Film Noir film stocks

[RodinalDuchamp]

Mods please move of not appropriate here.

I know this isn't a LF question but what better place to get some insight on old film stocks.

I was hoping someone would know or know where to find what types of film where used during the Film Noir era (double indemnity, maltese falcon, etc)

I shoot a ton at night and have recently been interested in trying my hand at trying to recreate some stills on LF.

I know lighting plays a huge role in the look but maybe the film stocks had particular characteristics that made them more successful than others. I cant imagine they where "fast" film.

I also dont knos anything about how video cameras record an image which may also play a part.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Fomapan 320 and Adox CHS are candidates. Rollei RETRO sheet film might do the trick, if you can find some.

I will offer one tip. To take the crispness away from a more modern lens without actually softening the image a lot, you might experiment with Tiffen Contrast filters. In effect they throw light into shadows, and sometimes creates highlight halos and a bit of flare. I used them back when digital video was horrible in contrasty light, and several times in MF when I had to cope with noon light. They certainly give a different look, one I consider rather retro.

Good luck. I look forward to your outcomes.

[Bruce Watson]

I was hoping someone would know or know where to find what types of film where used during the Film Noir era (double indemnity, maltese falcon, etc).

The filmstock used was nothing you can get today. Double Indemnity was 1944. Kodak didn't invent tri-acetate safety base until 1948 (won an Oscar for it in 1950). So the base was cellulose nitrate. Tri-X didn't come out until 1954. So I'd give good odds to Double-X (the non-super predecessor to Super-XX), or something that came before.

I would imagine that you will get better results asking on some of the cinema forums.

As for speed, it was the cinema industry constantly demanded more speed. More speed = less lighting. In the age of carbon arcs, they sunburned many an artist, and blinded a few too. So film speed was the number one demand from the cinema market. But they didn't turn down smaller grain, increased sharpness, and increased dynamic range when they could get it.

[Jim Noel]

Regardless of the film used, lighting is what distinguishes these , and other, films or images.

[RodinalDuchamp]

Jim thanks. However I've been considering material and process more lately and whatever they used to record scenes probably played some role in the final image.

Lighting of course played a role maybe the main role but film is still worth investigating I think.

[BetterSense]

It's all in the lighting.

[RodinalDuchamp]

Ok I hear you, I'm still interested in knowing what film was used.

[Toyon]

You should contact the American Film Institute about historic film stocks.

[John Kasaian]

Maybe this will help--
https://books.google.com/books?id=86...istory&f=false

[brucetaylor]

Just do some research on the motion pictures you're interested in, the information shouldn't be hard to find. And I believe Kodak Super XX was the stock of the time. I have to agree with the other comments that it's lighting. Here's the thing about most historical cinematography, the cinematographer worked with the best film that was available (and it was all very slow) and then created a lighting scheme that made the shot look a certain way. If films had a low dynamic range, the scene was lit to make the contrasts appear "normal," the same way they worked with orthochromatic films and compensated with make up tones to make faces look normal. Since you don't have access to the old materials you'll have to figure out how to get the look on set with what you have available (lighting!) just like the masters did. There is a book, "Painting With Light" by John Alton one of the greats of noir cinematography that explains exactly how it was done.