TRI-X VS PLUS-X - your view?

[hideout_tree]

have seen many examples of both of these stocks, and read certain bits too such as:
tri-x= rated 200asa, good for architecture, film noir, horror etc
plus-x= fine grain, sharp images etc

i cant see to much of a difference between these stocks to be honest,(but prefer tri-x, not sure why)

could someone with a better eye for this sort of thing give their opinions on what stock they prefer, what each stock is best used for for them, and why?

[Nigel]

Hand processed 4X pushed to 500asa.

Yummy grain. To bad I only have one roll left.

Good Luck

[sk8]

i have not shot either yet...have seen many telecined examples. i would have thought Plus-X (100asa) would be better for Film noir and Horror, more shawdow and sharper blacks and whites.

[MIKI-814]

Plus-X is wonderful but you need tons of light because it has very low contrast. Well exposed, it's by far the best B/W available.

Tri-X has too much grain for me, I don't understand why some people prefer so much grain in Super8! I only shoot on Tri-X when there isn't light enough. I prefer Fomapan R100 over Tri-X. Fomapan is smoother and has much more contrast. Orwo 54 is a good option too to consider and can be shot either reversal or negative.

[alex-rus]

I prefer Plus-X for daylight shoots. When it's correctly used for bright daylight conditions it gives beautiful images that can't be compared to any other B&W reversal.

By the way, there is no big difference between Plus-X and Tri-X in terms of grain if you shoot at daylight.

And both Plus-X and Tri-X gives more deep tones than Fomapan R100.

[Justin Lovell]

I prefer to shoot tri-x and have it cross-processed as a negative.

Plus-x as reversal is too silky/ velvety for me.
In contrast to some of the other posters - i love thick grain. Makes the image feel like a picture created almost like pointalism.

If I want something slicker, I'll shoot on 16 or 35.

To me super 8 is all about the texture and the nuances that come along with it... so I embrace its quality, rather than fight to make it look like something better. (I used to have that viewpoint... and spent more time shooting tests, then creating films).

Check my blog for samples of all kinds of stocks, and the latest of what I've been up to

http://www.framediscreet.blogspot.com

[hideout_tree]

To me super 8 is all about the texture and the nuances that come along with it... so I embrace its quality, rather than fight to make it look like something better. (I used to have that viewpoint... and spent more time shooting tests, then creating films).

great post. sort of puts it in perspective.

[Charlie Blackfield]

It all depends what you're after. I would shoot Tri-X for a good grainy film look and Plus-X if I want a more realistic look (although it's still more 'filmic' than video). Having said this, the only Plus-X I've shot so far was Wittner's PXR100 in Standard 8 - not sure how this differs from normal Plus-X Super 8 stock. I'd think the look should be pretty much the same, but can't say for sure.

If you want to compare the two, you could have a look at two of my Clockwork Mouse films at http://www.charlieblackfield.com/media.htm - Clockwork Mouse Can't Get Enough was shot on Wittner PXR100 (i.e. sort of Plus-X), and Clockwork Mouse Strikes Back was shot on Tri-X (and partly digitally tinted). I think comparing these two little films makes the difference between the film stocks pretty obvious.

[avr]

It is hard to judge it on youtube or vimeo, but if you see the two stocks projected you will see their "own personality"
PlusX is fine grained and less contrasty (more like a negative stock) and TriX is grainy and more contrastly.
In sunny days (outdoor) I prefer PlusX, It give me more range and works with good apertures. I prefer TriX on strong cloudy days, it give me more "punch" or contrast and a good aperture to shoot.

[counterpart]

I have heard people say Tri-x for indoor and Plus-x for outdoor. Outdoor just means abundant of light; Plus-X is the best stock for that. For lower light you would use the Tri-X. What it comes down to is your lighting situation as far as how much light you will be working with. 200 will have more grain than the 100, if you are exposing correctly this won't be too noticeable. The best thing I would recommend is to try both stocks out for yourself. If you have a way to project this you can just by the stocks and processing. This way you can judge for yourself and use it at your location and come up with your own conclusion. If you are doing any serious work or a higher budget project I would recommend shooting on Negative stock for more latitude and better options and remove the B&W during telecine. Just another choice for you. ~Kris

If you have any questions you may contact me.
kris@pro8mm.com

[sk360]

And when you done talking with pro 8, make sure to buy your film at Kodak and have another lab develop it for you.

[Nigel]

Second that.

Don't buy anything from Pro8.

Good Luck