CML - Cinematography Mailing List

B & W Negative - 7222

Published : 23rd September 2003

I'm prepping a 16mm "film noir" short and am going over my emulsion options. it appears that 7222 is a logical choice for both INT/EXT. I would love to maintain the tightest grain possible and shoot the Plus-X, but for interiors, a 64asa is asking a bit much on the lighting end of things, however, if anyone can offer and suggestions and comparisons btw the two neg stocks, I am all ears and open to the possibility of placing lights very close to talent if that means the difference btw Plus-X and Double-X is quite significant.

My assumption is that 7222 has medium contrast and the grain size of the 7279 (not 7218) and that the Plus-X has the grain of 7274 and the contrast of 7250.

Unless the film gets $$ for a print, the one-lite SD dailies will be duped and used to edit... does anyone have suggestions for labs in the US who pride themselves on their B&W neg track record??

Thanks as always.

Taylor Wigton

Portland, Maine

DP


>my assumption is that 7222 has medium contrast and the grain size of >the 7279 (not 7218) and that the Plus-X has the grain of 7274 and the >contrast of 7250.

B&W contrast will depend on the gamma it's processed for. B&W grain doesn't look like color grain pattern I wouldn't use such comparisons except in the broadest general sense. At 0.65 or 0.70 7222 will typically look grainer than 79 IMO. B&W from 16mm especially can look tight in blacks deep shadows and hot whites, and quite grainy (if it were 7222/Double-X) in mid tones if they are even.

I personally am curious about the new Tri X reversal 7266....

Sam Wells


You can't really compare the grain structure of color negative (where after developing, you have grains made up of dye) versus B&W, where the grains are made up of silver. Anyway, the grain structure of B&W stocks are more prominent than their counterparts in speed in color.

Plus-X is finer-grained and more contrasty. Sort of pearly whites with deep blacks look. Double-X is grainier and has a "sooty" grey-on-grey look.

The higher contrast of Plus-X tends to make it look a little sharper too. Both stocks push well - you could consider shooting Plus-X with a one-stop push instead of Double-X normally-processed, but you really need to test.

Also, you can get away with a harder lighting style with B&W, which makes using the slower stocks a little easier.

David Mullen

Cinematographer / L.A.


I just shot about 40,000 feet of the 7222 and think its a great stock. Very strong blacks and a good mid range. Highlights seem to go pretty quickly.

There is definitely significant grain, but I love it. I shot it straight with a mixture of Tungsten and HMI light. I metered everything for 200asa but now realized that I should have taken into account the +1/3 stop in ASA for "blue" light.

Watching the footage in telecine it seems like a significant amount of stop to affect the B&W. We also shot very "noirish" scenes and the film loves hard direct light. I have not seen any of the exterior footage where we shot 7231. After some tests we decided to use a Yellow 21 filter for skin tones. I tested the red 25 but found it too objectionable for skin tones. I added a polarizer to darken and define the sky and clouds. I also had the make-up dept blue up the lips so that we did not loose the "color" in them under the yellow filter.

I have stills if you care to see any.

All best

Raoul Germain

DP Los Angeles


Mr. Raoul wrote :

>I just shot about 40,000 feet of the 7222 and think its a great stock.

It's one of my absolute favourite stocks.

Read "Godard on Godard" for J-LG's little paean to Double-X -- he says it's a stock that everyone from Russell Metty to Ricky Leacock can love.

It's nice processed in Xtol, too -- I've done some tests, very

interesting.

Jeff "wishes he had more time" Kreines


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© 2018 copyright CML - Cinematography Mailing List all rights reserved