Making K40 Resemble Tri-X in Post--Possible?

Post by **tfunch24** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 2:33 am

I've just got a bunch of Tri-X rolls I shot for a project back from the lab. Most of the stuff I shot for my project (refer to this thread: "Shooting a Scene where People Watch a Projected Movie.") Two shots cannot be used--in one the back light was visible and in the other you could see key light reflected in a window.

For reshooting, is it possible for me to use K40 and make it look like Tri-X in the PC? It sounds easy; apply a B&W filter and then increase the grain noise until it resembles Tri-X. However, like most ideas, it's probably more complicated than I think it is and might not work out in practice.

Why substitute K40 for Tri-X? One, it's cheaper (K40 Processing--already paid vrs. Tri-X--$16.50).

For the record, I do not own Premiere or AfterEffects but my video editor program does allow for the procedures I described above.

Tom

Yemi · Post by **Yemi** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 3:53 am

For starters, do you have enough light available to shoot K40? Tri-X is much faster...you can rate it at 200asa indoors or even past 400asa by getting it pushed a couple of stops in processing. It has more latitude than K40 and that might be key for getting a decent image from your tricky scene (people watching a projected movie).

The word on the street is that Kodak will release their 500T Vision2 stock in super8 later this year. 500asa with a ton of latitude. Sounds useful.

------
Yemi

tfunch24--lazy · Post by **tfunch24--lazy** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 4:00 am

I have enough light to shoot K40 (the only reason I'm using Tri-X is because what I'm doing is a short film with elements of film noir--but it's not film noir.)

The new Vision stock sounds great but I can't afford to wait.

Tom

tfunch24--still lazy · Fri Jan 31, 2003 4:07 am

Just to add what I wrote, the shots I'm doing are two close shots of a person watching a film--the projected film is not in the shot. For lighting, I used and am planning on using again are two 175 watt lights--one key and one side light, both positioned as kickers. Since the shot I'm trying to get here is a low-key shot--the scene is one of a darkened room, only illuminated by the flicker of the projector--all I need is enough light to dimly illuminate the body, the face, and the chair in which the character is sitting.

I'm using a Bell & Howell Filmosonic XL with a 220-degree shutter and 1.3 lens--same as last time. The last time I was able to get the shots I wanted except for the problems I described in my initial post.

As for pushing/pulling, I'm trying to do this without spending extra money. If I have to re-shoot on Tri-X, I'll do it, but I'd prefer not to if I can fudge it with K40 and post-production video editing programs.

Tom

Post by **Lucas Lightfeat** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 4:57 am

I'd say go for it, Tom. I've thought about using Kodachrome for black and white video editing myself, particularly inspired by learning that "The Man Who Wasn't There," for me the single most beautifully photographed black and white film of all time, was in fact shot on colour negative stock, because the contract stipulated that they produce a colour version for the Asian market. Have you seen the film? Obviously with neg, and being 35mm, it has considerably more latitude and is sharp as a pin, but I've experimented by processing some Kodachrome to black and white, and I think it will definately be possible for you to make it "fit" if not make it un-noticeable, especially as you will be adding grain, not removing it. You will need over 4 times as much light though! That's a lot, so beware - but otherwise, it can look good.

Good luck!

Lucas

Post by **tfunch24** » Fri Jan 31, 2003 4:11 pm

This is the type of shot I'm considering reshooting on K40:

Not that great (it was a quick capture done in daylight and transferred to PC compositely; there's been something up with my firewire setup--it hasn't worked consistently for almost two weeks.) There's even a bit of a hot spot on the left side of the lens and you can see the reflection of the computer screen on the right side of the shot.

This shot uses only one 175-watt kicker. I plan on using two. The camera setup will be exactly the same.

Tom

tfunch24 being lazy · Post by **tfunch24 being lazy** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 6:50 pm

*Bump*

I haven't had a chance to do the re-shoots yet...considering the JPG above, do you think unfiltered K40 could cut it? The shot is low-key--I'd be satisfied even if only the face and some of the chair is illuminated by two 175-watt kickers.

Tom