fattening up 500t or 200t?

[steve hyde]

...So when it comes to shooting Vision 2 color negs under daylight with an 85 on the lens we should shoot 7217 at EI - 64 and 7218 at EI - 125 when one stop overexposure is desired?

Steve

[audadvnc]

7217 is 200T/125D, so 1 stop overexposure in daylight is ASA 64.
7218 is 500T/320D, so 1 stop overexposure in daylight is ASA 160.

[the woy]

i was actually asking if anybody did it in the two s8 neg stocks...wanted to know what they looked like directly since i know it worked for 16mm. wanted an opinion.

S8 7217

(jpg compression blurred the grain a bit and therefore the image, too)

Nic

[mattias]

well, that comparisonm would have been a lot more useful had all three been telecined to the same brightness. now the only real conclusion we can draw is that the more exposure it gets the brighter the image, which is of course a no-brainer. ;-)

/matt

[the woy]

well, that comparisonm would have been a lot more useful had all three been telecined to the same brightness. now the only real conclusion we can draw is that the more exposure it gets the brighter the image, which is of course a no-brainer. ;-)

/matt

right. but it was a hazard product, when my cam opened the iris when it shoudn't. it will be thrown away in the edit, so why bother retransferring it?
don't you have photoshop to adjust the brightness of the pics and be a post house? or turn your screen brightness down, see how it would have turned out ... knäppgök

actually this

anybody shoot these two stocks a stop over? were the results much better?

was the original question, I just tried to answer it practically. 1 stop over gives you more to play with in telecine, 2 can be critical in some situations but usually can be brought down in transfer (or post).

finished
Nic

[audadvnc]

Photoshop won't be of much use. Of course I could pump up the jpeg to cover the 0-100% brightness range, but by then the image has been so modified as to tell me almost nothing of the original shot, because so much information has been lost to poor exposure in transfer.

What we need to see for comparison are negatives of varying densities telecine'd to a common video level.

[mattias]

don't you have photoshop

yeah, that would obviously give me the same result. how stupid of me. :-)

turn your screen brightness down

who was the knäppgök again?

finished

a little hurt now, are we? are you honestly saying that your sample shows that 1 stop overexposure gives you "more to play with in telecine"? everyone appreciates your effort and your opinion but the sample you posted is still completely useless. sorry.

/matt[/quote]

[matt5791]

ok, but has anybody gone a stop over with these stocks and checked out the results?

I have gone probably 3 stops over and there is still more than enough detail in the negative.

Example: shoot a person heavily backlit by a window - expose for what the meter tells you for the face..........

During transfer you will have a choice: Detail outside the window or detail on the persons face.

Matt

[steve hyde]

...I don't think the examples posted above are useless. I think they present a three stop difference quite clearly. Thanks for posting them.

Steve

[mattias]

...I don't think the examples posted above are useless. I think they present a three stop difference quite clearly.

you didn't know that the image gets brighter as you overexpose it? i thought we were interested in knowing how the contrast and grain structure changed...

/matt

[tlatosmd]

I'd suppose what Steve meant it's interesting to see the difference between stops, a practical example of how much of a difference a stop or several actually make.

[mattias]

i disagree. what exactly is this sample supposed to tell us in that regard? it might be interesting if we had the same shot on another stock to compare it with, since that would tell us something about the difference in latitude at least. right now there's no point of reference so all we see is an image that gets brighter with more exposure. wow, revolutionary facts... ;-)

/matt

[tlatosmd]

But lighter *by what practical, visual degree*! It might tell us amateurs and hobbyists a thing or two as we usually rely on auto-exposure.

[mattias]

But lighter *by what practical, visual degree*!

that's exactly the kind of false assumptions and conclusions i'm trying to get rid of by continuing this rant. i'm not just being obnoxious you see.

/matt

[tlatosmd]

You mean because different stocks show different amounts of latitude, so therefore the amount of difference between stops is not the same between two stocks?