Vision 200T problems

[MattPacini]

[quote="Basstruc" ....." Plus, shooting it at the first seconds o each roll is useless. Shooting it before each scenes in the key light would be better..."
[/quote]

(MP): Well, of course, it's useless IF you're not exposing the greycard in the same light as your scene, which is what I do.
If the light stays the same, I don't shoot another greycard.
If the lighting changes, I do.

Matt Pacini

[mattias]

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

exactly, i could of course use the exact same argument the other way around. get as close to the look you want in the emulsion and the colorist's job gets easier.

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

with all due respect just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. i've seen it, and if you read and watch the tests performed once in a while by american cinematographer you'll see the same. hey, it's even verifyable scientifically. look at the "rms granularity" curve of any stock and you'll see that it's more grainy the thinner and less the denser.

/matt

[MovieStuff]

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.

No myth. Photographers have known for a long time that over exposing neg will tighten the grain. I did tests long ago that proved it to myself. The ISO or ASA rating of a film stock is the highest possible rating you could shoot it at and still get acceptable grain. This is more of a marketing issue than anything. I mean, Kodak certainly isn't going to say that their 500 ASA film looks better rated at 250 ASA. So they do tests and find out what is the least amount of light you can shoot in before the grain starts to glob. That becomes the "official" rating of the film to get an acceptable image but it doesn't mean that it will yield the best results. But neg does have a tremendous amount of latitude. Some of the el-cheapo point-and-shoot still cams have zero exposure control. They just let the neg take the hit, knowing that it can be corrected in printing. I looked at some friend's prints recently that were sharp and had brilliant color. Some of the associated negs were super thin with hardly any image on them at all. Really amazing, actually, and goes to show how far digital has to bridge that gap in terms of performance.

Roger

[Basstruc]

exactly, i could of course use the exact same argument the other way around. get as close to the look you want in the emulsion and the colorist's job gets easier.

Not in that case since overexposing change the color calibration of the emulsion. I mean we have more problems to match scenes with an overexposed film than with a well calibrated one. Plus remember that a cinematographer do rent it's service to the film production, he is not the master of the image. Then the more reversible processes, the better. Since there's a lot of possibilities in digital post, I advise not to play with those kind of things.

with all due respect just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Notice I did use those terms ("had not the chance to see.." "I think..") exactly because of that.

if you read and watch the tests performed once in a while by american cinematographer you'll see the same.

If I read books on UFO, will I trust them too ?
But I did make a mistake by writing it. I should have write : "I was not lucky enough to see any overexpose negative better looking than a normal exposed one (developed in a good lab)."

That becomes the "official" rating of the film to get an acceptable image but it doesn't mean that it will yield the best results.

I talked to kodak engeneers about that and they all did answered the same : "after tests, we all considered that the emulsions exposed in our asa rating gives the better results". But keeping there tests conditions in a mass production process is economicaly suicidal. I've seen backrooms of some of the "better" movie film labs in france and this is kind of scary.

[MovieStuff]

That becomes the "official" rating of the film to get an acceptable image but it doesn't mean that it will yield the best results.

I talked to kodak engeneers about that and they all did answered the same : "after tests, we all considered that the emulsions exposed in our asa rating gives the better results".

That's just silly. How many Kodak engineers are DPs for major motion pictures? In fact, how many people at Kodak shoot motion picture film of any kind on a regular basis?

I'm not doubting that anyone at Kodak told you such nonsense but I will say it is nonsense. Overexposing by a stop clearly tightens the grain, as has been proven countless times by experienced photographers and DPs for decades. If some idiot at Kodak actually told you otherwise, it is because they want to maintain the illusion that the listed ASA is accurate for some reason that has more to do with internal Kodak politics than actual results. No experienced DP in their right mind would believe it and, in fact, don't. A good, dense negative yields superior grain characteristics to a thinner negative every time. This is not a myth but provable fact.

Roger

[tetsukobushi]

One of the reasons why I spent so much time on the exposure of the film is because I wanted as less gran as possible, this is the reason why I overexposed a little.
As far as i'm concerned my camera is in good working order (Canon 1014xls) and I carefully exposed each shot with a reading from a light meter so there is no way the finnished product should be as dark and grainy as it is. The only thing I did not do was to shoot a gray card, which I will now do in the future.

I only wish you guys could see the finnished product, it can only be a fault at the telecine end. Has enyone else had similar problems with the super 8 sound telecine?

[mattias]

Not in that case since overexposing change the color calibration of the emulsion. I mean we have more problems to match scenes

see i'm looking at this from the dp's point of view, i'm not talking about saving footage that has been wrongly exposed, i'm talking about getting the look you want. and again, changing the "color calibration of the emulsion" is *exactly* what you're trying to do.

If I read books on UFO, will I trust them too ?

i don't know. you tell me. are you suggesting that american cinematographer is a fake magazine and/or that their tests can't be taken seriously?

"after tests, we all considered that the emulsions exposed in our asa rating gives the better results"

a "better" result is something that is closer to what you wanted. this is of course something every dp must always know better for his own particular projects than any generalized kodak comments can. kodak's rating is based on what looks the most "correct", which isn't necessarily what the dp is after.

/matt

[mattias]

I carefully exposed each shot with a reading from a light meter so there is no way the finnished product should be as dark and grainy as it is.

what shutter time/angle did you use on the camera and on the light meter, what frame rate, what asa, what filters? we need everything.

/matt

[studiocarter]

Both are on the same roll of Fomapan 100 reversal Regular 8mm film and exist as short movie mpg clips, not posted. One is overexposed and one underexposed. Overexposed shots are smooth while underexposed clips are grainy. The video camera for the WP transfer was set to automatic exposure; it decreased exposure on overexposed ones and increased exposure on underexposed ones. The grain in underexposed shots may be due to the video camera. It, the video camera, has less grain in overexposed shots.
Could it be that a dark negative transfer to video does the same thing? Namely, increase of the gain in the video camera increases the grain in the image.

http://www.8mm.filmshooting.com/scripts ... _pan_L.jpg
http://www.8mm.filmshooting.com/scripts ... _house.jpg

[Patrick]

Tetsukobushi, I assumed that you used an external hand held light meter? When taking a light reading, did you account for the light loss from the camera's beam splitter prism?