Matching aesthetics of old b/w motion picture films

[peoplemerge]

Though I'm mostly a still photographer, I sometimes have fits where I must shoot a few mins of 16mm (100 feet at 24fps to be exact). At some point, I'll post a recent clip here, scanned in 4k.

Unlike still films, there are really just a few options for film stocks. There's plus-x negative, tri-x reversal (can process negative), kodak color negative, and some Foma films.

I, for one, am mesmerized by WW2 documentary footage and Amazon Prime has a super impressive collection. I watch it every night, it puts me out way better than any sleeping pill! Footage is sometimes low contrast, sometimes not, frequently poorly edited for basic tonal values.

Anyone know what the curve shapes of these old films were? I've been studying BTZS and want to start approximating them in a chemical process but I'm what I'm missing is access to old samples, to record densities.

Thanks!
Dave

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

If you post a specific example here, I'm sure folks can help you out.

...Plus-X has been discontinued for a little while. Instead we only have the much inferior DoubleX....

 

[Europan]

There are more films available in the 16mm format.

Orwo Universal Negative 54, panchromatic, ISO 100;
Orwo Negative 74, panchro., ISO 400;
Orwo TF 12 d, ortho., ISO around 12, sound recording film;
Orwo Positive Film 2, non-sensitized, ISO around 9;
Orwo Positive Film 2 plus, same as PF 2 but with an antihalo undercoat;
Kodak 3302, non-sensitized positive film; ISO 8 to 10;
Kodak sound recording films bear W O R D S exposed in the image area.

When you say old films you probably mean old-fashioned which in turn means coarser grain, less balanced colour rendition, deeper shadows in projection. Do not confuse the image you see from scanned prints with a negative image. In fact, one cannot judge films’ photographic characters by what one sees on a TV or computer monitor. There is a categoric difference between a silver image projected in the dark and a RGB image rendered on a display. Closest would be a beamer image in the dark but that would be RGB, too. A monochrome beamer appears hard to be found and this would still make lines, no continuous picture.

If you’re interested in old-time film making and have a 16mm camera, try some positive stock. These are cheap and wonderful for experimentation. Do you have a 16mm projector?

A third ingredient to the soup are the lenses. Do keep in mind that the old films you’re speaking of were shot with non-bloomed lenses. A few coated lenses were made and sold before and during WW II but most of the production happened with naked glass. The image from a 1920 Tessar is not the same as the one from a 1950 six elements system. Telephoto lens designs changed dramatically through time. Finally, lenses were different among cinemas. Where longer focal lengths were in use you often had Petzval and simple triplet objectives. The Xenon arc lamp, first employed commercially in 1954, changed that drastically. Together with the general move to the wide screen new designs came into use. Today you have computer calculated projection lenses that consist of seven free-standing elements, multicoated, to say nothing of the illumination geometry based on the deep ellipsoidal mirror. Believe me, I have done historical cinema for years, commercially, and it takes something to find back to how it was during the golden age. People have no idea of the technical interrelations with movie projection of, say, 1940.

 

[Kino]

Though I'm mostly a still photographer, I sometimes have fits where I must shoot a few mins of 16mm (100 feet at 24fps to be exact). At some point, I'll post a recent clip here, scanned in 4k.

Unlike still films, there are really just a few options for film stocks. There's plus-x negative, tri-x reversal (can process negative), kodak color negative, and some Foma films.

I, for one, am mesmerized by WW2 documentary footage and Amazon Prime has a super impressive collection. I watch it every night, it puts me out way better than any sleeping pill! Footage is sometimes low contrast, sometimes not, frequently poorly edited for basic tonal values.

Anyone know what the curve shapes of these old films were? I've been studying BTZS and want to start approximating them in a chemical process but I'm what I'm missing is access to old samples, to record densities.

Thanks!
Dave

You're asking for a Doctoral Thesis in response, although Europan did a great job!

WWII footage is all over the map; a mixture of 16mm and 35mm footage of all types of filmstock, processing conditions and, as you see them now, multiple degrees of generational (copying) degradation. Quality varied from slick, Hollywood-style 35mm information films to barely watchable 16mm gun camera footage, processed in Morse Tanks in the field for rapid intelligence assessment.

You need to define the look you are attempting to recreate, but be aware the a lot of the tonal structures of these films were, and are, determined by the quality of the initial exposure, the quality of development, subsequent storage conditions over the years and the method of transfer to a electronic medium. Unless you are screening an actual print, you can't be sure it truly represents what was on the film, and you can vary the image parameters A LOT with current technology for both good and bad...

You really need to define a look you are going for, before you can get there...

 

[guangong]

Ditto European and Kino. Especially the remarks about pre and post war lenses. Due to digital, many first rate 16mm movie cameras go for very little money and sometimes a church or school will give away a projector.

 

[peoplemerge]

Wow! Great information, guys. And no doubt on the master's thesis, breadth of topic.

...Plus-X has been discontinued for a little while. Instead we only have the much inferior DoubleX....

Right, I mixed them up in the post. My bad. I have some old-stock Plus-X in the fridge but am mostly shooting Double-X these days. Will post the samples shortly.

If you’re interested in old-time film making and have a 16mm camera, try some positive stock. These are cheap and wonderful for experimentation. Do you have a 16mm projector?

YES! In fact, I bought some Tri-X from a vendor that includes processing to positive and scanning to Digital Intermediate. There is also a nonprofit that has analog editing bay - something that makes a lot more sense on a positive than negative. I haven't started processing reversal but I think it's within my abilities.

Sadly I don't own a 16mm projector but I do live in Los Angeles, therefore have access to lots of resources.

In fact, one cannot judge films’ photographic characters by what one sees on a TV or computer monitor. There is a categoric difference between a silver image projected in the dark and a RGB image rendered on a display. Closest would be a beamer image in the dark but that would be RGB, too. A monochrome beamer appears hard to be found and this would still make lines, no continuous picture.

Today's public has a visual memory of watching this type of footage, chiefly on TVs. I'm going to start with digital output, and once I'm confident in my process and can assemble a project at the right scale, I'll produce prints from negative. The only means I'm aware of producing prints are the expensive services like Fotokem in Burbank that appear on the credit roll on films like Dunkirk. I had thought of investigating how it can be done on the cheap but first I have other fish to fry. Shooting positive fixes that but impacts the variables.

You really need to define a look you are going for, before you can get there...

Let me qualify the problem... if one spends a few hours looking at documentary footage, one sees a broad slice of war footage. Consider The War, a Ken Burns Film (free on Netflix); Second War Diary - The War Day by Day (Amazon, 73 hours), The First World War (Amazon, even older!).

Kino and Europan, I completely agree the footage is ...

all over the map; a mixture of 16mm and 35mm footage of all types of filmstock, processing conditions and, as you see them now, multiple degrees of generational (copying) degradation.

This is what makes it interesting. Every shot has a distinct look. One can easily separate the careful 35mm footage of Hitler and Churchill from 16mm handheld field, as you point out, hastily shot and processed.

The first answer filmmakers do when they want the look of the era (say 50s) is go back to using the cameras, lenses, etc of that era. 16mm and 35mm cameras can be had (16mm being more within my budget). With effort, a camera in working condition with clean lenses from the era can be found. Film from that era cannot be found, nor can the age effect on film (without patience). I hope to approximate that in the chemical process.

It's a fair point that what we see on Netflix or broadcast TV poorly restored has limitations compared to what people actually saw in a theater projected back in the day. I'm thinking I want to start with what today's viewers see on TV as a lower bar; once printing and 16mm projection is within my means I'll rethink my strategy.

 

[peoplemerge]

There are more films available in the 16mm format.

Orwo Universal Negative 54, panchromatic, ISO 100;
Orwo Negative 74, panchro., ISO 400;
Orwo TF 12 d, ortho., ISO around 12, sound recording film;
Orwo Positive Film 2, non-sensitized, ISO around 9;
Orwo Positive Film 2 plus, same as PF 2 but with an antihalo undercoat;
Kodak 3302, non-sensitized positive film; ISO 8 to 10;
Kodak sound recording films bear W O R D S exposed in the image area.

When you say old films you probably mean old-fashioned which in turn means coarser grain, less balanced colour rendition, deeper shadows in projection. Do not confuse the image you see from scanned prints with a negative image. In fact, one cannot judge films’ photographic characters by what one sees on a TV or computer monitor. There is a categoric difference between a silver image projected in the dark and a RGB image rendered on a display.

I had no idea about all of these other films. Thank you!

I fully appreciate the power of a good projection. Last week I saw Dunkirk in IMAX 70mm. It was heart stopping. Watching it again in IMAX Laser (only one theater in California) was no comparison. We walked out after 20 minutes.

 

[peoplemerge]

Here's one small experiment. 1st clip - accidently overexposed 4 stops. 2nd - at meter . Completely different character, right? The overexposure to me is reminicient of the older look.

 

[Kino]

This is what makes it interesting. Every shot has a distinct look. One can easily separate the careful 35mm footage of Hitler and Churchill from 16mm handheld field, as you point out, hastily shot and processed.

The first answer filmmakers do when they want the look of the era (say 50s) is go back to using the cameras, lenses, etc of that era. 16mm and 35mm cameras can be had (16mm being more within my budget). With effort, a camera in working condition with clean lenses from the era can be found. Film from that era cannot be found, nor can the age effect on film (without patience). I hope to approximate that in the chemical process.

It's a fair point that what we see on Netflix or broadcast TV poorly restored has limitations compared to what people actually saw in a theater projected back in the day. I'm thinking I want to start with what today's viewers see on TV as a lower bar; once printing and 16mm projection is within my means I'll rethink my strategy.

Much of what you describe is not the limitation of the equipment of the era, or of any era for that matter, but the effect of poor exposure, poor processing, poor storage, damage and multi-generational duplication OR poor production practices utilized in the original production.

I have worked with original camera negatives that date to the beginnings of cinema and they produce images that people refuse to believe that they have not been digitally enhanced in some way. I have also worked with fairly modern elements that should have looked great, but were dreck because somewhere in the chain of production, someone dropped the ball, pinched too many pennies or were just plain sloppy in their efforts.

Also, modern film stocks are, by in large NO BETTER than properly exposed and preserved vintage stocks.

I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but if you want a certain look, you have to determine what makes that look unique, what was the base cause of that particular look and then attempt to re-create that look in whatever medium you desire to use.

* Underexpose it and over develop it.
* Overexpose it and under develop it.
* Use the wrong stock for a particular application
* Roll the film out on the floor and stomp on it, clean it and print it.

Etc, etc.

As Orson Welles said, "The Camera is a base instrument; you must do violence to it."

 

[Gerald C Koch]

WW2 footage is all over the place as far as quality. Unless you can mention a few films that appeal to you I can't really be of any help except to say that the film you use is unimportant. No cine film made today has a particular "look" for your purpose. Such things as lighting, clothing, hair styles, etc are far more important.

 

[studiocarter]

Old black and white film to shoot can be had from eBay in 50 foot magazines.