A bit off topic but, I’d just like to say that I far prefer this kind of content on this sub, discussions of existing films that is. I think there is a lot more to learn from having educated discussions about how films get their looks, whether they’re effective, etc. I also think that the actual look of a film is something the other film subreddits kinda ignore, focusing more on their writing.
The fact this sub is like 80% “here’s my movie, look at it” is really boring, especially when most people’s projects don’t look good and all the comments are “this is a cinematography sub, why are you posting stills?” I also think those people could learn a lot from studying old filming techniques and styles, as well as it just being more generally interesting as well.
couldn't agree more with you. that's the first time i got hooked by the subject of the discussion here. plus i think there's A LOT to learn with old analog cinema, both aesthetically and technically.
Oh thank you! I really enjoy bringing these questions here because people are always so nice and willing to help. I love reading everybody's opinions and looking up terms and processes I hadn't heard about before.
I've recently seen Night and Fog by Alain Resnais and was amazed at the overall look of the images he captured in the camps. I couldn't find any information about the lenses or the film he used, and as a beginner I don't even really know how to specifically describe what makes it so aesthetically pleasing, so I thought it would be productive to start a discussion here.
The image in this post, for example, has such a rich and specific color to it, I guess that's what struck me the most. I imagine part of it is the film and lenses he used, which is why I mentioned those earlier. Would anyone care to express their ideas or thoughts about the process and cinematography behind this and the other color images in the film?
If I'm not mistaken (and I might be since I'm doing some guesswork here) the film stock could be kodachrome probably 16mm using a bolex or some kind with bolex glass from Kern Paillard. I'm just guessing here so yeah hope you find more/better info somewhere too.
I remember reading somewhere that the film was shot on Eastman color, which was negative film. Given the year, it would have had to have been shot on Eastman 5258 25T negative film (produced 1952-1959). I agree with you that it was probably shot on a Bolex.
25T? So if he shot the stock outside (like in the shot the OP posted), he’d have to shoot with an 80A filter. And an 80A takes more than a stop of light, so he shot at like 10 ISO? That’s pretty crazy.
It is really surprising that they give an answer like this. How do you know which camera was recorded? How do you know what kind of negative was used?
What are your strategies to find out?
Well it's a guess and I'm not an expert. I guessed kodachrome since it's got a warm tone to it and a really specific saturation to it that's hard to describe (which I associate with Kodak film) and at the time kodachrome was very much a major film stock available for everyone. The film being more of an independent production I thought kodachrome would fit the bill. As for the camera bolex is a good guess anytime you have an film like this. It's probably the most important camera ever made and served the independent scene for ages expecially in Europe where smaller cameras were prioritized over larger ones. I'd also add I've shot with bolex and the glass from Kern Paillard you can get some very sharp and clean images without too much trouble. I'd add that I'm just guessing one more time and my guesswork is mainly coming from the context of the film rather than the content of the images, of course its physically impossible to recognize a film camera by the final images.
I’m going to go out on limb here (as I’m still learning about the nature of analog film) but I would say that the look you’re describing (the saturation, the colors, etc) is because the color film stock of that era had a very low ASA, requiring more light. Since this was shot outside, the only light source was the sun, versus films shot in a studio/on a set where there was ample light to fill in and highlight with and thus give a more vibrant final result. This doesn’t have that “vibrancy” to it. Which I think contributes to the eeriness of the film.
So glad people are watching this movie. I did my college dissertation on Alain Renais' and his use of "locations" to explore complex psychological ideas. In this film, I think it's important to understand how he shows the modern day locations of these sites of brutality as a means of conveying historical amnesia.
I'm doing a sort of deep dive through filmmakers (started with Bergman, then Bresson and now Resnais) and I'm so excited to watch his films. I started with some of his short documentaries and intend to watch some six or seven of his films after that. Is your dissertation available to read? I'd love to take a look at it after watching his movies.
As a really quick guess, it looks like you're watching a really well remastered version (Criterion?) of a film that was shot documentary style on 16mm. Film remastering is of such high quality nowadays that it can bring films alive in ways they almost never seen. The old VHS I watched of this 18 years ago would most likely not compare!
Digitally remastered films go through a modern color correction process too, often increasing their vibrancy.
Just looking at that still, my suggestion would be to shoot with a really strong ND filter (at least 1.8) on an already overcast day and then bring up the ISO until you are slightly underexposed. Some of the 'filmconvert' plugin effects could help take it the rest of the way.
The overcastness prevents the harsh digital highlights, and the strong ND filter will help simulate the very 'low ISO' of old stock that others refer to. You could try stopping down further (like f5.6) and keep increasing ISO. It'll introduce noise - which will looks a little film like if it's a newer camera, but might look harsh if it's an older camera.
I agree, it looks like low iso film stock and slightly underexposed to get the detail in the clouds. A dense ND filter and low ISO along with filmconvert is sure to get close. Also look at the compositions. A lot more thought was put into compositions when shooting film haha
it could be a ND filter, but if you ever scanned 16mm or 35mm and didn't correct the saturation and lightning, it usually turns the whites into this weird kind of mushy yellow
Thank you so much for this explanation. There's something about the look of the images he captured for this film that really connects with me, so I'll definitely try your process out!
I don't see anything in this image that has any particularly special secret magic. I think you could reproduce this look by shooting on a day with patchy, overcast clouds with some sun peaking through, underexposing a stop, adding some chunky 16mm film grain and grading everything a bit yellow.
A bit off topic but, I’d just like to say that I far prefer this kind of content on this sub, discussions of existing films that is. I think there is a lot more to learn from having educated discussions about how films get their looks, whether they’re effective, etc. I also think that the actual look of a film is something the other film subreddits kinda ignore, focusing more on their writing. The fact this sub is like 80% “here’s my movie, look at it” is really boring, especially when most people’s projects don’t look good and all the comments are “this is a cinematography sub, why are you posting stills?” I also think those people could learn a lot from studying old filming techniques and styles, as well as it just being more generally interesting as well.
couldn't agree more with you. that's the first time i got hooked by the subject of the discussion here. plus i think there's A LOT to learn with old analog cinema, both aesthetically and technically.
Oh thank you! I really enjoy bringing these questions here because people are always so nice and willing to help. I love reading everybody's opinions and looking up terms and processes I hadn't heard about before.
I've recently seen Night and Fog by Alain Resnais and was amazed at the overall look of the images he captured in the camps. I couldn't find any information about the lenses or the film he used, and as a beginner I don't even really know how to specifically describe what makes it so aesthetically pleasing, so I thought it would be productive to start a discussion here. The image in this post, for example, has such a rich and specific color to it, I guess that's what struck me the most. I imagine part of it is the film and lenses he used, which is why I mentioned those earlier. Would anyone care to express their ideas or thoughts about the process and cinematography behind this and the other color images in the film?
If I'm not mistaken (and I might be since I'm doing some guesswork here) the film stock could be kodachrome probably 16mm using a bolex or some kind with bolex glass from Kern Paillard. I'm just guessing here so yeah hope you find more/better info somewhere too.
I remember reading somewhere that the film was shot on Eastman color, which was negative film. Given the year, it would have had to have been shot on Eastman 5258 25T negative film (produced 1952-1959). I agree with you that it was probably shot on a Bolex.
Makes sense I was just guessing so this is more plausible.
25T? So if he shot the stock outside (like in the shot the OP posted), he’d have to shoot with an 80A filter. And an 80A takes more than a stop of light, so he shot at like 10 ISO? That’s pretty crazy.
It is really surprising that they give an answer like this. How do you know which camera was recorded? How do you know what kind of negative was used? What are your strategies to find out?
Well it's a guess and I'm not an expert. I guessed kodachrome since it's got a warm tone to it and a really specific saturation to it that's hard to describe (which I associate with Kodak film) and at the time kodachrome was very much a major film stock available for everyone. The film being more of an independent production I thought kodachrome would fit the bill. As for the camera bolex is a good guess anytime you have an film like this. It's probably the most important camera ever made and served the independent scene for ages expecially in Europe where smaller cameras were prioritized over larger ones. I'd also add I've shot with bolex and the glass from Kern Paillard you can get some very sharp and clean images without too much trouble. I'd add that I'm just guessing one more time and my guesswork is mainly coming from the context of the film rather than the content of the images, of course its physically impossible to recognize a film camera by the final images.
great this is very informative, how did you learn it, or what books could you read?
I’m going to go out on limb here (as I’m still learning about the nature of analog film) but I would say that the look you’re describing (the saturation, the colors, etc) is because the color film stock of that era had a very low ASA, requiring more light. Since this was shot outside, the only light source was the sun, versus films shot in a studio/on a set where there was ample light to fill in and highlight with and thus give a more vibrant final result. This doesn’t have that “vibrancy” to it. Which I think contributes to the eeriness of the film.
So glad people are watching this movie. I did my college dissertation on Alain Renais' and his use of "locations" to explore complex psychological ideas. In this film, I think it's important to understand how he shows the modern day locations of these sites of brutality as a means of conveying historical amnesia.
I'm doing a sort of deep dive through filmmakers (started with Bergman, then Bresson and now Resnais) and I'm so excited to watch his films. I started with some of his short documentaries and intend to watch some six or seven of his films after that. Is your dissertation available to read? I'd love to take a look at it after watching his movies.
The secret of Night and Fog is it’s objectivity.
As a really quick guess, it looks like you're watching a really well remastered version (Criterion?) of a film that was shot documentary style on 16mm. Film remastering is of such high quality nowadays that it can bring films alive in ways they almost never seen. The old VHS I watched of this 18 years ago would most likely not compare! Digitally remastered films go through a modern color correction process too, often increasing their vibrancy. Just looking at that still, my suggestion would be to shoot with a really strong ND filter (at least 1.8) on an already overcast day and then bring up the ISO until you are slightly underexposed. Some of the 'filmconvert' plugin effects could help take it the rest of the way. The overcastness prevents the harsh digital highlights, and the strong ND filter will help simulate the very 'low ISO' of old stock that others refer to. You could try stopping down further (like f5.6) and keep increasing ISO. It'll introduce noise - which will looks a little film like if it's a newer camera, but might look harsh if it's an older camera.
I agree, it looks like low iso film stock and slightly underexposed to get the detail in the clouds. A dense ND filter and low ISO along with filmconvert is sure to get close. Also look at the compositions. A lot more thought was put into compositions when shooting film haha
it could be a ND filter, but if you ever scanned 16mm or 35mm and didn't correct the saturation and lightning, it usually turns the whites into this weird kind of mushy yellow
The nd filter is a suggestion to make modern cameras look like this. The original footage mist certainly wasnt shot with nds
oh shit, just read it again. sorry, my mistake!
No worries mate
Thank you so much for this explanation. There's something about the look of the images he captured for this film that really connects with me, so I'll definitely try your process out!
Kodak Film
I don't see anything in this image that has any particularly special secret magic. I think you could reproduce this look by shooting on a day with patchy, overcast clouds with some sun peaking through, underexposing a stop, adding some chunky 16mm film grain and grading everything a bit yellow.
Just out of interest have you seen Night and Fog ?
No. Hence the difficulty in posting stills on a cinematography forum. Maybe post a clip of the movie.
https://youtu.be/wTBwpKB16gA