Jump to content


Photo

To Push or Pull? Vision3 Question

push processing pull processing vision3 kodak film 16mm help question overexposed 500t

  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#21 Luke Roberts

Luke Roberts
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Director
  • Akron

Posted 23 July 2015 - 01:43 PM

Amazing! Try getting away with that in the digital world!

Seriously! I'm quite astonished by film's overexposure latitude and overall beauty. Also, I think the lab must have fixed the color balance for me. I don't have an 85 filter (not sure if I'm fond of the look either) and planned on color correcting myself since I went the D.I. route.


  • 0

#22 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20160 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 July 2015 - 03:22 PM

The 85 filter doesn't really have or create a look if you are using it for tungsten film in daylight, it just converts 5600K light into 3200K light.  Shooting without it and correcting it in post does create a subtle look shift because you've underexposed your reds in relation to your greens and blues without the filter.  To my eyes, skin tones get a little more pastel and blues and greens get a little more intense, but conversely on some color-correction systems, attempting to get the blue cast leads to a slightly brownish image.

 

My general rule is to skip the 85 filter for movies that I want to be neutral to cool, and to use daylight stock or the 85 filter for movies I want to look neutral to warm.  So I've skipped the 85 filter for winter movies shot in snowy landscapes but used it for desert movies.

 

Some of this is just about flexibility in color-correction because you have a big correction away from blue just to get a neutral image if you shoot in daylight without the 85 filter on tungsten stock, which makes it harder to time in even more warmth if you want a golden image.  You may find, for example, that with an overexposed shot that also needs to be corrected for the missing 85 filter that your blue channel is so dense that it is printing at 50 points, so you can't correct anymore in that direction without trimming the printer.  On the other hand, since the blue layer is the grainiest (fastest) on tungsten balanced film, by shooting without the 85 filter you do improve some of that graininess in the blues, but at the expense of a thinner red record, and faces contain a lot of red.

 

The other thing to keep in mind that 85 filters have some UV correction built into them, unlike other warming filters like Corals, so skipping the correction means you may have some UV washiness / haze in daytime landscape shots.  Of course, you often need ND filters anyway outdoors and they have a little bit of UV correction in them.

 

This is one reason for the Tiffen LLD (Low-Light Daylight) filter as a replacement for the 85 for daylight interiors when you wouldn't need an ND -- it's basically a super Skylight UV filter with minimal light loss and it shifts your printer lights slightly away from having an over-dense blue layer.


  • 3

#23 Luke Roberts

Luke Roberts
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Director
  • Akron

Posted 24 July 2015 - 04:51 PM

Great information! Do you possibly have any photographic examples?


  • 0

#24 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20160 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 24 July 2015 - 05:24 PM

Since most older movies can only be seen in a video transfer, the color subtleties of using or not using the 85 filter in daylight are near impossible to see.  John Alcott was probably the most vocal proponent of not using the 85 filter and "Barry Lyndon" is a good example, if you can see a print in a theater.  He specifically felt that the greens of nature were reproduced more vibrantly by skipping the 85; besides "Barry Lyndon" you might be able to see this Alcott's photography of "Greystoke".  In fact, a number of U.K. cinematographers were fond of dropping the 85 filter, probably due partially to dealing with the lower daylight levels in the U.K. -- Alex Thomson was another cinematographer who often talked about why one should not automatically use the 85 filter outdoors, though he often warmed up the image instead with Coral filters.  So in his case, I don't know if the Coral replaced the 85 or if he started with a base of no filter and corrected the image in timing and then added Corals to get warmth beyond that.  I suspect he had sort of a halfway approach, using a light Coral as a base and then adding from there.

 

Dante Spinotti's "Heat" is another good example of a daytime movie shot on tungsten stock without the 85 filter. 

 

Once daylight-balanced 50D and 250D stocks appeared by the late 1980's, you started to read less about shooting without the 85 filter, I think half of those cinematographers switched to the daylight stocks.

 

There are plenty of movies that went for a colder color cast by not using the 85 filter, "The Shawshank Redemption" for example, or "Saving Private Ryan", which used an 81EF instead of an 85.


  • 1

#25 cole t parzenn

cole t parzenn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 288 posts
  • Other

Posted 25 July 2015 - 12:39 PM

Since most older movies can only be seen in a video transfer, the color subtleties of using or not using the 85 filter in daylight are near impossible to see.  John Alcott was probably the most vocal proponent of not using the 85 filter and "Barry Lyndon" is a good example, if you can see a print in a theater.  He specifically felt that the greens of nature were reproduced more vibrantly by skipping the 85; besides "Barry Lyndon" you might be able to see this Alcott's photography of "Greystoke".

 

This reminds me of Lubezki not using the 85 on "The Tree of Life," because it "homogenizes" the color. What causes that effect? Why is correcting in post different?


  • 0

#26 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20160 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 July 2015 - 03:09 PM

I wouldn't over-think this. The 85 filter just corrects 5600K to 3200K.

If using the correction is bad for colors then why shoot under 3200K lighting for an interior scene using 3200K film stock? You should put full blue gel on all your lights or use daylight HMI's and LED's instead, shouldn't you?

All that skipping the 85 filter does is give you a blue-ish image on tungsten film in daylight.

"Tree of Life" is timed on the cool side so they didn't completely correct for the missing filter anyway. Same goes for "Heat". Probably a better example is "There Will Be Blood" which was shot without the 85 filter and timed back to neutral.

Generally a colorist would rather start with a neutral base rather than have to start with a correction for a missing 85 before they then add more corrections on top of that, but you should do your own tests and go with what you like.
  • 0

#27 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20160 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 July 2015 - 07:13 PM

If you shoot a comparison test, I'd include a MacBeth color chart or something with RGB panels in it so that you can see the changes in noise in each color channel.

 

Keep in mind too that in the case of a movie using a lot of natural light, like "Tree of Life", it's annoying to have to pull off the 85 filter every time the light level drops below a certain point, just to get that extra 2/3-stop exposure, and it could be a matching problems if you remove the 85 filter in mid-coverage, so it makes sense to just shoot everything without the 85 unless you want to use daylight balanced stocks.

 

In terms of digital cameras, though, it is safer to shoot closer to the correct color temperature because a digital file doesn't quite have the hidden depth of color information as film negative has, it's a bit more of "what colors you recorded and see on the monitor is what you'll have to play with in post".  

 

It's better today with 10-bit and 12-bit log cameras, but in the old days of 8-bit 3:1:1 HDCAM, if you shot a scene with a heavy blue cast, you'd find that there were no warm flesh tones recorded to bring back in post, you'd basically be taking grey skin and trying to put some magenta-brown color over them (and probably ending up with a magenta-brown tint to everything...)


  • 0

#28 Leon Liang

Leon Liang
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Student
  • Sydney

Posted 26 July 2015 - 02:19 AM

Roger Deakins said on his forum that with the Alexa, there isn't much difference between using the correct colour temperature in-camera and using an 85 filter. He also said that on 'The Shawshank Redemption' he shot on tungsten and corrected in post because the shadows would be cooler than with an 85 filter.

http://rogerdeakins....1961e7ce3aff878

Edited by Leon Liang, 26 July 2015 - 02:21 AM.

  • 0

#29 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20160 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 July 2015 - 10:33 AM

If you look on a waveform, you'll generally find with most digital cameras that the blue channel noise is higher at 3200K than at 5600K, so it makes less sense to use 85 filters for daylight.


  • 0

#30 Mathew Collins

Mathew Collins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • India

Posted 29 December 2015 - 08:43 PM

Bunch of information. Thank you David.


  • 0

#31 Luke Roberts

Luke Roberts
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Director
  • Akron

Posted 16 August 2016 - 01:24 PM

This is an old thread, but here is the video link for anyone interested: 

I recommend watching in 1440pHD.


  • 0

#32 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1739 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 17 August 2016 - 07:31 PM

looks great. Did you want to keep the jumpy frame for a look? You could easily stabilize most if not all shots in Resolve.


  • 0

#33 Luke Roberts

Luke Roberts
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Director
  • Akron

Posted 17 August 2016 - 11:43 PM

Thanks. Not initially, but I went with it after trying stabilization in AE. Haven't used Resolve much, and wasn't even aware it included stabilization. To be honest, I'd like to circumnavigate the foible altogether by procuring a proper 16mm camera.


  • 0

#34 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1739 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 18 August 2016 - 04:19 PM

Upgrading your camera is a great idea. From what I observed in the film,it is easily fixed and will yield excellent results. Work from the dpx files.
  • 0

#35 Karim D. Ghantous

Karim D. Ghantous
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 18 August 2016 - 10:01 PM

I have seen 500t intentionally overexposed 5 stops for a look.

Nolan and Pfister did that for one scene in the second Batman film. I think the RED Dragon sensor can handle a lot of overexposure, but I don't know how much.

 

Edit: BTW, I'm amazed at how good 16mm looks given its small surface area.


Edited by Karim D. Ghantous, 18 August 2016 - 10:02 PM.

  • 0

#36 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1054 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 August 2016 - 02:18 PM

That turned out great... I'd almost say I like it better than most "correctly" exposed 500T I've seen.


  • 0

#37 Luke Roberts

Luke Roberts
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Director
  • Akron

Posted 26 August 2016 - 11:40 AM

Thanks! I guess some overexposure makes for a better image, especially when the weather is overcast.


Edited by Luke Roberts, 26 August 2016 - 11:40 AM.

  • 0



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: push processing, pull processing, vision3, kodak film, 16mm, help, question, overexposed, 500t

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

CineTape

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

Glidecam

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC