Steve M.
Veteran
I am constantly amazed by how beautiful the tones are whenever I watch B&W movies from the 40's and 50's. The only movie film I can instantly recognize is a color film: the wonderful, and long gone Agfa. The reds and greens are unmistakable.
Haven't a clue what they used when they shot B&W though, which is ironic since I shoot B&W exclusively in 35mm and 120mm. 99% of the time I shoot Tri-X, but I have my doubts that was what the cinematographers used. Anyone have a clue on this?
Haven't a clue what they used when they shot B&W though, which is ironic since I shoot B&W exclusively in 35mm and 120mm. 99% of the time I shoot Tri-X, but I have my doubts that was what the cinematographers used. Anyone have a clue on this?
Last edited:
KenR
Well-known
I agree with you about the classic B&W look in the movies. I saw "The Third Man" not long ago and was amazed at the tonality. But I think that it was the lighting more than the film itself that was more important for the "look."
Steve M.
Veteran
I found a little info, finally. It appears that the films in the 1940's could have been shot on a variety of film stock, but by the 1950's most people had settled on Kodak Eastman Double-X 5222 and Kodak Eastman Plus-X 5231. All of the B&W movies that I enjoy on TV or DVD have obviously been converted to digital, and were cleaned up/sharpened, etc digitally. You still had to start w/ a film stock, of course. Shooting movies in digital and converting to B&W gives the same results that we get on our stuff here....bleah.
Today, the normal thing to do is to shoot on color stock (for film makers that can afford film), transfer it to digital to edit, then print the image back on color stock. For those that insist on real B&W film, the norm is to shoot B&W film, convert to digital to edit, then print on color film stock. This has 3 big disadvantages. The end result won't be as sharp or as high a resolution as a complete chemical process. It will always have some color tint no matter what you do. And you can't use filters while shooting, as you normally would w/ true B&W film stock. The people who shot Schindler's List on real B&W film, converted it to digital to edit, then printed that to real B&W film stock. This resulted in trouble during the movie's previews because today's projectors run too hot, and the film kept buckling and popping out of focus. The B&W film's high silver content made it run that much hotter. They were adamant about using real B&W film though because it gave them superior IQ. The big disadvantage was that these 5222 and 5231 film stocks, unlike the color print films, haven't been improved since 1960, so no T grain, various ranges of film speeds, etc. Fascinating stuff.
I'm very interested in their remarks that the process that resulted in the highest IQ was still the oldest. IE, shoot on B&W film stock, do everything chemically, and skip the digital intermediate process. Apparently the scanning machines that they use are limited in terms of resolution, so a movie that's shot on B&F film, digitally edited, then transfered to B&W film stock is still inferior to a movie that's a total chemical print. But (there's always a but) you are at a disadvantage w/ editing capabilities, and you can't fix things like grain issues in bad light.
I have trouble getting ONE shot right. Imagine having to deal w/ tens of thousands of frames in a movie?
Today, the normal thing to do is to shoot on color stock (for film makers that can afford film), transfer it to digital to edit, then print the image back on color stock. For those that insist on real B&W film, the norm is to shoot B&W film, convert to digital to edit, then print on color film stock. This has 3 big disadvantages. The end result won't be as sharp or as high a resolution as a complete chemical process. It will always have some color tint no matter what you do. And you can't use filters while shooting, as you normally would w/ true B&W film stock. The people who shot Schindler's List on real B&W film, converted it to digital to edit, then printed that to real B&W film stock. This resulted in trouble during the movie's previews because today's projectors run too hot, and the film kept buckling and popping out of focus. The B&W film's high silver content made it run that much hotter. They were adamant about using real B&W film though because it gave them superior IQ. The big disadvantage was that these 5222 and 5231 film stocks, unlike the color print films, haven't been improved since 1960, so no T grain, various ranges of film speeds, etc. Fascinating stuff.
I'm very interested in their remarks that the process that resulted in the highest IQ was still the oldest. IE, shoot on B&W film stock, do everything chemically, and skip the digital intermediate process. Apparently the scanning machines that they use are limited in terms of resolution, so a movie that's shot on B&F film, digitally edited, then transfered to B&W film stock is still inferior to a movie that's a total chemical print. But (there's always a but) you are at a disadvantage w/ editing capabilities, and you can't fix things like grain issues in bad light.
I have trouble getting ONE shot right. Imagine having to deal w/ tens of thousands of frames in a movie?
Last edited:
bwcolor
Veteran
The restored Casablanca is beautiful.
retnull
Well-known
Jean-luc Godard's "Alphaville" (1965) says "Shot on Ilford HP-5" in the opening credits.
neelin
Established
Here's a somewhat related, interesting read, from American Cinematographer magazine. It talks about the B&W sequence in Casino Royal (shot in Double-X).
Freakscene
Obscure member
Lots of great movies shot in Europe used the now-defunct Agfa 250 B&W movie stock.
Marty
Marty
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Kodak made a series of movie stocks for Hollywood, EK 5231 (a plus X style - rated at 80 asa), the EK 5222 (double X- rated at 250 asa in daylight and 200 in tungsten) and a XXXX that was rated at 800 asa.
Agfa had the 250 asa Agfapan (I shot almost 10 000 ft of that over a period as the local Agfa rep gave me 25 cans of mis-matched emulsions)
Ilford had several movie stocks - including a HP5 version.
Fuji had a Neopan SS movie version - rated at 100 iso.
There was also several DuPont movie stocks - but they are pretty useless for "still camera" use as they have the carbon black antihalation backing and to say that it is messy to remove is an understatement!
A lot of the black/white film around today is development from movie-stock - TriX evolved from XX etc.
The biggest difference between the movie stock and "regular" film is a slightly different pitch on the sprockets. It does not create a problem - except with some motor drives (Leica SL/SL2 Mots and for some reason - Horizon 202 panorama cameras!).
The image quality in the movies is probably more due to careful lightening of a scene - huge Klieg lights and masterful metering and balancing of lights and reflectors.
The developer also plays a roll here - for Kodak's XX, the initial developer was a D76 (released in 1926) - but later modified and become the D96. Fine grain was not so much of an issue as the tonal range.
I use a lot of XX myself in my Leicas and Nikons and usually develop it in D76, but I have tried it in various other "soups" - D96/D89/PMK/Pyrocat HD etc.
What sets it apart from "regular" TriX is the quality of the mid-tones - it is incredibly 'smooth" with great separation of "light".
There is a site here on RFf for XX addicts "Shooting with Eastman Kodaks Double X" which gives a lot of information on where to get it and how to shoot and develop it.
Agfa had the 250 asa Agfapan (I shot almost 10 000 ft of that over a period as the local Agfa rep gave me 25 cans of mis-matched emulsions)
Ilford had several movie stocks - including a HP5 version.
Fuji had a Neopan SS movie version - rated at 100 iso.
There was also several DuPont movie stocks - but they are pretty useless for "still camera" use as they have the carbon black antihalation backing and to say that it is messy to remove is an understatement!
A lot of the black/white film around today is development from movie-stock - TriX evolved from XX etc.
The biggest difference between the movie stock and "regular" film is a slightly different pitch on the sprockets. It does not create a problem - except with some motor drives (Leica SL/SL2 Mots and for some reason - Horizon 202 panorama cameras!).
The image quality in the movies is probably more due to careful lightening of a scene - huge Klieg lights and masterful metering and balancing of lights and reflectors.
The developer also plays a roll here - for Kodak's XX, the initial developer was a D76 (released in 1926) - but later modified and become the D96. Fine grain was not so much of an issue as the tonal range.
I use a lot of XX myself in my Leicas and Nikons and usually develop it in D76, but I have tried it in various other "soups" - D96/D89/PMK/Pyrocat HD etc.
What sets it apart from "regular" TriX is the quality of the mid-tones - it is incredibly 'smooth" with great separation of "light".
There is a site here on RFf for XX addicts "Shooting with Eastman Kodaks Double X" which gives a lot of information on where to get it and how to shoot and develop it.
Steve M.
Veteran
Good info here! Thanks. I don't want to use any of the stuff (perfectly happy w/ today's Tri-X), but I love these old movies dearly (some, unfortunately, are best watched w/ the Mute button on) for their look. I agree, lighting was paramount. These guys were the pros after all. They had huge sums of money tied up in their projects, and everyone vied for the best cinematographer for their movies. Of course, w/ B&W I don't think you need the huge amounts of light that you do for color. Some of my favorite scenes were filmed in available light, or even candle light. The only modern film maker that I know of who successfully did the latter in color was Stanley Kubrick in Barry Lyndon, one of the most beautifully shot films I've ever seen.
Ah, "Alphaville". What a truly strange film. Haven't seen it in years, but now I'd like to look it up and watch it. Might be fun to watch George Lucas's "THX 1138" too. Another beautiful and very eerie (maybe Cocteau's "La Belle et la Bette" is the grand daddy of them all) is "Incubus", the only film to my knowledge that was filmed in Esperanto.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW7AuyIwN2A
Someone wrote that the film was worth watching if for no other reason than to see William Shatner overacting in Esperanto. Yes!
Ah, "Alphaville". What a truly strange film. Haven't seen it in years, but now I'd like to look it up and watch it. Might be fun to watch George Lucas's "THX 1138" too. Another beautiful and very eerie (maybe Cocteau's "La Belle et la Bette" is the grand daddy of them all) is "Incubus", the only film to my knowledge that was filmed in Esperanto.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW7AuyIwN2A
Someone wrote that the film was worth watching if for no other reason than to see William Shatner overacting in Esperanto. Yes!
Last edited: