Flickr: Discussing ISO of classic movie stocks? in Film Photography Podcast
Randy Babajtis Photo Utopia Dan Domme
The safest and most inclusive global community of photography enthusiasts. The best place for inspiration, connection, and sharing!
https://combo.staticflickr.com/pw/favicon.ico
Flickr
chi_cowboy says:

While watching vintage Warner Bros. films from the 1930s, I'm always struck by the wonderful tones in their black-and-white films, especially during the night scenes that always seemed awash with rainslickened streets.

Does anybody have any information on what film speed (I guess it was ASA back then) they were likely to have used then? Shutter speed would have to have been 1/24th of a second in most cases, but I believe many film cameras had variable shutters, as well.

Cinematographers achieved incredible quality with a frame size equal to or less than half-frame 35mm. Grain often seemed nonexistent, but with multiple frames being perceived, perhaps there's a psychological perception aspect to all that.

I haven't done too much night photography and when I've done so, I've used films that are probably too fast and just let the camera decide the exposure. Here's one of the few that came out OK...

Originally posted at 10:42AM, 29 January 2011 PDT

chi_cowboy edited this topic ages ago.

Randy Babajtis says:

I have no idea the ISO of films of that time period. But i imagine it was quite slow by todays standards. As with all motion pictures, the amazing look has way more to do with the huge crew of professionals setting up perfect lighting to achive those results. Also it was then and is now very common to wet the street down to make it shiny. so really the results come from shooting in perfect light and using an expensive professional motion picture lab.

I think youre right that the playback of the film makes grain less apparent as well.

ages ago

Photo Utopia says:

Lots of films in the early 1930's were shot on Kodak super X which was 32 ASA

In the late 1930's the fastest movie stock available was Agfa Ultraspeed which topped out at our equivalent today of 160ISO/ASA

They won an academy award for it in 1938:

www.imdb.com/event/ev0000003/1938

I have processed a roll here:

photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2007/07/agfa-ultra-speed.html

Kodak later Released Super XX which was rated in daylight at up to 250ASA Citizen Kane I believe has some used in it as did William Wylers wuthering heights

Super X was replaced with Plus X in the late 1930's which initially had double the speed of Super X at 64ASA

ages ago

nano_burger says:

Chi, Yes you can get ortho these days that will have similar tonality. After thinking a while, maybe some of the "Look" comes from the more primitive antihalation technology of the era. I once talked with someone who had viewed a movie at some festival that was a film of that era. On nitrate stock to boot. He said that the movie seemed to "glow" on the screen and he has seen nothing like it with modern films. Perhaps the glow is due to the lack of or weak antihalation layer on the film?

ages ago

Dan Domme says:

As I understand it (maybe Babacam can correct me), there are a bunch of different methods of capturing video for motion pictures, but the end product that gets shipped to the theaters is 35mm film. But they don't use the full width of the film. For motion picture prints, even less than 24 mm* is used for the image, to make room for the analogue audio waveform along one side. Furthermore, there's a SDDS audio track on the outermost edge of the film, and the Dolby Digital (complete with the Dolby logo) soundtrack printed between the sprocket holes.

*The cameras that we all shoot (those of us who shoot 35mm, that is) use 24 of the 35mm. The rest of the film is only pre-exposed at the factory with the frame number/manufacturer on it.

ages ago

Photo Utopia says:

Most of the Hollywood movies shot in the 1930's were shot on Kodak Super X pan.

These were panchromatic not ortho, the 'look' had as much to do with the use of un-coated lenses as it did with the film. When Plus-x pan came out many directors found it punchier so they used it at a lower speed and pulled development to lessen the contrast. Also in the 1940's early coated lenses became available which made for a different look Bausch and Lombe were also given the contract to make coated projection lenses which 20 major cinemas intoduced for the release of 'Gone with the Wind"

Coated lenses cut light loss by 41% giving more image contrast as well.

The directors liked the new coated lenses, noting that they gave better shadow detail and an effective increase of almost a stop, giving an effective increase in depth of field.

They also liked the new faster films like Super XX Pan which gave them even more control.

John Ford, Orson Welles, Greg Toland (MGM Cine photographer) and director William Wyler all used the new lenses and called the new technique "Deep focus" especially evident in Fords film "The Grapes of Wrath"

Originally posted ages ago.

Photo Utopia edited this topic ages ago.

chi_cowboy says:

Does anybody still shoot with lenses like the Garutso Balanced Lens? Apparently it allowed you to set focus separately for near and far distance. Robert Wise gets a similar effect by having his cinematographer use split diopters. I didn't notice this until I saw "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and "The Hindenburg" letterboxed. The effect is quite striking -- seeing a character in a medium closeup and someone across the room both in focus. Sometimes the transition zone is apparent, but mostly they hide it well.

Originally posted ages ago.

chi_cowboy edited this topic ages ago.

Randy Babajtis says:

Dan domme,

Yeah, thats true. The print you see in the theater uses a much smaller portion of film than a frame from a still camera we use. The image has the sprockets on the left and right, instead of the top and bottom like in stills. And yeah, theres the analog, dolby digital, SDDS, and DTS timecode printed on the film taking up even more space. The DTS timecode is read as it plays to keep it in sync with a DTS disc that looks like an ordinary DVD.

I'm not in the production side of the industry, just post, but im pretty sure its shot in the same configuration as it is presented in the theaters. Also im pretty sure most non digital movies are capyured on 35mm stock. Except of course IMAX and Large format, those are on a much bigger film closer to a 120 film and are a different aspect ratio i think. The cameras are enourmous and the projectors are even bigger. We had a large format projector where i used to work and its quite a machine. The film also has to go about 3x faster through the machine since the image size is so much bigger than 35mm.

ages ago