New to film

[Gubble1234]

Hello! I'm new to this forum, and new to film. I have collected various cameras and cine cameras for the past year or so, and have decided to start actually using them. I'll be going on holiday at the end of August, so I'm hoping to make a short film of it!

I'm going to be shooting regular 8mm film (mainly because I can source it cheaper than Super 8) and have ordered a few rolls from Edward Nowill. Kodak 7363 B/W reversal 10ASA I believe.

I have two 8mm cameras I can use, but I'm not sure which would be best to learn the basics of filming on.

The first is a Minolta Auto Zoom 8. I'm fairly sure everything works on it, but the mercury cell is dead, and a new one costs as much as a roll of film! It isn't a problem, but if I can avoid buying one I would prefer it.

The other one is a Bolex B8LA that I bought on Wednesday. As far as I can tell, everything works fine on that too. It does look a bit more complicated though, and I'm not keen on the fact I can't see exactly what I'm shooting through the lens. I'm sure with practice I will get used to it though. It does look very good too!

I was wondering which camera the more experienced users would recommend I start filming with?

Thanks in advance,
Chris

[Mana]

Well if your Bolex has a nice set of primes I would use that. Can't beat primes, and the size of the camera is hard to beat. Plus I'm a little biased, I love my Bolexes!

[Gubble1234]

I've got a 12.5mm Yvar lens and a 36mm telephoto Yvar lens.

I went to the place I'm going to be shooting my first short film, and the 12.5mm lens seems to be slightly too close up, so I'm going to hopefully get a Pizar 5.5mm wide angle lens. I've found one on eBay, seems to be in decent condition. I might have to wait a few weeks till I get my next pay check in though, its a bit expensive for me, being at school still. I guess for now I will just stand a bit further back!

And I have to agree, this Bolex camera is great! Apart from me not being able to get the exposure meter to work properly, everything is brilliant! When I bought it, I wasn't aware it had some of the features it did, so it was a pleasant surprise.

I have finally found a projector that will work at 24fps too after a few weeks searching. It's a Bell & Howell Lumina 1.2, and from what I have read it seems like a good little projector.

I read today that the film I am using has just been discontinued... It seems like every other day I'm reading about something like this! I wish I had started a few years earlier.

[MIKI-814]

Mr Nowhill is a good source! Anyway I don't think the 7363 emulsion is most suitable for a new one... It is a very hi contrast film (in fact is it not designed to be used as reversal, but as positive print film) and it is difficult to expose it correctly. I'd go for a tipical B/W reversal film.

[Gubble1234]

Yeah, he has been very helpful!

That film was the cheapest I could find for me to get started on, I had to base my choice mainly on price as at the time of purchasing I had very little in the way of cashflow and still do really. If you can recommend a better film choice for in the future though, I will take a look at it!

I decided to purchase a wide angle lens too. I thought it would be better to just get it now rather than leaving it and then not being able to find one at a later date. (It was the only one I could find) That means it will be here in time for when I go down to the canals, so I will be able to make take some better shots!

[carllooper]

The 7363 stock is principally designed for rendering high contrast images, such as that which might be desired for titles, or mattes in printing. The film is also very sharp, which can be desirable. Note that it is sensitive to blue light only. Being only 10 ASA you will need a bright light (such as the sun) if you want to see any difference between the shadows and the highlights, eg. shooting outdoors on a sunny day is recommended.

But the images one will get, shooting otherwise ordinary subject matter, can be quite stunning - they just won't be "natural looking" images. One might say the resulting images will have, instead, a "supernatural" quality. They will have very black shadows and very white highlights, with very little in between. And for a certain type of work that can be very desirable. The blacks you get will be blacker than anything you might otherwise get with 'normal' filmstock. The results can be appreciated in terms of the hyper-graphic qualities it will exhibit. The play of light and dark on the screen can be really quite intense and mesmerising. The difference in aesthetic is similar to the difference in aesthetic between graphic artists and painters. This effect can be further exploited by shooting that which makes the most of the effect. I find clouds can be incredibly stunning. Especially if processed as negative (for which the film is 'normally' designed).

So I'd definitely recommend playing with the filmstock - especially if you can get it cheaply.

I believe setting your light meter anywhere between 10 ASA and 30 ASA will give you quite decent results. On scenes that are contrasty to begin with (eg. the silhouette of a tree against a sky) - which are the type of scenes you might typically want to shoot on such stock - variations in f/stop, of a stop or two (or even more), won't make too much difference. In a contrasty scene the boundary line between black and white won't change by much with variations in f/stop. You can otherwise experiment in ambiant lit scenes (but still brightly lit scenes) with variations in f/stop, to get a feel for the how it affects the result.

I once (quite recently) shot on some high contrast film, normally rated at 25 ASA, outdoors on an overcast day, but had mistaken the filmstock for TriX (don't ask). This represented an error of 6 stops (when taking my light readings)! And yet I still got an image. It was quite dark of course (it was processed as reversal) but the contrastiness of the film stock meant an image was still there nevertheless. On conventional stock I'd just get nothing. But you still need to shoot in a brightly lit scene. For example, shooting indoors with low light levels, and an error of 6 stops, will give you almost entirely black results (or entirely white if processed as a negative).

Carl

[carllooper]

I once (quite recently) shot on some high contrast film, normally rated at 25 ASA, outdoors on an overcast day, but had mistaken the filmstock for TriX (don't ask). This represented an error of 6 stops ...

This should be corrected. The error is (was) closer to 3 stops. Not 6.

In general, when shooting a high contrast scene on high contrast film you don't have to worry too much about being spot on in terms of f/stop (or ASA rating) - being out by 3 stops (or even more) need not matter, (the grey tones that might otherwise provoke a sense of error are absent from the film's rendering of that scene) - but as the scene becomes more ambiant (or more diffuse) in terms of light, such as on an overcast day, it does start to matter - not in terms of getting an image, but in terms of any desired balance between blacks and whites in that image. A desired balance will require more attention on exactly which f/stop you will want to use. With 'normal' filmstocks one is fussing about in terms of details within shadows and highlights and the general distribution of grey tones, but with high contrast film neither of these much matter any more. Shadows are crushed. Highlights are blown out and the grey tones are so thin it no longer matters how smooth or sharp the variation between them might have otherwise been rendered. Attention becomes more focused on the resulting shape and texture of the blacks/whites rather than the variation in greys between them. This is not to say that a sense of grey tones can't come out in the film. Where there are small details oscillating between light and dark the resulting effect can appear as a grey tone. This is particularly the case with forms found in nature such as flowers, or grass, or dirt. They have fractal textures (oscillations between light and dark at all kinds of scales) that a high contrast film renders quite well. A swarm of black ants on white pavement, on a wide angle lens, can appear as a grey tone. Or the texture of a rough wall, lit at a certain angle, can emerge as a grey tone.

C

[Gubble1234]

Wow, this all sounds complicated! Looks like I'm going to have to do quite a bit of experimentation!

The scenes I was planning to shoot were both indoors and outdoors, but the indoor ones were going to be very well lit as they are right in front of some open shutters in a warehouse. I'm quite interested to see the finished result now, there will be a lot of contrasting colours that should look very good from the sounds of it!

My camera exposure meter doesn't seem to work, so I'm using a lightmeter app on my iPhone until I can afford a proper lightmeter. It seems to work quite well though.

I'm hoping to start filming either tomorrow or Friday for my first short film, well, more of a documentary. I'll only be getting it processed as reversal for projection (again it's just a practice really, so to cut costs), so I will see about how to go about getting a copy on here, even if I have to film the projection with a digital camera!

[freddenacka]

I´m alsow new to moving film but can recomend Orwo UN53. It is easy do develop and looks good in my eyes
My example
https://vimeo.com/95856389

[Gubble1234]

That does look quite nice! It's a little bit wobbly at the sides though?

[freddenacka]

The wobling is probably cause of my diy scaning wich I´m working on to fix.
I think the quality would be a bit beter if I use xtol with no delution. The only problem then is that the developing time would be short.

[Gubble1234]

The lens and the monopod have arrived finally! Looks like I won't have time to shoot the first film I was planning, but that means I have more film to shoot on the canals.

I'll see about getting my finished film uploaded to here at some point too if it turns out okay, or even if it doesn't so I can get some pointers on how to make it better.

And still, even with the wobbling that was good! If my film turns out anything like that, I will be more than happy!

[Mana]

I´m alsow new to moving film but can recomend Orwo UN53. It is easy do develop and looks good in my eyes
My example
https://vimeo.com/95856389

Fredrik, I'm really liking the contrast with this film/developer combo!

[freddenacka]

Thanks! I'm out with the boat now and making a new one with same film.
Apparently I got some problem with it today. Probably I loaded the little spool with to much film witch result in jamming in the end.
We will se soon what come out.
I got an other d8l with a nice 13mm and a 38 mm lens.
Will probably use the light meter from that one thou the one I use today does not work.
Really nice small cameras

[Cinepugno]

I filmed a couple of movies with 7363: I wanted to make sense of "sci-fi" at first film, and it was nice to see some of the futurist buildings with a very strong white and a strong dark, with no grey "interludes", the' strange effect I wanted. Too bad that several seconds have come underexposed (normal risk with this film), even between f2.8 and f4.
These days I'm shooting a film with 7363 with on side of a palace, the sun is shining, but the exposure meter of my Bolex H8 pointed me to open f1.9 however, for a whole side of the film; this says a lot about that particular type of this film it is, an emulsion for particular experiments.

Now, however, I wanted to do the other side of the double 8 in indoor with halogen 3400K, but I read that the 7363 it's not sensitive to that kind of light, right? So the 3400K halogen spotlight and 5 Asa instead of 10 Asa would be bad?