Some time ago I posted "Video vs film, why did the HQ Sound let go with the video?" whereas David M. Leugers contributed by praising the earlier Magstriped 16mm VNF 7240 (E125) which seems to not be too popular with many S8 shooters.
This made me remember that I had shot some rolls with the E-160 back in the ´80s that I am very satisfified with. To me it appears that the E-160 did a wonderful job in mixed lights and it offer pretty low grain when the following frames are projected.
I think that these images are very good and some of them offers a very professional impression (colour balance) although it was a pull and shoot job only. Additionally they were shot at 150° not 220° which were available at the C1014. At that time I did not even know the cam had the 220° option.
Apart from the low res scans, somewhat darker balance etc than when projected, I think the E160 did a very good job under these circumstances.
Just to add some more thoughts. I too have some very wonderful (IMHO) footage shot on E160. When I jumped back into S-8mm filming around 1987 (after exclusive 16mm and R-8mm filming for a time), I shot my son's birthday and other footage around the house at night with some simple movie floods. I am always impressed with the pleasant colors and flattering closeups this stock could deliver under the right circumstances. The Ektachrome G 160 was way overlooked and maligned by all critics who didn't take the effort to explore its possibilities also. I discovered this stock gave a unique and pleasing quality to footage shot outdoors in daylight, especially in subdued daylight such as near dusk. Recently I had just about given up on Fomopan B+W until I read about others success with it on this website. I found a lab which gave the results I was looking for and discovered I love this film. I am saying that we could all be better cinematographers if we are willing to experiment and try different stocks to exploit them for their unique qualities instead of just seeing which is the finest grained or sharpest, etc. Film on.
David M. Leugers wrote:I am saying that we could all be better cinematographers if we are willing to experiment and try different stocks to exploit them for their unique qualities instead of just seeing which is the finest grained or sharpest, etc. Film on.
Agree and just like to add that no one complains about grain and bad colours from consumer camcorders in low light conditions but as soon as some grain appears on S8 it seem to be brakes on.
Looking forward to test my E125 / VNF 7240 to compare to the E160.
The lab I found that does Fomapan great (I am sure there are others) is
Franklin Film Lab in California. Frank the proprietor loves film and made his own processing equipment to provide the quality control he was looking for and it shows in his work. It is the only lab I know of that caters to Black and White film exclusively.
Franklin Film Lab
1495 West 9th St. #409
Upland, CA 91786
(909) 946-7480
Liked your images! The top picture shows the pastel quality of the colors very well - notice the beautiful skin tones. If you were to shoot some closeups of the people at the bar taken from the other side they would look just great. The exposure latitude is much wider than Kodachrome as you can see all the details in the top picture even the shadows. You can see the moon and the tree and both inside and outside in the other two pictures. Who said grain is a bad thing? It is just another attribute and one that I personally like when used for effect. One of the most beautifullly filmed amateur films I have ever seen was a silent film shot entirely on grainy black and white stock. The images were impressive and made for an enjoyable experience even though the film had no plot or soundtrack. It told its story just in the beauty of its images. All shot by a girl student, I might add. Grain is cool when it fits the overall look of a film. Keep shooting.
don't remember if i told you this already, and i have no idea whether you care at all, but the swedish international success story fucking åmål was actually shot on 16mm vnf film. you really should check it out. the stock works really well for the "arty documentary look", but has weird colors and way too much grain for a "normal" look.
mattias wrote:don't remember if i told you this already, and i have no idea whether you care at all, but the swedish international success story fucking åmål was actually shot on 16mm vnf film. you really should check it out. the stock works really well for the "arty documentary look", but has weird colors and way too much grain for a "normal" look.
/matt
Thanks for the interesting info. I have not noticed this before but I will certainly watch it at the cinema next time it is around. A bit surprising that the 16mm turns out a bit too grainy but if it is magnified to 35 mm prints for projection it might be even more visible? I guess it is though multiple processes before ending up on the final projection copy?
i think they actually used the 400 asa ektachrome (7250) for som of the shots, but even 7240 has visible grain, even on vhs. the interesting thing about fucking åmål is that it's one of the few "mainstream" movies i've seen that was shot on reversal film and not cross processed, which makes it look a lot like super-8. buffalo 66 is the only other one i know of...
