stock is vivid with its blacks which can be striking when it blends with white, now HP5 will have a nice deep grey to white ratio.
When Wim Wenders shot "Der Himmel über Berlin" in 1987, he decided to shoot the perspective of the Angels in black and white but needed cinematographers who KNEW how to properly light a scenery for black and white. Because black and white and colour film are not lit the same way. He had hired folks who were very experienced in shooting on black and white film back in the old days. You can see that in a lot of old movies. Especially Film Noir where lighting a scenery became a distinctive artform. Lighting certain parts of the motive and turning others darker and creating an visually appealing contrast. While for colour things look a lot different. If you shoot something yourself keep that in mind. That is why turning a scene filmed in color to black and white often results in a pretty boring looking picture. If you shoot a scene especially for black and white in mind, it looks vastly different, much better and more interesting.
Thank you! Some of this information can be hard to come by for an amateur
La Notte was on Ferrania P30, much like a lot of Italian films of that time.
La Notte was shot on Dupont negative. Try to search La Notte on RUclips and check the production titles at the beginning of the movie. The Ferrania P30 was born at the end of the fifties to replace oldest Ferrania black and white film stocks, like the C6 and the C7, and was used mainly for newsreels and low budget productions like the early Pier Paolo Pasolini's films. Big productions as the Oscar winning La Ciociara by Vittorio De Sica are just exceptions. The most part of the Italian black and white masterpieces in the early sixties like La Dolce Vita, Fellini's 8½, La Notte, L' Avventura, l'Eclisse, ... were shot on Dupont negative emulsion.
Thank you for the effort you put into your content, it really shines through!
If you’re into film photography, I highly recommend Cinestill BWXX which is essentially Kodak Double-x motion picture black-and-white film stock for photography
Is Cinestill rolling Double X into 35mm rolls? I thought DX was 4 sprockets vs 8 sprockets for 35mm film cameras.
came here to say this! can’t recommend it enough. beautiful film stock, not too expensive for the money, either.
@@bngr_bngr yup, they sure do! CineStill’s XX 35mm cassettes work fine in the ≈15 cameras i’ve tried.
@@bngr_bngr that number just refers to the size of the film gate in the camera, so the frames you take on a 35mm camera will be bigger and rotated 90° compared to film exposed in a motion picture camera. But the film itself is the same
I’d be fascinated if you made a video on the photochemical colour timing process, and covered why some select filmmakers still insist on using it over a Digital Intermediate. (e.g. Paul Thomas Anderson, Quentin Tarantino and Chris Nolan)
When I shot photo journalism in the 1970s, Tri-x was the fast film of choice. I didn't use Plus-x, but I did use Pan-x, the slower finner Kodak film when I could control the light.
I have a roll of this for 35mm stills cameras in the fridge. Will have to wait until spring to shoot it though I think.
If you want a black & white classic look but film stock isn’t in your budget, take a look at the Leica Monochrom. It’s still expensive, and one review I saw of the camera showed it to have video capabilities although limited. However, if you’re shooting B&W stills and your client would like to see the results immediately, the Leica Monochrom comes much closer to looking like B&W film than using a color digital sensor and desaturating in post. To my eyes, B&W on a color sensor looks gray and washed out. For those who suggest simply shooting B&W film stock in an SLR instead of a Leica Monochrom, shooting real film stock is an option for stills, but then you’re in a waiting game for processing unless you have a dedicated home lab that is squeaky clean where there is no dust, fuzz, random hairs etc to cause problems. Plus clients can’t see results on a monitor right away if you’re doing client work, or shooting material that needs to be published asap. I’ve shot and processed a lot of B&W film myself in a home lab, and in a school lab before digital cameras were a viable alternative to film. Real B&W film doesn’t make people and places look flat the way that color sensors do when B&W looks are added in post. B&W movies shot on film have more depth as well, helping the images to pop off of the screen and feel less flat. I’ve never shot with a Leica Monochrom but to my eyes, its results look far superior to me than what color digital sensors can reproduce. Thank you for this valuable video and valuable information. It is much appreciated. If your curious about digital sensors being used for B&W images, review interviews with the DP of the film Mank. I haven’t seen Mank but I did watch an interview with its DP and they came up with a custom digital solution to get a B&W film look from a digital sensor by working with RED on a Ranger Helium Monochrome sensor according to RED’s website. - Cheers 😊
I pushed Double-X at EI 500 on an overcast day in a Canon A-1. The results were unbelievably good. This film shines in low contrast and low light situations.
In spite of myself, I enjoyed your video about the different film stocks used to create stunning images. It reminded me of the various 35mm and 120 films I used, like Fujichrome, Kodachrome, Pan-X (32 asa) Kodacolor and Tri-X (400 asa). How I miss my Nikon Fe2 camera!
heay man! huge thatnks to you for constant effort in creating this magnificent catalogue of knowlege! i learned so much within just couple of month!
i ve been doing fotography for 10 years. i owned a studio in Ukraine with bunch of light and mastered it. naturally i developed into video shooter, i think, as many who came from still to moving image :)
ocasianally i was shooting shorts and ads for fashion industry, but i never was embraced by idea to become dop or directoor or to be involved in a serious cinematography, although i always admire it. ive been watching movies since childhood, predator, back to the future, terminator 2 and so on. and i know that it is like a major pattern, when the movie-seed was planted in childhood, it very often grow into certain, very cinematic mindset.
for last 5 years i ve been shooting music videos, ads, and fashion films - intuitively, without knowing the rules of aspect rations, camera moves, major dependencies between lenses and emotions they creating. simply guided by cinematic vision established by our beloved movies from 80-90-2000s. you gave me the knowlegde to interprete my intuition and to use in wisely! thats the purpose of our civilisation: wise one spread the knowledge for wisdom of others. and i so much appreciate your effort! tonns of happines to you dude!
Nice video. But let me say that La Notte by Michelangelo Antonioni, that you show here, was shot on Dupont. Dupont was another black and white negative emulsion used for many Italian movies as La Dolce Vita, Fellini's 8½, Antonioni's L' Avventura and L' Eclisse, The Battle of Algiers by Gillo Pontecorvo and many other.
Wow, I love this! Thank you so so so much for this video!
Superb video, and a brilliant explanation.
Thank you for this. It challenges me to revisit my digital black and white photography and try to make it more pleasing to me. I've been taking pictures and making photographs for 50 years or so, and my greatest pleasure was doing black and white with my own darkroom, using an Apo-Rodagon enlarging lens, and the chemistries, films and papers I liked. In comparison with the results I was able to obtain then, my current efforts with digital black and white are largely disappointing. I think the potential must be there, but I'll have to identify the camera settings, lenses, and post processing software and techniques necessary to replicate the film results I remember. I'm using Sony cameras, and have a good collection of lenses, mostly vintage, and use Lightroom and Nik Silver Efex Pro 2 for processing.
A question I would have about your video is: who is filming in digital color and then converting to black and white? I would think there are advantages to that (and perhaps disadvantages, too).
You will need to get a monochrome camera if you want "real" b&w experience. Or at least a converted color camera with Bayer filter removed. The rest should be identical to b&w film, color filters etc. Monochrome digital camera is expensive though so be aware of that
@@qiuboujun I just recently bought an old Schneider Kreuznach Xenar lens, 38mm f2.8 and have found that in combination with the black and white creative style in my Sony a7II, I can get results comparable to those of the film era. I suspect that the inherent contrast and the resolving power of the lens contribute greatly to the result and the Sony software program is able to render the desired look. The Xenar is SK's version of the Zeiss Tessar, four elements in three groups. What part the lens plays and what part the program, I don't know. I can get the effect with this combination, but more experimentation is needed.
Colour films have silver in the emulsion layers along with dye couplers. The silver is removed during processing.
this was great, thanks!
Your videos are so well done oh my god
I had never heard of Kodak Double-X film until I watched above, and this is very interesting. I've been shooting stills since the mid 1970's. Double-X was not available in still format 35mm or 120/220 still formats but apparently was available in sheet film according to a 1977 Kodak Professional Photoguide. I have to wonder why this is. If it's such a terrific film why did Kodak not manufacture it for still photographers, as they obviously made it in 35mm movie format? Which brings me to a couple of other Kodak films, starting with Kodak Tri-X. Tri-X actually won (plaque) an Academy Award in 1955 for Tri-X. It was roughly a stop faster than Double-X which had an ISO (almost certainly ASA then) of 200/250, while Tri-X was 400. The slower Plus-X (ISO 125) was introduced as a movie film in 1938, and was significantly better than Tri-X for grain and smoothness. The point of all of this is that I'd like to know if you're crediting Double-XX for movies shot with Tri-X or Plus-X. This may not be the case but I can't I can't seem to find that information on line.
Great video
Amazing video! Keep these coming!!
Double-X is also easier to scratch so be careful in threading
Thanks!
Awesome video as always!
Stop teasing us with bits and bobs of 'The Lighthouse.' Just make a 3 budget level video on Robert Eggers already. Please.
I strongly second this
For anyone interested in shooting with 5222, but lack the budget: Black & white film exists on one dimension and therefore can be profiled almost identically using input/output coords. The only difference that will remain is the grain, but with some effort, even that can be profiled. This can be done with digital acquisition or even by using other B&W film stocks.
You can't replicate film digitally. Film is too idiosyncratic to replicate digitally. There are too many veriables for it to be successfully replicated and it isn't worth the effort. If you want to shoot on film, wait until you can afford it. Because you cannot in anyway successfully replicate film without it looking like a sloppy iMovie filter. If a movie with as big of a budget as Mank couldn't successfully replicate film, then I don't see how some dude on BlackMagic Resolve could either. It's not worth the effort. Make with what you have.
If you want to use film on a budget, Super8 is surprisingly good and is more reminiscent of earlier filmstocks with its grain. It's great for shortfilms as well and the processing/scanning is so much cheaper than that of professional cinefilms.
Again. Replicating film digitally is a waste of time.
@ActuallyHoudini Lol. You need to let go of these dogmatic beliefs. From what background do you speak with such authority? Even colour print film is being coherently emulated with enough data points & scattered data interpolation. I cannot speak to whether Fincher wanted Mank to have filmic traits or look exactly like film but that does not disprove my point. B&W film *literally* exists on one dimension (lightness to darkness). If I expose a piece of B&W film with light for a controlled amount of time multiple times, the measured density will be the same (or close enough that the differences are imperceptible). You can use this fact to expose a grayscale ramp at different exposures from clipped blacks to clipped whites. If you do this for both film and digital you can use the digital measurements as an input (in Nuke or Fusion or Python) and use the film density measured (or scanned film measurements) as the output. There will be differences due to development and such but those differences do not make up the crux of the look. If you have 0 knowledge of colour science, I don't expect you to fully understand this, but respectfully, stop speaking on a subject you aren't well versed in as it only leads to misinformation and more dogma.
@@Amaraldo "Lol. You need to let go of these dogmatic beliefs."
A passionate opinion is not dogma. I am not the one enforcing my beliefs onto others with allegations of cult-like devotation. It is up to the director to get the shot they want, not me. I am merely adding truth the the matter.
"From what background do you speak with such authority?"
I came from a family of people involved within film and television. My brother is a professional photographer and traditionally trained actor. I have spent the last six years researching the history of filmmaking as well as its present. My knowledge on film even bored the archivist at the BFI when I was shocked they didn't have the David Lynch 'Rabbit' shorts available on the system. The truth of the matter is that I know my shit. And no two-bit filmschool grad can beat me at what I know best. Even if my family had no connection to filmmaking, acting and television I would still have the knowledge I have accumilated over the years. I am no sham. I am an autistic idiot with too much free time who doesn't like to be tested on their special interests and hyperfixastions. To say the least.
"Even colour print film is being coherently emulated with enough data points & scattered data interpolation."
Yes, because Kodak's Vision3 cinefilm is the last remaining coulour negative cinefilm that is still being produced. The reason that it's been mimicked is because it is the only one that exists left. That is the film-maker's standard. So that's why Arri Alexas and RED cinema cameras can look identical to Vision3. Because that's what they chose to replicate, as its a very clear low-grain filmstock that's in commen use. When they try to replicate other filmstocks, that's where they fail.
"I cannot speak to whether Fincher wanted Mank to have filmic traits or look exactly like film but that does not disprove my point."
He did. He explicitly said there was nothing that digital-filmmaking couldn't replicate. And that failed. Mank had a budget of $25million and failed miserably with its attempt at recreating old orthochromatic filmstock through VFX work. The Lighthouse, a film shot on the budget of $11million, was able to recreate orthochromatic film-stock by simply using vintage lenses and shooting through a cyan filter onto black and white film. Which you probably already know, as hopefully we watched the same video above. The solution was simple but Fincher still made a mess.
" B&W film literally exists on one dimension (lightness to darkness). If I expose a piece of B&W film with light for a controlled amount of time multiple times, the measured density will be the same (or close enough that the differences are imperceptible). You can use this fact to expose a grayscale ramp at different exposures from clipped blacks to clipped whites. If you do this for both film and digital you can use the digital measurements as an input (in Nuke or Fusion or Python) and use the film density measured (or scanned film measurements) as the output. There will be differences due to development and such but those differences do not make up the crux of the look."
And that last part you wrote is where your house of cards crumbles. The process of development in its chemical baths and techniques of doing so is what makes cinefilm film. You might be able to replicate what happens when the light exposes the film. But a sensor is not film. It is a sensor. You can't develop a sensor. The sensor stays the same. Film does not. Film is like switching between 24 sensors at a time. All exposed to the same light for the same amount of time but each still visually differant to each other. When you shoot on higher-grain filmstocks that's when it truly can be admired. A sensor can't reinvent itself 24 times over and over and over. It is stationary. Sterile. Film has that advantage. When you get it developed, the certain je ne sais quoi shines through. And that little glimmer can change from lab to lab. It's not just about the chemical baths, its about the people who develop that for you. You can't replicate that through a sensor. You can't replicate that its a physical three dimensional object in your hands that has been lovingly developed through the passion of those who care. They are not just the crux of the look. They're why people still love film to this day. You know your stuff in your world, you just don't know mine. And as you can't see that the sensor and film are differant things of differant origin, you end up with this misguided artificiallity where your not even capable of understanding the beautiful chaos of film and that any attempt of replication leads to the ugly thing that is sterality. There is much more to film than the light it captures.
"If you have 0 knowledge of colour science, I don't expect you to fully understand this, but respectfully, stop speaking on a subject you aren't well versed in as it only leads to misinformation and more dogma."
I can say the same to you, friend. You have your expertise, I have mine. I know my shit, you know yours. I like what I like when I can hold it in my hand. You like what you like when its a bunch of ones and zeroes. So what were you saying about dogma?
@ActuallyHoudini You are beyond help, I'm afraid. You have elevated and romanticised film to a scary degree. Film has good qualities and that is why it is emulated but it isn't magic. Film looks as good as it does because the engineers and chemists at Kodak and such spent over a century working to improving it. You are too caught up in the film vs digital dichotomy. Why do you assume I have no history or knowledge of film lol?
Arri rec 709 does not look like film lol. Not even close. A lot of data & math has to be implemented to even get it close to either vision3 contact printed to 2383 or to a cineon scan look. You can apply the same methodology to other film stocks with the correct data lol. There is no reason Ektachrome or Provia or Velvia or an older, grainier stock cannot be modeled.
"And that last part you wrote is where your house of cards crumbles. The process of development in its chemical baths and techniques of doing so is what makes cinefilm film. You might be able to replicate what happens when the light exposes the film. But a sensor is not film. It is a sensor. You can't develop a sensor. The sensor stays the same. Film does not. Film is like switching between 24 sensors at a time. All exposed to the same light for the same amount of time but each still visually differant to each other. When you shoot on higher-grain filmstocks that's when it truly can be admired. A sensor can't reinvent itself 24 times over and over and over. It is stationary. Sterile. Film has that advantage. When you get it developed, the certain je ne sais quoi shines through. And that little glimmer can change from lab to lab. It's not just about the chemical baths, its about the people who develop that for you. You can't replicate that through a sensor. You can't replicate that its a physical three dimensional object in your hands that has been lovingly developed through the passion of those who care. They are not just the crux of the look. They're why people still love film to this day. You know your stuff in your world, you just don't know mine. And as you can't see that the sensor and film are differant things of differant origin, you end up with this misguided artificiallity where your not even capable of understanding the beautiful chaos of film and that any attempt of replication leads to the ugly thing that is sterality. There is much more to film than the light it captures. "
This is romanticised dogma. Nothing more. How can you say so much and still say nothing at all?
@@ActuallyHoudini Mank wasn't trying to replicate the film look at all though. It's very blatantly going for the modern digital b&w look.
Marcel Rév talks about 1960s Hollywood, but scenes from an Italian film are shown :)
Fascinating content, ascever
Precisely why I’m buying all the expired Double X I can find (cheaply..) for 16mm projects.
Great video.
I shoot respooled Double-X at 400, develop in Diafine, 3 minutes in Solution A, 3 minutes in Solution B.
Sam Levinson really loves him some old film stock
Ilford makes Ortho 80 ISO film. I wonder if Jaron Blashke could've contacted Ilford and had them make 400' or 1000' foot lengths, instead of using Eastman XX and filtering it.
Please don't stop creating those videos !
Amanzing!!!!😮😮😮😮
I buy BWXX from my stills 35mm camera Canon A1 It’s great for classic BW Boudoir
Довольно интересное видео. Думал с плёнкой проще всё, есть ЧБ и цветная, а оказывается не так просто всё😀😃😃😃
You didn't mention that there is black and white film that can be developed with colour chemistry, although no cine film like this is currently available.
7222 is all I use now a days
so it would be actually cheaper to shot this digitally and change it in post then shot it on the actual B/W film? Is it time consuming and difficult? or is it like a LUX(still not sure If I understand what that is, but I think its changes the color and texture of digital). How close can you get to actual film stock? Is the difference really noticeable to the average viewer?
Great question! I am wondering this too.
it would probably be cheaper, but you cant completely recreate film in a digital camera. it's one of those things that you cant explain unless you have shot with film (i only shoot stills)
@@fab9207 Im not a DP, but Ive worked in front of the camera(SAG/AFTRA) for almost two decades, and yet I know very little about the technical side.
Just trying to educate myself.
Seems like this stick should be available in 8mm too! 🙂
A+
What we’re the names of the movies made with this film that you showed in the video?
what the name of movie that the cover of video features?
♥️
don't care, my iphone better
Great video