Matching 16mm Film, Stock

My plan, hatched last year during my creative module, hoped to demonstrate that 16mm film making didn’t have to break the bank. And that by buying second hand stock, developing the film myself and choosing and cutting the shots in negative so as to telecine only the shots necessary to edit would seriously reduce processing costs.

That's £12.60 per 400ft!

To this end during the summer 2015 I purchased 2000ft of Vision2 100T on EBay for £63, in mind for my final project. I also managed to find and purchase an editor/viewer, a pair of film winders (essential) and a 400ft split reel. 

The modern film tape base does not bond together well using conventional film cement, which is what virtually all 16mm film splicers (available) use.
I had been invited to demonstrate the development process of Super 8mm film at CCAD to the first year film students. College agreed to trade a 16mm CIR tape splicer for the demo and the use of my equipment, which was great.

Mmm..Not quite a Steinbeck

And so now we are ready to cut and join our negative to weed out the chaff and save on telecine costs...Except upon packing away my equipment following the day of the demo I noticed that the spiral from the development tank was damaged (Booo!). 

Due to this misfortune I had to rule out any developing of the film myself on this project.

As there are two 16mm reconstruction scenes, one an interior in the court, and one with mainly exterior shots of the execution in the Documentary. Each is planned to run for approximately 3 minutes, with a shooting ratio of 3:1. It was decided that we should use 400’ of the 100T and buy 400’ of daylight film stock also to compliment it. Luckily I managed to purchase 400’ of Vision3 250D film from CCAD. 

The 100T film is an unknown quantity. It is supposed to have been refrigerated all the time that it has been stored, but it is sold as seen and so some tests are required. It occurred to me that I may be able to still develop 25’ lengths in the tank as the damage was sustained to the outside edge of the spiral.

To this end I Wound 25’ off a 400’ core of 100T onto a daylight spool. The stock must be wound off to length and then wound back onto a spool to maintain the wind of the film for correct loading of the camera.

The Damaged Spiral Base

I booked out a Bolex camera and lighting equipment, I set up a sand bag as a focal point on the settee and also some redheads to light it with in the studio. I performed a number of shots including walking into the shot to give it a bit of variation, however during the shoot the lid fell off the camera twice, both times when I was carrying it by the handle whilst the camera was running. The first time I thought that I must have seated it incorrectly after loading the film, after the second I decided that there was some issue with the lid and held onto it also to finish the shoot. I also was not convinced by the lens I used as this seemed to lose its sharpness when I took my fingers off it.

Vision3 250D test shot

-

Vision2 100T

The development proved nothing, the images were very grainy, fogged and not sharp. My worry is that a difference in colour and film grain between the two different generations of stock would be too obvious rendering the film not suitable for the production. But on seeing results, I am also concerned that the remaining stock may be effectively unusable. Add to this that I could not prove that the developing chemical mix could not be responsible opened up a whole new can of worms.

To prove that it wasn’t the C41 chemical mix to blame for the poor quality images. Using the same chemicals that had processed the 100T, I developed the remaining Vision3 250D test shot film taken for my Level 5 Creative project, as a control film. This is a film which is a known quantity. I already knew that the other half of the film had developed fine and the sort of image that I should be able to expect from it.
The development produced images as good as the Creative project film and so the chemicals were not the issue.

In order to isolate the Bolex as a problem from the equation, I shot and developed 25’ 100T in my K3 (Krasnogorsk) camera. This included outdoor shots (without an 85 filter) to compare with the 250D outside shots. Scan 1 In focus grain is significantly improved but is still grainier than the 250D. I thought that it was ok so long as it wasn’t viewed against better film, and so was still concerned as the 250D was better. I noticed that the frame edge on the 100T film was greying compared to 250D which was black. Lee performed a small colour grade which convinced us that it would be ok to use for the documentary.

Ignoring the Blue Hue Its a nice crisp image

 Tungsten film in daylight produces a bluish cast. To further evaluate the second test film, I researched colour correcting the effect that the 85 filter has on Tungsten film in post with Resolve. It had been mentioned during a conversation with Lee. 

I discovered that this is not a perfect solution as a filter before the film affects how light hits the film emulsion and how the different colour layers absorb the light.

Luckily Jango was around to pull some dynamic moves for me.

 I discovered that in circumstances where one type of film stock is required it is convention to use Tungsten with an 85 filter for exterior shots. This allows the crew to move from interior location to exterior location without changing stock in the camera. Tungsten stock is chosen over daylight as an 85 filter only requires 2/3 of a stop adjustment compared to 2 stops with an 82C filter.

The 85 Series of filters produce natural looking colours when shooting with tungsten film outdoors. Best results are achieved when the correct filter is matched to the film type. For negative film the difference between 85 and 85B is not much of an issue, unlike reversal film.

Filter	Conversion	Exposure increase
85 Cooler than the 85B.	5,500 to 3,400 K	2/3 stop
85B Tungsten to daylight.	5,500 to 3,200 K	2/3 stop
85C Cooler than the 85.	5,500 to 3,800 K	2/3 stop

The 85C is useful as creative warming effect with daylight film in daylight.

Scan 2 of film 2 It occurred to me that I wasn’t giving the 100T a fair chance as I was comparing the worst 100T image against the best 250D image but not the counter wise. Once I did, seeing them together convinced me that it would probably be ok.
The outside shots on the Vision2 100T looked good. As I said with scan 1 it would be fine for another shoot, but that the grain might stand out too much when matched with the Vision3 250D.

In light of my test footage results and research, the best way to combat my concerns regarding the matching of different generations of tungsten and daylight film stock is to also shoot outside with the Vision2 100T and an 85 Filter.
So during a chat with Lee I confirmed that we do have a 4” 85B that will fit the front of the SR3.
The bonus to this decision is that the Film budget costs are now significantly reduced, the downside is I now have 400ft Vision3 250D without a planned use…oh poor me.