Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by Jarin Blaschke, Dec 15, 2017.
I believe they are using Schott B-270, which as a base transmits down to 300-320 nm. They say it will take 3 weeks to make our filters. They will be in standard motion picture sizes of 4x5.65" and 6x6," 4mm thick.
Our camera test was postponed, but from transmittance averaging and use of a spot meter, it looks like with the SP570, exposure loss is only 1 stop. With the custom filter it looks like loss will be only about 3/4 stop (58% average transmittance between 380 and 680nm).
The film was announced a couple weeks ago:
Wratten #44 seems to be close to what you want.
Like many 'looks' it doesn't depend on the film. That 'old timey look' is really based on such things as lighting, makeup, costumes, ... In all the years that I used ortho films I was never aware of a look. Unless your scene contains a wide expense of sky you won't see any difference.
I will have to disagree, camera filtration does affect the look tremendously.
Very much looking forward to seeing your results!
Filtration really does'n't get you anything unless you are after the Matthew Brady look of an unsensutuzed emulsion. But even with panchromatic film with proper lighting, costumes, .. you will get the desired look. This was all thrashed out on at least one other thread. The 'look' is more in the eye than in the film.
Ortho motion-picture films went out with the silent era, for the most part.
1930 - 1931
Super Sensitive Cine Negative Panchromatic Film --Awarded Oscar®-- (4th Academy Year) Class I. Scientific or Technical Award (joint with DuPont Film Mfg. Corp.)
Orthochromatic Negative Film discontinued
The main effect of ortho films was visible in outdoor scenes, where skies would appear blank, and red items would look very dark.
Don’t tell that to a portrait photographer
who used ortho film through the 90s
There is more to ortho response
Than costumes and outdoor scenes
We are talking about motion-picture film here. Is it too much to ask that you keep to the topic? If you don't know anything about the topic (and clearly you don't) please refrain from contributing and causing confusion.
And, no, there isn't any difference except color response.
Ortho films were used for male portraiture for decades, because it gives a swarthier skin tone (without make-up). Motion-pictures had to use special make-up for ortho films, and then they had to develop special make-up for panchromatic films.
Make-up was designed to overcome the limitations of ortho film; but it was all they had until about 1925.
"In 1923, Eastman Kodak began commercial production of a new, more stable, and faster panchromatic film and then, in 1926, lowered its price to a level that was similar to the blue-sensitive film it also produced. The switch by Hollywood from blue-sensitive or orthochromatic to panchromatic film was very rapid after that. As well as reducing its price, Eastman Kodak began to actively promote the new film, pointing out its ability to render skin tones more faithfully in close-ups, and to produce better pictures of landscapes and skies in outdoor scenes (Bordwell, Staiger & Thompson, 1985, p. 284)."
Read and learn:
Jarin, an interesting read, and great attention to detail, good luck. Always good to see real film in a film.
I have a question why would the suppression of UV make a difference, I thought modern stocks, and modern lens did not pass much UV light at all?
UV transmission depends on the specific glass types used in a design. Most glasses will pass UV down to at least 350nm. Some won't. Lanthanide short flints start rolling off at 400, for example. If he can measure filter transmission, then my guess is he can measure lens transmission.
whether it is motion picture film or still film it is the same emulsion. suggesting that orthochromatic emulsions were not available
after the silent era both for still and motion picture photography isn't true. an orthochromatic emulsion
is currently being sold by ilford in 35mm rolls probably available in bulk rolls / 100 foot lengths , and if the OP is shooting 35mm film he can
shoot +splice that instead of using filters to augment the light hitting his panchromatic film. ... and develop it in pyro or whatever it was
he was asking about processing it in inthe other threads he started.
just checked B+H
at least locally ilford orth isn't available
in 100' rolls, sheets though, in case you
feel like pulling a chris marker and having a
still image sequence in your motion picture
might not be able to pull it off unless you practice mumbling ..
it provided more advantages. than cost.
if it provided no advantage than portrait photographers who
used it as part of their trade would have given it up in the 1960s/70s, instead of making
character portraits using it through the 1990s.
not sure this thread is about the history of motion picture film ... its about getting an ortho look with panchro film ...
not sure about that, ortho response is more than dressing a scene to look ortho ...
Aside from Orwo films, the only black and white stocks available in motion picture 35mm are Kodak Double-X and if you special order and pay nearly twice the cost, TriX 7266 cut in 35mm. I tested the latter in 16mm, and it is a higher quality film, by the way - we just decided to allocate resources elsewhere. Perforations for motion picture have much tighter specs to reduce image weave, so it's not a matter of making long rolls of a still film.
Ilford briefly considered cutting and perforating HP5 for us on their old motion picture machine, but ultimately bowed out.
In any case, it's a panchromatic film one needs to work with. We are using minimal make up, and there is a lot of texture in the film. There are 114 scenes, so obviously there are plenty of scenes set outside with skies. Additionally, 90% of shots have a human face in them, so just there, there are two big instances where elimination of red, orange and most of yellow will make a very visible difference. Additionally, rust and wood grain are more pronounced, etc.
Our references are not pancake-make-up silent films, but rather turn of the century documentaries and orthochromatic portraits.
By the way, the lab will not handle catechol and my custom brew (offshoot of pyrocat MC) is effectively halted. It's a liability issue if an employee catches cancer in 20 years. They can point to handling catechol for 6 weeks back in 2018. This could change if we change labs, but I'm running out of time among my other cinematographer's prep duties.
Our lenses are custom adapted original B&L Baltars (they predate Super Baltars by 30 years). The head of optics at Panavision state that their lead glass "loves" short wavelengths and we should see a lot of transmission in blue and nearby UV.
Between our lens, custom filter and film, we are hopefully seeing some UV sensitivity start around 330nm or so, and certainly 90% transmission by 380 nm.
ahh thnx for the knowledge !
i've only used 8-16mm so when it comes
to 35mm ...
looking forward to hearing about hte film when it is done !
Yes, perfect. I agree with the Panavision optical engineer.
Fun trivia: When designing optics for space applications, I avoid UV-absorbing glass when all possible. In that harsh environment, UV-absorbing glass would degrade and discolor over the typical life of the mission... and you can't swap out a lens in space. When the design specifications force the use of UV-absorbing glass (to meet imaging performance requirements), special UV-reflecting filters or coatings (fancy haze filters) must be used in front of the lens to ensure UV is reduced to acceptable levels.
Another interesting trivia: Modern glass types, which have helped significantly to increase the aberration correction of modern optics, have become available in part because the requirement to pass UV and violent has been relaxed by industry trends. Digital imaging systems are less reliant on that portion of the color spectrum, whereas B&W and color film sort of do. The modern glasses had been formulated years or decades ago, but the requirements of film spectral sensitivity precluded their wide-spread use in photographic lens design.
I doubt this is strictly true; my guess is that it's the shape of the perfs rather than "tighter specs" per se. I'm a "still" film guy, not motion, but I'd guess that it's the "form" of the perfs that is key in the motion business. My understanding is that motion camera films use what's known as B&H perfs, which hs a rounded top, and it seems to me that this would have a self-centering effect even if a motion picture camera had sloppy sprockets or pawls, or whatever positions the film.
At any rate, if your budget was big enough, I'm sure you could have had the perforations you wanted on whatever film you wanted. But I suspect that the still camera film would have had issues in a motion picture camera - perhaps it needs a different overcoat package with different lubricity characteristics, etc.
I'm speaking from considerable experience. At the outfit where I spent a lot of years, we used to use B&H perfs on our still camera film. (It was what the manufacture called "special order" materials, it's non-standard but they have special manufacturing specs for the particular product.) This sort of custom product is not well known to regular photographers, but when you are buying enough product (or more properly, spending enough money) then you can pretty much have what you want.
I know this is pretty irrelevant to your situation, I'm just reacting to the "much tighter specs" on "our product" vs yours sort of thing. (I'll be in a better mood later on, I'm sure.) The needs are different, I'm sure, just not necessarily tighter.
Ps, on a different note, I'm glad to hear that you're getting to do at least some of what you want, and I'm sure it's all a good learning experience.
As an additional note, I'm pretty sure that more money would have gotten your custom developer into use; I suspect that you were just becoming what we'd call "an expensive customer," and this was a graceful way to decline using it. I'm pretty sure the problems with using it would have been much deeper than what you were seeing.
Ortho films are a poor choice for potraits as they empasise skin blemishes and lighten blue eyes creating an eerie look. As to using ortho film as the saying goes "if you only have a hammer then everything looks like a nail."
Exactly - this is the look I'm going for!
Yes, the perfs are rounded - my point is, they're not the same perfs.
For a movie, we don't really have a big budget, but for a black and white movie, we do have a big budget.
The tests have come in from the SP570 filter.
It's perfect for us. I tested it with no filter, 80A, 47 blue and 58 green. The skin tones looked almost as dark/rugged as the 47 and much more so than the 58. Meanwhile, the filter only costs 1 stop of light, rather than 3 1/2 or 4 stops. A great, great find.