Vision 200T problems

[tetsukobushi]

Hello,
I'm new to super 8mm format, and I have recently shot A music video on the Vision 200T from super 8 sound. For the production I used a set of 3 tungsten lights to make sure the scenes where correctly lit.
When I got the film back on mini DV the pictue is very, very dark. I even over-exposed by 2 stops (using a light meter) so that I could get a bleached out look but I can hardly see anything!

I decided to use the super 8mm format because of the good things people where saying but after spending all this money on film and processing I feel that I have just wasted my time and money.

I was hoping that someone could have any suggestions on how I could rectify the problem and get a better looking image. I'm very disapointed in whats happened and very supprised buy the poor images I got, Maybe super 8 is not as good as people think.

Thanks for listening.
Nate.

[mattias]

something must be wrong with the telecine then. if there's any kind of image at all in the emulsion they should have been able to bring it out. perhaps they did a "calibrated one light" and the first scene was overexposed? that would make the rest of the scenes look too dark.

Maybe super 8 is not as good as people think.

they do? that's news to me. most people i talk to think the zapruder footage is the best you can get.

/matt

[Paul Costello]

Oh the joys - the uncertanty is part of the pleasure

Seriously though the same has happened to me in the past and your right it can be soul destroying.

P.

[christoph]

When I got the film back on mini DV the pictue is very, very dark. I even over-exposed by 2 stops (using a light meter) so that I could get a bleached out look but I can hardly see anything!

well, you're looking at three things to track down:

- user error (wrong exposure)
- camera failure (aperture)
- postproduction mess up (processing or telecine)

best is to look at your negative... if it's very thin (ie. nearly no picture info) but still has the edge numbers (does the super8 stock have edge numbers in the first place?) it's likely point 1 or 2.. if the negative looks fine (like a photo negative) then it's 3b and you can have the footage retransfered.

have you done any tests before hand? did you use the built in meter or an external meter? what kind of lights did you use?

thinking about all these things will help you that the same thing wont hapen again... good luck
++ christoph ++

[MattPacini]

It could be anything; camera, meter, film, however I've never seen decent telecine come out of Super 8 Sound.
Even their demo looks bad, but it's not too dark, so who knows?

I wouldn't overexpose 2 stops. That's excessive, in my opinion (and many other people's too).
Also, I ALWAYS shoot about 12 seconds of greycard at the beginning of each roll of film I shoot.
This gives the colorist something to go off, for lightness and color calibration. This is especially important if you're unlucky enough to get some bonehead transferring your footage, which is likely at Super 8 Sound, "the DMV of film services".

Matt Pacini

[tetsukobushi]

Thanks for your help guys, much appreciated!
I did not mean to sound negative about the super 8mm format (I love it really!! ) its just that this video is part of a project and I ran a major risk by shooting 8mm (most poeple thought I was crazy not to shoot DV)

Anyhow I used I light meter for each of the shots as well as 3 tungsten redhead lights, so as far as i'm concered the scenes should not be as dark as they are and also with the film being dark there is a hell of a lot of grain showing for a 200T film, so all in all I think an error has been made at the telecine end. I just hope they can re-do it for me.

Speaking of telecine which company gives the best quality of service (picture wise) Pro8mm or widescreen centre. Are there any more you can suggest I try.

One again thank for your help, You have restored my faith in super8mm.

[MattPacini]

I've used Sunset Post in Glendale, CA and I loved them.
Fantastic place, they do top, top big budget movies there, yet they don't act pompous and condescending like Super 8 Sound (Pro8mm) does, and you always get great service and quality there.

Matt Pacini

[tacotim]

This sounds almost certainly like a telecine error. The negative stocks have a ton of lattitude, so unless a grave error in exposure was made, you should have acceptable results for a pro telecine. As far as your grain comment, 200t has always produced a grainy image for me. As far as telecine houses, I have used Flying Spot in seattle for 16mm transfers and the colorist there is fantastic. I know they have a s8 gate.

good Luck, Tim

[disjecta]

For what it's worth, if you are trying to acheive a certain look by overexposing, that's a big no-no for me personally. I like to get the highest quality shots I can when shooting. That way I have all the detail I need in case I change my mind about the look. Particularly if you are plunging a lot of money into film/processing/telecine/editing.

You have so much control over the finished look of a piece by tweaking the original in post production. You can easily acheive that "blown-out" look non-destructively. In my experience, exposure control is not a fine science, whether you use a light meter or in-camera meter, there are always factors that you may not consider or change during shooting and it can totally ruin all of your hard work. If you are off here and there when you expose normally, the margin of error is much less.

I hope you can get this resolved.

Steven

[mattias]

For what it's worth, if you are trying to acheive a certain look by overexposing, that's a big no-no for me personally.

why limit yourself? da vincis and whatnot are powerful, but film is an organic medium that should be pushed around and tweaked as much as possible in my opinion. very few dp's i know actually rate the films at the asa written on the box, but rather at the speed they found out during testing gives them the look they're after. what about other analog ways of manipulating the film, like flashing, pushing and pulling? not for you either?

/matt

[Andreas Wideroe]

If Vision 200T is properly exposed it's not that grainy in my opinion. If the film is underexposed you will increase the grain quite a lot.

[studiocarter]

Overexposed film will make a dark negative. So, you may have gotten what you shot for.

Overexposed reversal film makes thin white images and the grain goes away. Underexposed reversal film makes thick dark images and the grain increases during telecini, at least with my workprinter and my video camera. The grain MAY come from the video camera, but it is greatly increased in 'normalized' shots where the too dark image is lightened by the camera. A brighter lamp is needed for such film.

[mattias]

Overexposed film will make a dark negative. So, you may have gotten what you shot for.

a dense negative is actually good if you want less grain and more contrast, but as you say it's harder to telecine it.

/matt

[Basstruc]

Also, I ALWAYS shoot about 12 seconds of greycard at the beginning of each roll of film I shoot.

That's smart, but a very few colorist really use them (from my experience). In facts, bad colorists (like me) will but the good one prefers there intuition. I can't explain why but sometimes, after calibrating a grey card, scenes had very strange coloration.
Plus, shooting it at the first seconds o each roll is useless. Shooting it before each scenes in the key light would be better.

For what it's worth, if you are trying to acheive a certain look by overexposing, that's a big no-no for me personally. I like to get the highest quality shots I can when shooting. That way I have all the detail I need in case I change my mind about the look. Particularly if you are plunging a lot of money into film/processing/telecine/editing.

You have so much control over the finished look of a piece by tweaking the original in post production. You can easily acheive that "blown-out" look non-destructively. In my experience, exposure control is not a fine science, whether you use a light meter or in-camera meter, there are always factors that you may not consider or change during shooting and it can totally ruin all of your hard work. If you are off here and there when you expose normally, the margin of error is much less.

This is absolutly right !!

why limit yourself? da vincis and whatnot are powerful, but film is an organic medium that should be pushed around and tweaked as much as possible in my opinion.

Colorist are colorist, not alchemist : they do not transform shit in gold.

very few dp's i know actually rate the films at the asa written on the box, but rather at the speed they found out during testing gives them the look they're after. what about other analog ways of manipulating the film, like flashing, pushing and pulling? not for you either?

Because analog colorisation is a very limitated process. Each of those effects are easely reproductible in digital post production. Many DPs likes to overestimate their job by using there own "receipt" : a bit of overexposure there, a bit of flashing there, this special filter there ... I think this is a bit crappy, a way to get more respectability... sorry

a dense negative is actually good if you want less grain and more contrast, but as you say it's harder to telecine it.

I was not lucky enough to see any overexpose negative less grainy than a normal exposed one (developed in a good lab). I do think this is only a myth.

matt

[Basstruc]

I'll always remember of a pretty famous DP here that was doing a TV serie. The first scenes we received were 500asa pushed to 1000asa on day exteriors. After first warned him this was pretty shitty, he started arguing :"Look, this is my image, my style, I know exactly what I'm doing..."
Guess what ? The TV network just refused the programmed because of that.
Matt