Tri-X Super 8 - Newby About To SHoot!

Post by **joshtanner** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:30 am

Hi all, just joined up and have only started shooting on s8mm film, i start this weekend actually, ive been shooting on DV but realised the stuff is obsolite next to film.

I have put together a script and storyboard for a short ghost film, i have just received 5x 50' rolls of Tri-X as i hope that black and white will compliment the theme of a haunted house.

Now to buisness i was wondering about a few things, whould i be shooting with the tungsten or daylight filter when im shooting indoors, i know that might seem like a stupid question but i realise that Tri-X is a faster speed film and is a little different. And about lighting, how much is too much, is it easier to light tri-x than say k40?

Cheers any help would be great
Josh

Post by **audadvnc** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:51 am

Since Tri-X is a faster speed film, you have more flexibility in your lighting choices. You don't need to shoot with a daylight filter (although various colored filters provide for different effects when used with black & white film, such as how much brightness is in the sky).

Assuming you've got a camera with a functioning light meter, you can go out and shoot without worrying about exposure, filters, lighting and whatnot. Later on you will want more exact control over your image, but for now just go out there and shoot the film. Knock us dead with your ghost story.

Post by **ccortez** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:29 am

Overexposing by about half a stop looks fantastic. Underexposing by as little as half a stop can make the grain measurably worse. Underexposing by more than that can make your shot unusable. YMMV.

EDIT: It's easier to light than K40, but you still need a lot of light. You won't get far expecting to use available light. Definitely bring something with you... I had 2000W (4 or 5 lighting instruments) available to shoot a one-man short in a tiny hotel room. Needed every bit of what I had.

Post by **joshtanner** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:50 am

sweet, also im going to edit on film, but im going to do a kind of 'first cut' on FCPro, and cut to that, when ive spliced the film (by using cement which im a little hesitant about but gotta learn sometime) i will then do another home telecine and get the composer to do a creepy piano score, ive been wondering if i export via quicktime to 23.97fps it will run in sync so the composer can score perfectly.

Also i was going to buy a minidisk to record wild sound and foley but i figured i could just use a dv cam and use the sound out of that, what u think?

Website · Post by **BigBeaner** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:16 am

I would use the mini-dv...as long as you got some good mics on it. If I were you I would look up a little on basic photography and about film speeds and all so you know what we talk about. K40 is 40 speed film and Tri-x is 200, then why you need to use a filter or not (tungesten vs daylight balanced, color temperature, in video it's called white balance, etc.) Don't spend too much time but just enough.

Post by **joshtanner** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:44 am

yeah im using a Canon xm-2 i beleive, i could be wrong but ive got a seinheisser mike attached to it. I havent gone right into frame rates as of yet but i do know that final cut has a quicktime converter that can convert to 23.97fps. would this be of any help for me?

Post by **Actor** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:14 am

audadvnc wrote:Assuming you've got a camera with a functioning light meter, you can go out and shoot without worrying about exposure...

Not necessarily. If you have one of the 40/160 cameras which have gotten so much attention lately due to the 64T controversy you may have a proplem.

The X-distance of the Tri-X notch is 0.4 inch and the filter notch is absent. A 40/160 camera which can detect the filter notch will misread the film as 100D/160T and set the light meter to ASA 100. This you will be overexposing by 2/3 stop in tungsten and by a full stop in daylight.

I cut my own filter notch in Tri-X to bring the light meter back into the "Tungsten" column so the light meter gets set to ASA 160, correct exposure under tungsten. I use the 85 filter to get corrrect exposure in daylight.

Post by **ccortez** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:12 pm

Actor wrote: The X-distance of the Tri-X notch is 0.4 inch and the filter notch is absent. A 40/160 camera which can detect the filter notch will misread the film as 100D/160T and set the light meter to ASA 100. This you will be overexposing by 2/3 stop in tungsten and by a full stop in daylight.

I agree with you in principle... but it makes sense to note that the above scenerio is far from the worst thing that can happen with Tri-X. (The daylight scenerio is far from ideal, but the tungsten one is close to ideal.)

Post by **Actor** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 1:52 pm

ccortez wrote:
Actor wrote: The X-distance of the Tri-X notch is 0.4 inch and the filter notch is absent. A 40/160 camera which can detect the filter notch will misread the film as 100D/160T and set the light meter to ASA 100. This you will be overexposing by 2/3 stop in tungsten and by a full stop in daylight.
I agree with you in principle... but it makes sense to note that the above scenerio is far from the worst thing that can happen with Tri-X. (The daylight scenerio is far from ideal, but the tungsten one is close to ideal.)

To each his own but I would not call 2/3 stop overexposuer with reversal film "close to ideal." And why put up with it when the cure is a simple as cutting a notch in the cartridge?

Post by **zaefod** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 3:15 pm

Actor wrote:
ccortez wrote:
Actor wrote: The X-distance of the Tri-X notch is 0.4 inch and the filter notch is absent. A 40/160 camera which can detect the filter notch will misread the film as 100D/160T and set the light meter to ASA 100. This you will be overexposing by 2/3 stop in tungsten and by a full stop in daylight.
I agree with you in principle... but it makes sense to note that the above scenerio is far from the worst thing that can happen with Tri-X. (The daylight scenerio is far from ideal, but the tungsten one is close to ideal.)
To each his own but I would not call 2/3 stop overexposuer with reversal film "close to ideal." And why put up with it when the cure is a simple as cutting a notch in the cartridge?

Also, it is best to use an external light meter. that way you know you will get the proper or desired exposer. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't reversal stock benefit slightly from a small underexposer and negative froma small overexposer?

chris

Post by **ccortez** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 3:22 pm

zaefod wrote: Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't reversal stock benefit slightly from a small underexposer and negative froma small overexposer?

I shouldn't confuse the matter -- correct exposure is of course the best.

But in my experience, Tri-x gets horribly grainy when underexposed at all, while the grain gets tighter with a touch of overexposure. My point was/is that if you're going to err on one side or another, over yields more usable footage. YMMV.

Post by **Splee** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:28 am

On some 40/160 cams, you can shoot Tri-X with no problems at all. My Canon AF310XL does not read filter notches, so you can switch in and out as you like. With the filter switched out, it exposes at 160, and looks excellent.

Lee

Post by **Actor** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:24 am

zaefod wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't reversal stock benefit slightly from a small underexposer and negative from a small overexposer?

chris

You are correct, at least that was the advice of the late, great Ansel Adams. Of course Adams' format was 8x10 inch frames so I doubt if he worried much about grain.

Ansel Adams wrote: ...it is better to overexpse slighly than to underexpose. I assume here the use of a black-and-white or color negative mateial; with positive materials such as transparency films the situation is reversed, and a slight underexposure is usually less harmful than overexposure.

Adams was not advocating under/over exposure in either case. He was giving his opinion as to which was the lesser evil in the event you cannot get it right. Also, just how much under/over exposure is slight is left up to your interpretation. IMHO a full stop is too much with reversal but up to 2 stops with negative it tolerable, both because of negative's greater latitude and the fact that you can do quite a lot in the darkroom when you make the print.

Post by **ccortez** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 4:21 pm

Actor wrote:Of course Adams' format was 8x10 inch frames so I doubt if he worried much about grain.

Right, I think it was the other "technicals" of reversal film that benefitted from slight underexposure. Which may also be true w/Tri-X, but the grain absolutely increases a ton w/any underexposure, and that outweighs all other benefits one might achieve.

I wouldn't say the same about other reversal stocks mind you, just Tri-X. I wouldn't intentionally overexpose Plus-X, for example.

And I agree that a full stop is too much, but less than that is probably safe and possibly preferable, at least in indoor, low-light situations. The grain increase w/underexposure may also be somewhat less noticeable in brighter conditions. YMMV as always...

Filmshooting

Tri-X Super 8 - Newby About To SHoot!

Tri-X Super 8 - Newby About To SHoot!

i love tri-x but it's a grain parade