The realisation that modern 16mm is the grain equivalent of pre-2000s 35mm blows my mind. So it's a little more affordable nowadays than the classic means of getting a rich and textured image.
I hear you! 👍🏾 Thankfully, retro film looks have been gradually on the uptick and coming into popularity, mostly through indie filmmakers, but also through larger budget productions as well. You may be aware that we also have mobile phone camera apps that do an excellent job of replicating various 8mm and 16mm film looks, and these too will soon enough start trending on platforms such as TikTok, I am sure, which will in turn draw more attention to those older film looks, exposing more of the younger generations to older films. I see these types of things becoming much more popular within the next two decades, even with more filmmakers using actual film.
@@FilmSpook as a matter of fact I did similar, but I think something new came of it regarding the old film stock quality. Do you think that you could give me some feedback? th-cam.com/video/QbLadAegtk8/w-d-xo.html
Interesting, what’s the advantage of shooting 30mm instead of 35mm? I didn’t even know such cameras existed. I guess it reduces the weight of the mag slightly?
Interesting that he keeps calling it ugly. Rough yeah, but I find it pretty sexy. I've always thought of 16mm living on a quad graph where one axis is between comforting and terrifying, and the other between sensual and sexual. This feels pretty grounded on the comforting side and then fluctuating back and forth across the other axis.
I could not agree with you more!!! I love the gritty look but another important thing that plays Into that for me is the soft gritty microphone and background music quality in those films. I think it sounds so cool.
I read somewhere that Paul Thomas Anderson had the same issue with the Vision-3 35mm stocks when making Phantom Thread, but his solution was to push process everything to add that grit back into the film.
@@AliTaimurXV In short, it’s underexposing while filming, and then raising the exposure when developing the film. Much like a digital camera, the result of artificially raising the exposure after the fact is the image becomes more grainy/noisy
@@AliTaimurXV But also understand that digital noise and film grain are two different things. If you look to clean digital noise you'll find that it's not uniform but has incorrect color spots, which makes the image ugly every time you have it. Film grain keeps the color of whatever is represented in the grainy area which means that even though it can look more or less rough, the image isn't broken by having it.
Very good job and you're right absolutely, super 16 and if you add Anamorphic, its the best right now, to get the old look we all love so much. I wish they'd bring back some of the old 35mm stocks, remake them the same way, to get that look. Right now, 35mm and especially above that, is so clean and digital looking, it's not inviting enough, into the world filmmakers create. To be honest, the cleaner the film, the more distracting and the messier the digital with fake film or VHS emulation, the more distracting from the story. I couldn't enjoy Knives Out, because the director was being a dick, trying to show off that he can sew film and digital scenes together, but was totally failing, because you always underdo or overdo it, but never perfectly, so it looks like a very cheap and lazy stunt just to prove the point, that ruins the film, for me at least. I mean, shoot VHS if you want VHS look and so on. Your film has that old look and you've made the right creative choices and I hope Kodak listens and brings back old stocks, because nothing better than real.
It's interesting to hear is line of thinking with this, but I do feel he overemphasizes "texture". I feel the graininess is not the most significant trait of Super 16 vs 35mm - it's the depth of field on wide and medium shots, and the fact that you tend to frame tighter on super 16. And also that the lenses generally just aren't as good, so you have more fringing and softer sweet spots. Grain (and grit) is the one thing you can actually fake in post. The "feel" of the optical system, vis-à-vis negative/sensor size and lens characteristics is the main factor for me. I also have to wonder if casting 80+ year old movie stars wasn't a motivating factor for having the image as grainy as possible? Well, hopefully vanity is mostly gone by 80, but you never know...
everything he is saying about contemporary film stocks is true and important, but the final result completely fails to do anything he wanted it to do. “wanted it to look worse than movies shot on 35 back then” is absolutely insane considering what he got, there’s NO way he’s satisfied
You do not need to shoot 16mm to create that look in my opinion. I think you missed 3 steps. You can normally shoot 35mm negative but do not forget about duppositive, dupnegative, final print and this is what should be scanned to have that look, I think.
So with all the video effects and editing techniques of today no one managed to perfectly emulate the 70s film look? You still have to use real film camera ?
![30 ชั่วโมงคนเดียว บนรถไฟชั้น 3 โซเวียต [Around The World Ep. 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MlE9boAVqDA/mqdefault.jpg)
The realisation that modern 16mm is the grain equivalent of pre-2000s 35mm blows my mind. So it's a little more affordable nowadays than the classic means of getting a rich and textured image.
It’s not. 35mm even at the start of cinema has a lot less grain than 16mm today.
I just loooooove the 30mm from the 60s and 70s. 70mm is also lovely. It's a shame that almost everything today has to look like digital.
I hear you! 👍🏾 Thankfully, retro film looks have been gradually on the uptick and coming into popularity, mostly through indie filmmakers, but also through larger budget productions as well. You may be aware that we also have mobile phone camera apps that do an excellent job of replicating various 8mm and 16mm film looks, and these too will soon enough start trending on platforms such as TikTok, I am sure, which will in turn draw more attention to those older film looks, exposing more of the younger generations to older films. I see these types of things becoming much more popular within the next two decades, even with more filmmakers using actual film.
@@FilmSpook as a matter of fact I did similar, but I think something new came of it regarding the old film stock quality. Do you think that you could give me some feedback? th-cam.com/video/QbLadAegtk8/w-d-xo.html
Interesting, what’s the advantage of shooting 30mm instead of 35mm? I didn’t even know such cameras existed. I guess it reduces the weight of the mag slightly?
@@martinlutherkingjr.5582 I think it's just the extra image. If I'm not mistaken the extra 5mm are for the sound.
This subject about film types is the missing link that many people need to be educated on. Thank you.
Interesting that he keeps calling it ugly. Rough yeah, but I find it pretty sexy. I've always thought of 16mm living on a quad graph where one axis is between comforting and terrifying, and the other between sensual and sexual. This feels pretty grounded on the comforting side and then fluctuating back and forth across the other axis.
Ugly in a sexy way
I could not agree with you more!!! I love the gritty look but another important thing that plays Into that for me is the soft gritty microphone and background music quality in those films. I think it sounds so cool.
I wish kodak still the filmstocks from the 70s 80s and early 90s. Allow filmmakers to choose.
Exactly! Eastman EXR color negative from the 1990s is my all time favorite film stock.
ahm, you don't need that per se... here is the answer: th-cam.com/video/QbLadAegtk8/w-d-xo.html
XACTLY!
I read somewhere that Paul Thomas Anderson had the same issue with the Vision-3 35mm stocks when making Phantom Thread, but his solution was to push process everything to add that grit back into the film.
What does 'push process' mean?
@@AliTaimurXV In short, it’s underexposing while filming, and then raising the exposure when developing the film. Much like a digital camera, the result of artificially raising the exposure after the fact is the image becomes more grainy/noisy
@@Devdev009 Thank you
@@AliTaimurXV But also understand that digital noise and film grain are two different things. If you look to clean digital noise you'll find that it's not uniform but has incorrect color spots, which makes the image ugly every time you have it. Film grain keeps the color of whatever is represented in the grainy area which means that even though it can look more or less rough, the image isn't broken by having it.
Excellent, fascinating talk! Very brilliant, thanks for this!
This looks beautitul.
That's how they should of did the Nightmare on elm street and Night of the demon reboot
Very good job and you're right absolutely, super 16 and if you add Anamorphic, its the best right now, to get the old look we all love so much.
I wish they'd bring back some of the old 35mm stocks, remake them the same way, to get that look. Right now, 35mm and especially above that, is so clean and digital looking, it's not inviting enough, into the world filmmakers create. To be honest, the cleaner the film, the more distracting and the messier the digital with fake film or VHS emulation, the more distracting from the story.
I couldn't enjoy Knives Out, because the director was being a dick, trying to show off that he can sew film and digital scenes together, but was totally failing, because you always underdo or overdo it, but never perfectly, so it looks like a very cheap and lazy stunt just to prove the point, that ruins the film, for me at least. I mean, shoot VHS if you want VHS look and so on.
Your film has that old look and you've made the right creative choices and I hope Kodak listens and brings back old stocks, because nothing better than real.
It's interesting to hear is line of thinking with this, but I do feel he overemphasizes "texture". I feel the graininess is not the most significant trait of Super 16 vs 35mm - it's the depth of field on wide and medium shots, and the fact that you tend to frame tighter on super 16. And also that the lenses generally just aren't as good, so you have more fringing and softer sweet spots. Grain (and grit) is the one thing you can actually fake in post. The "feel" of the optical system, vis-à-vis negative/sensor size and lens characteristics is the main factor for me.
I also have to wonder if casting 80+ year old movie stars wasn't a motivating factor for having the image as grainy as possible? Well, hopefully vanity is mostly gone by 80, but you never know...
I think It is because the target audience grew up watching Robert Redford's films so It has a nostalgic thing about it.
I watched this movie and you can definitely tell its film... but at no point would you say this is ugly.
What's the film at 0:55?
What's that movie at 0:55 with the 18th century aristocrat breakdancing?
MFT is todays Super 16
What is the film at 0:59. Just a flash.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
@@Chris_Nirvana ty!
📙💯
It’s not the resolution of the film stock. The lenses of old were just shite.
everything he is saying about contemporary film stocks is true and important, but the final result completely fails to do anything he wanted it to do. “wanted it to look worse than movies shot on 35 back then” is absolutely insane considering what he got, there’s NO way he’s satisfied
You do not need to shoot 16mm to create that look in my opinion. I think you missed 3 steps. You can normally shoot 35mm negative but do not forget about duppositive, dupnegative, final print and this is what should be scanned to have that look, I think.
So modern filmstocks is too clean???
So with all the video effects and editing techniques of today no one managed to perfectly emulate the 70s film look? You still have to use real film camera ?
Sorry but digital video photography looks ugly. Personal preference but film looks better