milkymichi
Hello everyone!
I’d like to make a film with high contrast that’s a bit reminiscent of older films from the 70s and 80s. (For example, like the Pumuckl films, if anyone’s familiar with them)
Which would be more suitable for this: Kodak Vision, Fujicolor 64 D or Eterna?
Or would it be better to use positive film stock for this purpose?
I have Super 8 and 16 mm formats available.
I’d be grateful for any replies.
michi :unsure
Gast
With the 64D, you’re choosing one of the finest-grained films available, alongside the Vision2 50D. Fine grain isn’t necessarily a characteristic of television films from that era. You should instead opt for very high-speed film stocks, where the grain is slightly coarser.
Usually, even current 16mm productions – including those for television – are slightly overexposed and then shown with a gamma curve that makes the image appear rather pale. Back then, exposure was generally standard and the film was scanned on flying spot machines.
But that’s just one aspect that made these films look the way they do. Added to that was a different kind of lighting. The fact that far more cinema lights and other area lights with unusual colour spectra are now used makes quite a difference. Back then, they simply pointed the artificial light burners at the scene and often left daylight coming in through the window in the background.
The set design was also different.
Incidentally, the sound is also a factor that had a huge influence on the atmosphere in the old series. Compare the sound of old Tatort episodes from the 70s with the new ones.
Incidentally, Pumuckl wasn’t shot on reversal film, as was quite common for other productions. Perhaps the animations, which were made in the Czech Republic, meant that it had to be shot on negative.
All in all: it’s more a question of set design and lighting. The new film stocks – especially the new Vision3 500ASA – are almost as fine-grained and have a contrast range as wide as the 100ASA films of that era. Have a bit of a experiment with underexposure (but stick to normal exposure for now)...
milkymichi
Hello!
Thank you very much for your reply.
Do you happen to know what was used in the Pumuckl films (cameras, format, film stock)?
I’ve always been really interested in that.
On the subject of lighting:
What is the difference between filming outdoors (streets, the great outdoors) in the past and today?
I have little practical experience, which is why I’m asking so many questions ;)
My aim is simply to produce a few short films (as a hobby, not full-time) that could still hold their own professionally in terms of quality. (Nature shots, short scenes with people, etc.)
However, what’s always important to me is the atmosphere that prevails in a scene.
I don’t find sober documentary footage that resembles video very appealing.
Best regards,
Michael
