Simulating a 1950's Look

I have a project down the road where I will need to replicate the look of 1950's color cinematography, down to the film stocks and lenses. This will have to end up as a 2.35 : 1 scope release print.

While I'm a much bigger fan of 1940's color cinematography -- mainly shot in 3-strip Technicolor -- I've been thinking lately about the look of Eastmancolor, specifically 5248, which was a 25 ASA tungsten-balanced stock used from 1953 to 1959. I'm also thinking about the look of the first Panavision anamorphics that came out in the late 1950's ("Auto-Panatars"?)

Part of the problem in recreating the look of a film from the 1950's is finding a reference source -- an old (but in good-condition) dye transfer print -- or a new print made from a restored film element, probably assembled from b&w separations -- or new prints from old color negatives, etc. So many variations in color & contrast.

One idea I've had is to push-develop a slow-speed stock to get the graininess of 1950's Eastmancolor -- ironically, I'm thinking of using the current 5248, maybe underexposed by one stop but push-developed by two stops -- thus getting some grain but also getting a denser negative that hopefully will get me "hotter" colors (a look that is also a little like old Kodachrome slides.) I might even get to use the revived Technicolor dye transfer printing process; in this case, it might even work better to make the b&w matrices from an I.N. rather than go "direct-to-matrix" from the o-neg -- just to get a "dupier" look.

I'm also wondering if the older C-series anamorphic zoom lens at Panavision will be sufficiently poor optically to simulate an early anamorphic lens.

The other idea I've had is to go with a digital intermediate. In that case, I almost thinking of going for a low-con stock like Fuji F-400T, which might have the softer quality of an older filmstock. I also wondered about what would happen if I push-developed it -- would it look interesting or would it just end up looking like a normal high-speed stock. Anyway, I'd boost the chroma digitally to simulate the stronger colors of "Technicolor", whether or not I end up getting dye transfer prints.

I'm also wondering if Super-35 might be better, because the grain from the blow-up might help add to that softer & grittier quality of earlier color films. It's just that it would be a little anachronistic, since Cinemascope was more common for 2.35 films, and then 65mm (Todd-AO). There was a format called SuperScope (2 : 1) and then SuperScope 235 which was more or less the same as Super-35 (SuperScope used Academy Aperture, SuperScope 235 used Full Aperture.) But there weren't many films in this format. Techniscope (2-perf spherical) didn't come along until 1962.

Anyone have any ideas that I haven't considered? I'm sort of ruling out reversal stocks since this would be for a whole feature and I don't want to spend that much money on stock & developing.

(Of course lighting, art direction, make-up, etc. are all crucial.... I'm just talking about the photographic approach.)

David Mullen

Cinematographer / L.A.

David Mullen wrote:

>I have a project down the road where I will need to replicate the look of 1950's color cinematography, down to the film stocks and lenses. This will have to end up as a 2.35 : 1 scope release print.

Be sure to do all the opticals as badly-timed inserts, cut right at the edge of the effect... never dupe the entire shot.

What about using some much older lenses, like the Todd-AO glass, and let yourself get some of those anamorphic mumps? You could also consider the difference between what films looked like then compared to how many people remember them looking. Late night TV reruns with faded prints with colors shifted. A lttle magenta hue would signal an old piece of Eastmancolor stuck on a shelf for decades.

I'd also think about using LOTS of hard light. Those old wide screen films really had to pour on the footcandles.

Mitch Gross

NYC DP

David Mullen wrote:

>I have a project down the road where I will need to replicate the look of 1950's color cinematography, down to the film stocks and lenses. This will have to end up as a 2.35 : 1 scope release print.

Are you trying to imitate some of the great looking films of the era, or the more studio-bound ones?

Ideally you'd use either a Mitchell BNC or a Fox camera to get you into the right mood... and rather than an Auto-Panatar, you'd use an older B&L Anamorphic adapter lens. The big camera will properly hinder your angles and movements appropriately. Of course, you may not want to he that realistic.

But it's probably the hard lighting (with dubious sourcing) and art direction and lenses more than the camera...

So much easier to imitate the 70s -- just get an Angenieux 25-250 and do lots of Arri IIc second unit work... ;-)

Jeff "can hook you up with a man who owns dozens of BNCs" Kreines

While I am not sure this would help you, I have a set of lenses with 1.5:1 anamorphic elements on them - They were made for a Technirama camera (Vista vision in a Technicolor 3 strip box) but each lens has its own squeezer, unlike the large animorphisizer that was the original Technirama system. You are welcome to mess with them if you think they can give you the look you are after. I am not sure what mounts I have for them - definitely a Nikon adaptor - possibly something else as well.

Mark H. Weingartner

Lighting and VFX for Motion Pictures

>Are you trying to imitate some of the great looking films of the era, or the more studio-bound ones?

That's a good question; I'm hoping to emulate the better studio work of the period, not the run-of-the-mill stuff. Like I said, it's not my favorite decade, lighting-wise, for color cinematography. One of my favorite-looking films of that decade is "Moulin Rouge" (1952), but Ozzie Morris' 3-strip Technicolor photography was way ahead of its day, using smoke & fog filters. It fits more in line with his work in the 1960's, like "Taming of the Shrew" (1967).

The most visually interesting color films of that decade were generally musicals, westerns, epics, and period films, but my story is a contemporary 50's drama, set in Los Angeles. Something like "Vertigo" and "North by Northwest" are probably more relevant; also some of the few Cinemascope color dramas like "Rebel Without a Cause" and "A Star Is Born."

Most of my favorite-shot films of that decade are b&w, like "Night of the Hunter", "Seven Samurai", "The Seventh Seal", etc.

To me, a lot of color cinematography of the 1950's looks like a watered-down version of 1940's color cinematography: less rich, less moody, less elaborately designed. I'll take Jack Cardiff's 1940's color work (like "Black Narcissus") over almost anything shot in color in the 1950's. The dying days of the old studio system was an awkward time, stylistically (although that's when Kubrick emerged...)

One trick will be to simulate a glossy, well-designed color Cinemascope studio "A" film of that decade -- but on a moderately small budget! It's similar to the old problem of shooting scenes of wealth & opulence on a low-budget film.

David Mullen

Cinematographer / L.A.

You mentioned the possibility of doing some digital manipulation down the line. I did a project that finished on video a while back where we got an interesting look by using strong colors and makeup during the shoot and then dialing out exactly half the color in post. It reminded me of a 1950's training film shot on 'chrome.

-Art Adams, S.O.C.

Director of Photography

Panavision has a lot of equipment from the (late) fifties. You could use Auto Panatars on a Panavision BNCR and have the fifties optics. Your whole camera package would be the PSR camera and four lenses. The C series shot wide open would also be a good option. Only the first few CinemaScope pictures used really crappy lenses.

Re film stock, the 50s prints may not be as grainy as you indicate. The VistaVision process, exclusively in the 50s, yielded the sharpest 35mm prints in history. Plus all the different 70mm processes. But even regular Eastman prints from 35mm negatives were not that bad. Today's Super 35 might be far too grainy (altho less contrasty). Something like ENGLISH PATIENT shot on 5298 seems more like it to me. I have a lot of original 35mm prints from the 50s, both Eastman and dye-transfer Technicolor, which you're welcome to borrow. Contact me offline if you have a good place to screen them.

I have greater affection for 50s cinematography than you do. In America it was not up to the zenith of the 1940s (or late 1920s), but in other parts of the world the 1950s were the top. I'm thinking of cameramen like Miyagawa in Japan, Di Venanzo in Italy, Matras in France,. There are also some giants in America who did their best work in the 50s: Russell Metty, Winton Hoch, Robert Burks, John Alton, Bob Surtees, Boris Kaufman.

Don't forget carbon arc lights. Good luck, sounds like a great project.

Lowell Peterson ASC

Los Angeles DP

>Don't forget carbon arc lights. Good luck, sounds like a great project.

I would be surprised if a lower budget film had the time/money to use 1950 tools. A big heavy camera like the PSR (at least it's reflex!), and carbon arc lights with their need for operators would be quite expensive in terms of labor costs and the slowness of moving stuff about. You would save money on rental rates I suppose! ---A MacAlister dolly, and a Worral or Technicolor gear head to round out the package.

It would be a sort of cool thing to do however, sort of the antithesis to miniDV dogma style shots.

Steve Slocomb

Montana, USA

David, one of the things I would consider here is whether you're really trying to simulate a 1950's film look, or whether you're trying to create something that will read as a 1950's look to most of the audience. There might be a difference. We tend to "remember" things (especially things like how period film looks) based on more recent experience, not the original experience. My guess is that if you could jump in a time machine and go back to, say, 1956 and go to a theater, the picture would not be desaturated, grainy, and faded. Using period equipment might help, but I would think you're more likely to get better images than you think you will. The DI route seems logical to me, because I feel that what you really want is imagery that fits the common conception of what those films looked like rather than the likely reality, and these characteristics are more easily achievable in post these days. With a little help from production, of course.

Also, Lowell had a good point (he usually does) about production and release formats in the 50's. It was the heyday of wide screen processes, a time when the industry was trying to fight the likely encroachment of television with bigger and wider imagery. He's absolutely right when he said that many of the pictures shot then were extremely fine grained, even by today's standards, because of the use of large formats (Vista Vision, 65mm negative, etc.). "Oklahoma" (I think that was shot in the 50's) was even shot in both 30 fps and 24 fps. The 30 fps version was restored a number of years back, and I remember seeing clips of it - quite stunning.

Mike Most

VFX Supervisor

I do see my fair share of old prints of old movies, new prints of old movies, etc. so I'm not misremembering the grain structure of old Eastmancolor 5248 -- it certainly did not equal the grain structure of modern slow-speed stocks (maybe graininess something like our modern 320 to 500 ASA stocks). Hence WHY the experiments with larger negatives in that time.

But I'm not interested in simulating a large negative look -- i.e. end up with something that looks finer-grain and thus more modern. That's what I want to avoid -- something that looks like it was just shot with a fresh roll of 5279.

I don't want a grainy look either; what I want is the grain structure of pre-T-grain stocks without resorting to using old reversal film, which are the only non-T-grain 35mm color emulsions still on the market. That's why I'm thinking of 5248 push-developed rather than something like 5279 normally developed. To get a slightly dupey look with a little visible grain. Or maybe go with Fuji emulsions, which have a less "high-tech edge-enhanced grain" feeling to me.

I don't want the look of a damaged and faded negative either; I'm just trying to avoid a modern film stock technology look.

Also, release printing back then had its share of problems -- the best method, when you wanted to avoid making everything off of the o-neg, was the Technicolor dye transfer process. After that, the most common method was to make b&w positive separations and then recombine them onto a dupe color internegative. Going to color I.P. to color I.N. produced pretty poor

prints back then due to the lower quality of Kodak dupe stocks at the time. (I once read an old A.C. article from the 1950's on industry procedures for release prints...)

Outside of 70mm prints (often made directly off of the 65mm negative for Todd-AO & Super Panavision), often the best-looking were 35mm Technicolor I.B. prints that were reductions from larger negative formats like VistaVision. But even Technicolor dye transfer printing back then had some quality-control problems; registration errors creating blurriness. In fact, the new dye transfer printer at Technicolor has BETTER registration than the old printer did.

Anyway, I want a fairly rich image, not too grainy -- but I just don't want it to look like modern film stocks were used. Most people these days shoot everything on 35mm Vision 500T indoors, so that's the one look I want to avoid.

I understand what you are saying, Mike, about our memories -- if anything, I think some people think that some of these old 1950's films were sharper and finer-grained than they really were (I'm only talking about 4-perf 35mm films -- the large negative films WERE sharp & fine-grained), perhaps fooled by seeing them on home video in new transfers. When "Rear Window" was restored, a lot of people wondered why it didn't look as sharp as "Vertigo", forgetting that "Vertigo" was shot in 8-perf and restored to 65mm, while "Rear Window" was only 4-perf 35mm. I saw a new dye transfer print of "Giant" and it also was a little soft & grainy (I don't know if that was from b&w seps or the o-neg.)

Also, I want a stronger chroma level than perhaps really existed back then; I think our perception that old color movies had stronger colors was due to Technicolor printing plus the color design of old movies -- someone always wearing a bright red dress in a grey room, etc. Plus the frontal lighting made those colors POP, even if the emulsions themselves weren't as saturated. In this area, I'm thinking to be less-than-accurate and going for how we THINK Technicolor & Kodachrome looked back then, in super-rich colors. Actually, I think 3-strip Technicolor and Kodachrome were fairly accurate in their color reproduction, more so than Eastmancolor negative was.

Anyway, I have some testing to do once the budget is in place... I just don't know if, for this project, digital intermediates will be possible. And obviously HOW I light & shoot these scenes (and how they are art directed, edited, etc.) will ultimately have a greater effect than what I do with the emulsion & lenses. I'm just starting there first...

David Mullen

Cinematographer / L.A.

Just curious...

How much input will you have into the production design and art direction on your project? How much input would be ideal for you?

I am also interested in your lighting approach and how it might affect your stock/lens choices...

Andrew "Learning lots as usual..." Gordon

Gaffer

Regina, Saskatchewan

>I would be surprised if a lower budget film had the time/money to use 1950 tools. A big heavy camera like the PSR (at least it's reflex!)<

Not true! Sure, the big old Mitchell is a bear, but I was 2nd Unit DP on an 'action' sword-fighting film where due to budget the DP used a Panavision PSR (basically, a Mitchell) on a gear head on a dolly on location in the woods! The AC's really had to hump that thing around, but we shot it in 3+ weeks & it's been running on The Movie Channel recently. Not something that I would want to repeat, but certainly do-able.....boy am I spoiled using an Aaton 35mm (18 lb) camera.

Al Satterwhite

DP/LA

Do you intend to use a preponderance of Fresnel lights? No matter the stock, developing, printing, lenses, etc., isn't the biggest decision related to rendering skin on film?

I really think of color shooting as crossing the "great divide" when Sven Nyquist, Gordon Willis, David Watkin (particularly "Marat Sade") and Storaro--soft lighters all---began making color pictures.

I can't remember a "hardlit" color film in the last 30 years that was pleasing to my eye.

Jerry Cotts

DP/LA

>I can't remember a "hardlit" color film in the last 30 years that was

>pleasing to my eye.

Could I draw your attention to any of the Indiana Jones movies brilliantly shot by Douglas Slocombe? They were all classically hard-lit, and gorgeously so.

-Art Adams, S.O.C.

Director of Photography

Watching a restored print of "Vertigo" last year got me pondering what that special look of fifties color came from. I don't know if that film was done on Eastmancolor or three-strip.

One thing seemed clear -- the scale was shorter, especially at the shadow end and everything seemed shot between f/3.5 and 5.6... I think your notion to push 48 sounds like a good start. Also it seemed that the masking was never quite right, specifically getting red shadow detail. So all the shadows tended to fall into cyan. Especially in the dupes.

Besides a ton of hard light through NDs to keep the stop north of 2.8, south of 4, I'd look for some way to skew the grey scale cyan at the shadow end. Maybe flashing with cyan light to shrink the scale and then underexposing a stop or two. If it went through a digital intermediate, I'd pull the red setup (pedistal) down and push the blue up a bit, and kick up the contrast on what's left. Or put another way, the red gamma is steeper, or at least has a shorter toe, than blue or green.

Maybe shooting through a cyan or green CC to starve the red layer? Like the stocks of the sixties under florescent light, and then graded back to "normal"?...

Skip Roessel NYC

>Do you intend to use a preponderance of Fresnel lights? No matter the stock, developing, printing, lenses, etc., isn't the biggest decision related to rendering skin on film?

The old rule was that skin tones were inviolate, no matter what colored lighting was going around. You see this in the heavily-colored look of Leon Shamroy's work, with backgrounds colored but fleshtones normal. Also, remember that make-up was a lot heavier then, so in some ways, fleshtones were more consistent.

But film stocks & lenses weren't as tack-sharp back then, so hard lighting helped give the illusion of definition and sharpness. Tight close-ups back then would either use softer lighting or diffusion.

>I really think of color shooting as crossing the "great divide" when Sven Nyquist, Gordon Willis, David Watkin (particularly "Marat Sade") and Storaro--soft lighters all---began making color pictures.

But they've all done individual scenes with hard lighting Ð particularly Storaro. Most of the scenes during the Japanese occupation of Manchuria in "Last Emperor" are all shot with hard lighting. Many films have one scene or another with faces lit by hard-light, especially if it is motivated.

Anyway, I have to take on the aesthetic values of someone in the 1950's, not contemporary values. And some faces actually look pretty good in hard light... Those old DP's really knew how to glamorize a leading lady. Marlene Deitrich never looked as good in natural, soft-lit photos; she needed the scuptural qualities that a high frontal hard key light would give her face.

David Mullen

Cinematographer / L.A.

>similar to the old problem of shooting scenes of wealth & opulence on a low-budget film.

David, the closest I ever came to this was, I shot a film in the eighties - on 7247 - which was actually set in the twenties (it was my first attempt at a feature, I sometimes convince myself I'll finish it some day...)

I had a series of interior scenes set on a blue Chinese rug, grasscloth wallpaper (straw gels here), lead actress in a peachy orange nightgown, red silk scarf. Also, her makeup was way overdone in the rouge dept. Etc. It was not an effect I was going for, but as soon as I saw the dailies, I said aloud (as did my gaffer on this) "this looks like fifties Technicolor" Specifically I thought of Visconti's "Senso"

It was what I call 'softened hard light' i.e. fresnel sources isolated and slightly diffused. I've had this archaic argument w/ Jeff K over '47 - I really liked that stock, he (rightly I think) claims "cross color" problems from that stock. I've concluded *that* must be what I liked about it ! Now I know 47 is different from the previous 54 and 48, but with the introduction of 52/7248 color negs got pretty slick in a way I don't think they ever were before. So maybe a variation on Skip Roessel's suggestion to "digitally retro" the color response ?

I think art direction as you suggest goes a long way. It might even mean getting out the compressors and doing a 'color correction' on the props and landscape ala "Red Desert" or (highly reccomended viewing) "Lola Montes" (Max Ophuls).

I'll point out that the fifties aesthetic to some extent survived in Chinese films of the eighties & early ninetees. Technicolor IB prints, older primes, harder lighting. I'm thinking especially of "Ju Dou" but other Zhang Yimou films also. (Bear in mind Zhang Yimou was a DP before he became a director).

As an aside, I saw a vintage Tech IB print of a six minute trailer for "The Ten Commandments" last year. Hadn't seen blue water or tall green grasses like that on the screen since I was a kid ! I DID think, man I wonder what Velvia would look like printed on Technicolor....

Sorry to ramble but the hallmark of big fifties Hollywood movies for me, or in my memory is the iconic prescence of the movie stars, the bigger-than-lifeness of the stars and landscapes.

-Sam Wells

film/nj/usa

Sam Wells wrote:

>I've had this archaic argument w/ Jeff Kover '47 - I really liked that stock, he (rightly I think) claims "cross color" problems from that stock. I've concluded *that* must be what I liked about it !

I'd agree with Sam that '47 would be a good choice for David if it were still like the original 70's 7247 -- but I believe that it was "improved" somewhere along the line. I just disliked it in comparison to the wonderful 7254 and 5254 -- I shot one film on 7254 and loved it (for a slow stock, that is). '47 never came close.

Jeff "so many numbers" Kreines

>Sorry to ramble but the hallmark of big fifties Hollywood movies for me, or in my memory is the iconic prescence of the movie stars, the bigger-than-lifeness of the stars and landscapes.

I think one reason that old-fashioned close-ups were so memorable was that they were used sparingly, for key moments in the film -- hence why they are so indelible (it doesn't hurt when your lead actress is Ingrid Bergman either...) Also, the slower editing pace, particularly in early Cinemascope & Todd-AO films allowed one to savor the set-ups in general more.

On the other hand, if naturalism is your cup-of-tea, a number of old-fashioned lighting ticks can be annoying, like backlighting even in day interiors when there is no source that could provide such a source.

Has anyone seen "Torn Curtain"? There was an extensive A.C. article at the time it was made, where Hitchcock talks about wanting to get away from traditional high-key studio lighting. The whole film was shot thru a grey net, to soften the colors, contrast, and definition, and he decided that the lighting should all be bounced (maybe he read something about French New Wave films using bounced light.) But in order to get more exposure, they decided to spray-paint all of their large wooden bounce boards SILVER, not white. The end results was not particularly more soft or naturalistic in lighting than the previous Hitchcock films (maybe slightly -- the farmhouse sequence seems to have a overall soft top light effect.) Anyway, Hitchcock sort of proudly tells Truffaut in his interview book about his experiments in lighting for "Torn Curtain" but Truffaut rightly responds that he didn't notice anything special about the look of that film.

My point is that there were attempts at more realistic lighting all through Hollywood studio era, but in some cases, slow-speed film stocks were the barrier, and in other cases, the aesthetics of the cameramen & directors, coming out of b&w, got in the way. The net result was that over the 1950's and 1960's, color photography in Hollywood studio films got simpler and more direct, but not necessarily more "realistic" although that's what people like James Wong Howe were saying they were up to. It was really the work of European cinematographers that inspired Americans like Conrad Hall to move towards a more naturalistic approach, coinciding with new attitudes in audiences for naturalism plus better technology (the introduction of 100 ASA color negative in 1968 being a particularly key turning point.)

This is one reason why I like color cinematography from the late 1930's to 1950 (3-strip Technicolor), because lighting techniques were more firmly in the stylized trend used in b&w films, modified to some extent (more fill, less depth-of-field, etc.) Good contrast in general (especially in "Gone with the Wind"), shadow patterns, mood, etc. -- plus the richness of 3-strip Technicolor photography. The 1950's & 1960's in Hollywood were sort of a transitional period towards greater realism without necessarily understanding how to achieve that. Probably the best work of that period were outdoors films, like Westerns or David Lean's exterior work in "Summertime" and "Bridge on the River Kwai", where there was less lighting and greater use of natural light effects than had previously been done (although the exterior work in John Ford's "Drums Along the Mohawk" is fairly natural for an early 3-trip Technicolor film).

One area I'm not sure I will be able to recreate is all of the process work of the time. Does anyone have a source for old 35mm rear projection plates for driving scenes -- i.e. footage of Los Angeles streets in the 1950's taken from moving vehicles for use in RP or composite work?

David Mullen

Cinematographer / L.A.

>I shot one film on 7254 and loved it (for a slow stock, that is). '47 never came close.

The closest I've gotten to the look of 5254 was by rating Vision 320T at 160 ASA (except that the Vision stock was sharper.) But it had that "mellower" look of 1970's film stocks.

David Mullen

Cinematographer /L.A.

David Mullen wrote:

> The net result was that over the 1950's and 1960's, color photography in Hollywood studio films got simpler and more direct, but not necessarily more "realistic"

Interesting point.

I remember reading Haskell Wexler on "In the Heat of the Night" (his first color film) -- he said he lit it as if it were B&W.

At 10:54 AM 1/17/02 -0800, you wrote:

>for driving scenes -- i.e. footage of Los Angeles streets in the 1950's taken from moving vehicles for use in RP or composite work?

Give the Hansard's in LA a call. They have always been the rear projection maestros. It is a family business passed down through generations. They would know something about footage I would think. Their equipment is huge and old but still used as far as I know-unless the digital revolution has made it obsolete. They trundled one of their projectors down to Mexico City for Total Recall when I was shooting some plates.

Steve Slocomb

Hamilton, Montana.

>>Maybe flashing with cyan light to shrink the scale and then underexposing a stop or two.

A number of stocks have a color shift in the shadows. I use the Arri Varicon with a complimentary filter in the slot, or light the shadows with the complimentary color on the light. Rosco's CalColor filters are excellent for this.

Mark Woods, Director of Photography

At the time resolution of films and optics was relatively low resulting in large circle of confusion. This fact together with the working apertures of 4 - 5.6 offered of much as depth of field.

My "heretic" approach would be to shoot S16.

I would use 7245 since if offers lots of contrast and colour saturation. As you propably know 45 is not a true daylight film, it is in fact somewhere in between daylight and tungsten, so I would use only an 82 filter under tungsten light and propably an 81EF or 81C+Pola under daylight. This would "pop up" warm colours giving a sence of an even more saturated image. During post I would add some silver retaining process like ENR to desaturate a bit and bring the image towards a more "standard" look but with a peculiar feeling.

Argyris Theos

DoP Athens Greece

>My "heretic" approach would be to shoot S16.

After seeing the stuff from "Conspiracy" blown-up from S16 to 35mm digitally, that idea did occur to me. But I think 1950's films had a bigger, brighter, bolder look and since I also need a 2.35 : 1 scope image in the end, I think S16 would be the wrong approach.

However, it might be an interesting way to recreate the look of the earliest 3-strip Technicolor films, like from 1935 (something like "Becky Sharp"). Or even the look of the 2-color Technicolor films from the early 1930's, which were fairly soft. Shoot S16 stock, transfer to 2K, enhance color saturation digitally, and record out to 35mm. Maybe even shoot regular 16mm, leave the image 1.33, and record out to 35mm with 1.33 windowboxed inside 1.85 for projection.

I once shot a short film in 16mm using 7274 overexposed & printed down, and the whole project was art directed and lit to look like a 1930's color film. The 16mm format did give it a less clinical, less modern look and the 1.33 format was perfect.

But for a 1950's Cinemascope / Technicolor look, I think 35mm is the way to go.

David Mullen

Cinematographer / L.A.

======================================================