16 mm Fuji stills

Post by **Janne** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:07 am

Stills from a film I shot some time ago. SD scanned 16 mm Fuji negative. The daytime scenes are F-250D / 8662, and the night scenes Reala 500D / 8692. The sunrise was filmed on 8692.

Free Image Hosting [xs.to]

Post by **Evan Kubota** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:31 am

Gorgeous.. what camera/lens?

The color rendition looks really good, but quite a bit different from the Fuji neg I shot (although this was 64D). Yours are more natural/muted, whereas the 64D is extremely saturated before any correction.

Post by **Janne** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:48 am

The camera was a non-reflex Bolex with Switar and Som Berthiot primes.

Post by **Evan Kubota** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:27 am

Very impressive. I may have to take my non-reflex H16 with a Switar 10mm and TTH 25mm as well as a Yvar 150mm to Japan this winter to capture some stuff.

Who did the transfer? The sharpness is also superb.

Post by **Will2** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:51 am

Great night shots.

I've often wondered, why would a daylight balanced film be used on night shots where the lighting is generally tungsten based anyway?

The color looks great on those stills so are most outside lights so maybe the lighting is a different color temperature?

I figured that the Fuji 500D would be great at dusk, but I was impressed with the night shots you have.

Post by **Patrick** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:56 am

There are some beauiful images there. I particularly liked the ones that looked like late afternoon lighting was used. I thought the colours in some shots were striking but in other shots, colours seemed a little muted.

With regards to the Bolex, there are some who say that a non reflex Bolex such as yours will expose sharper images than Reflex Bolex model. Such people claim that the beam splitter prism in the reflex models degrades the image to some extent. I actually wonder if people who have shot with both types of Bolexes have noticed much of a difference in image quality. Then again, most super 8 cameras also use a beam splitter prism and Ive been quite impressed with the quality of the images from super 8 despite the tiny size of the frame.

Post by **Patrick** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:10 am

Janne, have you also shot much Kodak 16mm colour negative? Ive been reading peoples' opinions on cinematography forums and they generally say that Fuji films usually have the edge in vibrant colours but Kodak films are usually sharper and finer grained.

I find this odd considering that in still photography, Fuji's slide films have the finest grain above all the competitors. I would assume that Fuji would utilise the same technology in their movie film stocks as in their still slide film stocks. Regardless, have you found the Kodak neg stocks to be sharper and finer grained when comparing similar asa speeds?

Post by **Evan Kubota** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:04 am

Ive been reading peoples' opinions on cinematography forums and they generally say that Fuji films usually have the edge in vibrant colours but Kodak films are usually sharper and finer grained.

I used Kodak V2 250D and Fuji 64D on my recent project. The Kodak did not have any more visible grain than the Fuji despite the increased speed, but part of that may be because the Fuji was often used in relatively low lighting conditions that were in the optimal range for the Kodak 250D. Sharpness appeared to be the same. The Kodak did have a somewhat different tonality than the Fuji, although this is difficult to ascribe completely to the film stock rather than to lighting conditions or colorist choices (haven't seen it projected yet).

Post by **T-Scan** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:31 am

Nice! But the H16 can do shutterless?

Post by **Will2** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:25 am

I've found the Fuji stocks I've used (250D, 500T) to be lower contrast and have an almost "pastel" look, similar to Kodak Vision2 Expression 500T.

Not a look I'm into usually, but I'm sure its useful in some situations.

I've heard the Fuji 64T described as having "vibrant colors" so maybe I need to check that out.

Post by **pinata2000** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:54 am

great stills. I really like the night shots. I just wish i could get my 16mm to look that good.

Post by **StoneBuilder** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:42 am

Impressive and - I noticed - not one scrap of litter on the streets ...

Post by **Patrick** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:08 am

I like the sharpness and fine detail of the 250D shots. Though did you use an ND filter in order to use the optimal f stops of your lenses (mid aperture range?) I would think that a film as fast as 250asa would mean filming at very small apertures in daylight, even if it is late afternoon or early morning.

Post by **mattias** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:35 am

the vision series had less grain than the super f series, but these days i'd say that there's no "technical" difference between vision2 and eterna. they just look different and it's only a matter of which you like best. fuji has a more pastel look for sure, with better skintones and cleaner shadows. kodak has more saturation in shadows and highlights, which i generally don't like but it's certainly more realistic and it's another tool to work with.

/matt

Post by **Janne** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:34 am

Evan Kubota wrote:Who did the transfer? The sharpness is also superb.

A local company. These were scanned with a Bosch FDL-60.