Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Black & White On Color Film Stock-

This is topic Black & White On Color Film Stock- - Why? in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=010029

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 08-16-2009, 12:18 AM:

TETRO is a 'black & white' movie printed on color
film stock. I was curious why this was done instead
of just just making a black & white print.

Was this an artistic decision, or a technical one?

Is it possible to print Dolby Digital on B&W stock?

Is it because they wanted to have a cyan sound track?

Im curious.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 08-16-2009, 12:35 AM:

Very simple. Black and white print stock is a special order, and the labs all carry tons of color stock.

That said, color stock usually produces inferior B&W prints. I was able to side-by-side a film some years back, and the B&W print stock had much better contrast and "snap" or depth.

Dolby Digital will work fine on B&W stock, or so I was told by Dolby many years ago.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-16-2009, 08:41 AM:

Black and white printing is now more expensive; labs are set up for high-speed processing of colour stock, but not black and white. Black and white processing in recent time has been limited to things like track negatives, separations and certain special effects elements such as travelling mattes etc, which are probably done digitally these days, and of course for small numbers of new prints of classic films. To produce a large number of black and white prints you'd have to either give the lad a lot of time to do them using the limited black and white capacity they have, or get them to convert an ECP-2 line to do black and white, which I'd guess is probably possible, but colour processing is normally done at a high temperature these days; you'd need to reduce the temperature, and slow down the mackine to handle black and white. It would also mean downtime while the machine was converted, and again while it was converted back to colour.

With colour prints all of the silver is removed from the film these days, and almost all of this can be recovered by the lab and sold. With black and white much of the silver remains in the print, and is thus passed to the customer, not recovered by the lab. This silver can only be recovered when the prints are recycled.

Silver absorbs infra-red much more strongly than colour dyes, and so it is much easier to damage the film by overheating than it is with colour stock.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-16-2009, 10:36 AM:

As recently as 2005 there was a major release on b&w stock: Good Night, and Good Luck

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 08-16-2009, 11:58 AM:

Some of the questions were already answered above, but I can elaborate a little.
It is hard to make a good b&w print on color stock, as the final color tends to drift during processing, resulting in a print with a color tinge. A few years ago, while at WB, we ordered some prints of the restored THE BIG PARADE, with the tinted sections, of course, on color stock, but also printed the b&w sections on the same film. The client got the print, and said it looked like green and white. The final result was to print the B&W sections on B&W stock, and intercut them with the tinted scenes. In other cases, this has been done perfectly.
Universal originally printed SCHINDLER'S LIST on B&W, and the theaters had trouble with emulsion sticking, causing no end of projection problems. I understand later prints were made on color stock. To project well, B&W stock need to have the sprocket hole edges waxed. Color film has this built in.
As far as sound, a B&W track reads the same as cyan. The red LED light thinks cyan is black.
I saw TETRO projected digitally, and it was beautifully photographed. I'd guess printed on color stock it would lose some contrast, and maybe pick up some color tint.
The movie about Bettie Page a few years ago had a lot of B&W photography, and when I saw it the color changed with each reel, from slightly pink, to slightly green, etc. Processing temperatures cause this.

DM

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-16-2009, 02:08 PM:

I doubt SHINDLER'S LIST was originally printed in B&W because Steven Spielberg had used 'spot color' in the film to show a little girl in a pink dress. I saw the film in a theatre and I thought the image looked fantastic. I knew the movie was printed on color stock because of the pink dress. During the B&W silent era, color was used by hand coloring frames and it was possible when you only had to do it with a couple of pints but not possible with a print run in the hundred or thousands .

-Claude

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-16-2009, 02:25 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
I doubt SHINDLER'S LIST was originally printed in B&W

I ran this movie and it was printed on B/W stock, only a couple of reels were using the color stock to do the color effects.

The one that was on all color stock that I ran was the 1998 release of "Pleasantville" - where it stated in B/W then gradually transformed into color.

-Monte

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-16-2009, 02:55 PM:

It would be great if there was less inaccurate speculation here (esp. in re Schindler's List...)

I don't think the special order nature of B&W stock has much to do with it. Kodak would be happy to supply it (as would plenty of people who wouldn't normally supply MP stocks); though in 2005 its list price was 3c more expensive/foot than color.

Dave is right to point out Good Night and Good Luck (2005), but in addition to the FITA thread, there were one or two threads about special problems with the Kodak 2302 B&W print stock, like Shedding Problems, that are well worth reading to give insight into this question.

GNGL seemed to have a lot of dirt problems, which I concluded were because of the 2302.

Dick and Monte are of course absolutely correct about Schindler's List being B&W with color sections for early prints, and entire color prints for later ones. The color sections of the BW prints were very short; not entire reels.

John Pytlak (in the above link) discussed converting ECP-2D lines to D-97; the impression I have is it's absolutely doable (and no appreciable change for ECP-2E).

Aside from process control issues, perhaps the labs should apply more care in grading if these titles get printed to 2383. Such as grading each reel for color temperature and trying to assemble a print with like color temperature. Since it seems that the issue of color shifting between reels is an oft-repeated refrain for B&W films on color stock.

--jhawk

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-16-2009, 03:06 PM:

NOTHING looks like a B&W stock print. Double nothing if it is on nitrate stock, but we've visited that issue elsewhere. But B&W on color stock simply can't look as good or have nearly the same aesthetic as B&W stock. And it's simple -- B&W is only a single emulsion layer thick, not three, not to mention it's B&W by nature and can't be anything else. Color has three emulsion layers trying to be the in perfect relationship to produce NO color -- fat chance.

Plus, I have never seen any of the so-called B&W film sequences like on PLEASANTVILLE or SCHINDLER'S LIST or the opening of RAGING BULL where you couldn't immediately see the color "behind" the B&W, so to speak. I suppose that look could be something a director might want, but that would really be a stretch. For a pure A / B comparison, there is no question a REAL B&W print has a genuine look that color stock simply can't capture.

And as Dick May says, printed at slower speeds and with an emulsion that contains silver (and that silver can be regulated too -- prints purposely made leaving more silver behind in the emulsion also have an incredibly rich look to them), real B&W prints tend to make some exquisite looking images that won't be duplicated by high speed color B&W wannabees.

Too bad this aesthetic isn't used by more directors and DPs. Yah, yah, it costs more, but in the overall scheme of things, how many millions will a decent movie bring in in the first weekend? The additional cost for well-made B&W release prints could be recovered in, what....the first 4 hours of release? Or maybe they don't need to have 15 different kinds of bottled water at the catered commissary for every meal. Or maybe they can hire actors who can actually speak without needing to hire "dialogue coaches" for every one on the set, or they could eliminate a Dolby consultant or two (sound mixers haven't learned how to mix Dolby tracks YET?!). I'm just sayin.....

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-16-2009, 03:30 PM:

I saw Schindler's List at the Empire, Leicester Square a few days after it opened, and again several months later at another cinema where I also projected it. I remember there being a note in one of the cans requesting that it be shown without an intermission where possible. Unfortunately, this wasn't possible as this cinema had only one projector and a tower and it wasn't possible to fit the whole print on one spool, even by over-running the edge of the spool. This is one of the few times I've run film on a tower, and I didn't like it, I'd much rather run two machines.

On both occasions the film was printed on black and white triacetate stock, as was the trailer for the film. Sorry, let me correct that, I didn't actually see the print at the Empire, so I can't be certain that it was triacetate, as the other print was, but both prints, and the trailer, were on black and white stock. The trailer was printed on Agfa stock, and I'm pretty sure the feature was too. The negative stock was Kodak. The colour sections were spliced in, which must have made the prints expensive to produce. I can't remember what type of splice, tape or cement, was used. I've never seen a print of this film on colour stock, but I can't say whether or not there were any in this country. The 'present day' scenes at the start of the film, and of Oscar Schindler's funeral at the end were in colour, and there were scenes, I think two, during the film where a girl's dress was coloured red, but everything else black and white.

The changes to colour stock just before the red dress appeared were very obvious.

I'd forgotten about 'Goodnight and Good Luck'. We ran that at Croydon, and had terrible problems with it, but nothing to do with the stock. The sound was very poor, this was the first black and white print we ran after converting to ted laser readers. We thought at first that this was the problem, but it turned out to be a defective print; when it came back a couple of weeks later we got a different print, and it was fine with the red readers. Strange that the previous cinema(s) hadn't reported it.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-16-2009, 03:59 PM:

Not so strange if the previous cinema didn't run it in the same sound format as you. If you recall, Brad mentioned that one theater let another borrow a print of Dark Knight, only to have the final reel in Spanish and the other theater hadn't noticed because they screened it using DTS disks (but should've noticed that the credits weren't printed in English).

So if they ran a movie in DTS that had a defective analog and/or DD soundtrack, it wouldn't be shocking for them to not notice.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-16-2009, 04:58 PM:

That's possible, I have no way of knowing where the print had been before, nor whether they would have been using the analogue track or not.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-16-2009, 06:06 PM:

I think the ultimate film I ran with a combination of B&W and Color was Zelig. It had B&W and Color spliced on scene change after scene change...the number of splices had to be around 100! And that was by the labs to put each print together...could you imagine the studios doing that today with film?

I've yet to see a color print even approximate a B&W. Then again, I haven't seen any modern direct do B&W justice. Sure many try to do it because they want to convey an era...but the lighting/contrast...etc doesn't look period nor does it look correct, to me. It looks like someone trying to make a B&W feature rather than one that knows how to make one.

Steve

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-16-2009, 06:18 PM:

Steve: You just send the B&W and color reels off the printer to some competent changeover houses along with an edit decision list and let the theatres do all the splicing. What could go wrong?

--jhawk

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-16-2009, 07:28 PM:

Course, we can go back to the "Wizard of OZ" (1939): 1st reel is full B/W stock, then the changeover to the 2nd reel being in color stock.

Then, the last reel (reel 5): Color stock until the splice in the middle of the reel when things went back to the original B/W opening.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-16-2009, 07:49 PM:

And in the mid '20s there were films with a few scenes in cemented Tehnicolor in an otherwise black and white film. Some prints of 'The Great Train Robbery' (1903) had the flash as the safe is blown tinted in orange.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-16-2009, 09:04 PM:

The "B&W" sections of Wizard of Oz were originally sepia "dye monochrome," not B&W. The current prints of this title have the sepia sections printed on standard color stock. There were a number of dye-transfer prints (supposedly 50) made for the 1998 reissue; some of these are still in circulation, but also use standard (non-dye-transfer) color print stock for the sepia sections.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-16-2009, 09:38 PM:

Monte...as Scott pointed out...but not completely...you are half backward on the original release and completely backwards on the last release.

That is, the color section is on B&W stock since it was a dye-transfer...ever had an IB-Tech print in your hands? Look at it closely...it is B&W stock. For the reissue, they did use color stock to fake the sepia effect. I've run more than one of the more recent release prints...they looked pretty darn good. I appreciate that they only let those prints go to theatres that had 1.37 lenses. If all you had was "Flat and Scope" then you got a standard release print...all on color stock with the 1.37 image within the 1.85 frame.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 08-16-2009, 10:30 PM:

One thing not mentioned here is the build-up of material in the gate/trap when running B&W stock. (It was a hard, white power-like stuff.) It happened when I ran "Zelig" and, "She's Gotta Have It." As a producer/director, that alone might make me reluctant to release in B&W. When Technicolor tried doing IB releases 10 years ago or so, the same thing started happening. I would get stuck to the runners and push the film way out of the focal plane of the lens. You could clean the gate/trap perfectly, and at the end of the next show it would all come back. If you waited too long to clean it off (an hour or so) it would get hard and hard to clean off.

So, if (as a producer/director) if I wanted the B&W look, I might just specify color stock and let it go to avoid the problems later.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 08-16-2009, 10:46 PM:

Schindlers list would have to be refocused many times during the show when i ran it and it looked like a war zone in the Vic 8 at the end!
I wonder if filmguard would solve this today?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-17-2009, 12:08 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
That is, the color section is on B&W stock since it was a dye-transfer...ever had an IB-Tech print in your hands?

Yep, ran the print back in 1971 for a week. Reel One was regular B/W with no sepia.

Two, Three and Four and half of Five were IB Tech (dang, that color was fantastic..!) with the splice in the middle of Five to go back to B/W.

I also ran the movie in 1986, but this time, even though it was full frame, the color portions were on Eastman stock and if you looked closely in some scenes, you can see the color shift due to the three strip color bleed throughs due to negative shrinkage..

True, the 1998 release was all on color stock with the sepia tone added to the 1st reel and the latter part of the 5th reel...and we had the 1.85:1 boxed image reduction print that Warner released back then.

-Monte

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-17-2009, 06:43 AM:

Film Guard will absolutely eliminate the problem of B&W dusting in the gate. Then again, so would running Kinotons with Delrin skates/runners [Cool]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-17-2009, 08:51 AM:

I've only run the sing along version... and FWIW it's Eastman.

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 08-17-2009, 09:49 AM:

Just to beat THE WIZARD OF OZ horse (of a different color) a little more:
In the original release, and 1949 reissue the first reel and last three minutes of reel 5 were printed at the MGM Lab in BW, then chemically toned sepia. Prints were assembled with the Technicolor reels in the local distribution exchanges.
After the demise of dye-transfer in the 1970s, a CRI negative was made from the 3-strip Technicolor negatives, and used for printing on Eastman Color stock. At that time MGM stopped the sepia toning, and printed the Kansas sequences on regular BW stock. It looked awful, especially at the change into color.
In the mid 1980s, I was working for MGM, and after some argument got the lab to start printing Kansas on color stock, timed to come out as sepia. A great improvement.
In 1990 (now under Turner ownership) we did a full restoration from the 3-strip negatives, making a proper internegative. This made a large improvement in the color sections over the use of CRI negative. Kansas remained sepia, on color stock.
The 1998 reissue (under WB ownership) used either the revived dye-transfer for the color, and Eastman for Kansas, or reduced aperture, all Eastman for prints intended for theaters that weren't set up for 1:37 aperture projection.
Back to MGM - 16mm prints were made with BW Kansas, and Eastman Color, with the jarring switch from BW to color. Had these been made on color stock all along, it would be simple to time them sepia, and eliminate the assembly of two kinds of stock in the lab.
That's all history now, anyway.

DM

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 08-17-2009, 11:10 AM:

Regarding Dick's comment above on the MGM printed 16mm Wizzard prints it is a jarring jump from true black and white in Kansas to sepia when the house lands and the color stock begins followed almost immediately by Dorothy opening the door of the house to reveal the full color "Oz"--at least on the LPP's.

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 08-17-2009, 11:49 AM:

And now for some comment on "dye monochrome" mentioned by Scott.
This was how the BW sections of A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH (aka STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN) were credited on the main title.
Printing matrices for Technicolor were made from BW negative, so properly balanced resulted in a BW image.
If you watch the picture on film, however, it is evident that that "perfect balance" was hard to accomplish. There are many very subtle color tinges in the "heaven" BW sections.

DM