Jump to content


Photo

Kodak 7229 rated at 320, do I need to process differently?


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Tim Carroll

Tim Carroll
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2165 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 03 March 2006 - 08:49 PM

I'm more of a director than cinematographer, and I have hired a DP for projects in the last two years so I am not so up on some of this. I remember being told to rate the Kodak Vision 2 500T at 320, so that is what I shot it at, but I cannot remember if you are then supposed to process it straight, no pushing or pulling, or if you are supposed to tell the processing house that you rated it at 320. There is nothing special about the images, it is just a camera test with no tricky lighting or anything. Are you just supposed to process it normally?

Thanks,
-Tim Carroll
  • 0

#2 Dominic Case

Dominic Case
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1357 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 03 March 2006 - 08:54 PM

Process normally.

You've overexposed (by comparison with the manfacturer's rating) by 2/3 stop. That's a common recommendation, to minimise grain and ensure rich deep blacks.

Don't mess with the processing. That costs money anyway!

There seems to be a lot of agonising on cinematography.com about what instructions to give for processing. The overwhelmingly general rule is : process normally - unless you have a very good and well-understood reason for doing anything different.

Life isn't usually easy, but don't make it unnecessarily difficult!

So that's . . . . .PROCESS NORMALLY
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 March 2006 - 09:08 PM

You have to understand the different issues regarding exposure and processing. BOTH affect the density of the negative separately.

Generally when people say to rate a stock slower than normal, the reason is to achieve a slightly greater-than-normal density in the developed negative so that it prints at higher printer lights (for better blacks, which in turn improve contrast and saturation) and you're exposing more of the small grains between the big grains, which tightens up the grain pattern. So you'd want to develop normally to retain the extra density from overexposing, rather than compensate by pull-processing to reduce density back to normal.

Push-processing increases density and pull-processing decreases density.

The more you expose, the more density in the developed negative. The less you expose, the less density.

There are combinations of these techniques. For example, let's say that you rate a 500 ASA stock at 640 ASA and then ask for a one-stop push. So you're underexposing by 1/3 of a stop but pushing by one stop, so the net result is 2/3's of a stop extra density (whereas if you had rated the 500 ASA stock at 1000 ASA and then pushed one stop, the net result would be normal density.)
  • 0

#4 Laurent Andrieux

Laurent Andrieux
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1527 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • France

Posted 04 March 2006 - 08:12 AM

The idea in general is to overexpose a bit, as David says, generally 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop, and considering that 16/S16 may require this little overexposition more obviously, since blowing up or enlarging lowers contrast.

A 1/3 or a 2/3 of a stop overexposition doesn't require any special process. Remember that usually, pull/push process are ordered in "full stops" (it's not that precise to set at the lab, so that one could ask a 1/3 of a stop push/pull process).

But I think that the best would be you to do keylight tests, so that you determine - considering the whole production route (your lightmeter, your camera, your lenses, the stock you are using, yoour lab etc.) - what setting you find best for one considered stock. You may find that a 1/3 of a stop over is better than 2/3...

Regards
  • 0

#5 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 March 2006 - 12:15 PM

But I think that the best would be you to do keylight tests, so that you determine - considering the whole production route (your lightmeter, your camera, your lenses, the stock you are using, yoour lab etc.) - what setting you find best for one considered stock. You may find that a 1/3 of a stop over is better than 2/3...


If I have enough light, I prefer to overexpose by 2/3's of a stop for printing. Trouble with 1/3 of a stop is that it lies withing a normal margin of error for exposing, so for some shots, you will get a little extra density, but for others, you may end up with normal density. In other words, a 1/3-stop overexposure is really just exposing normally but giving yourself a little room against slight accidental underexposure.

However, a 1/3-stop overexposure may be just enough for material to be telecine transferred straight to tape as opposed to negative to be printed.
  • 0

#6 Laurent Andrieux

Laurent Andrieux
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1527 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • France

Posted 04 March 2006 - 01:51 PM

I follow you, David, especialy for 16/S16 actually, but it might also be that at some point of the chain, another 1/3 stop is gained somehow (imagine you lightmeter already has a tendency to overexpose a 1/3 of a stop, or whatever). This is why I recommend to do a keylight test that involves every step of the process.

In super 16, if you don't do these tests, a + 2/3 stop is certainly a secure basis, but I just ment that the keylight test could help taking a more accurate decision, not a "blind" one.
  • 0

#7 Chris Clarke

Chris Clarke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 05 March 2006 - 12:08 PM

Don't know if it's of interest but I worked on a commercial in London lit by Paul Cameron last year where he shot on 5229 rated at 800 and pushed 1 stop.
Before the shoot he tested quite a few combinations of rating and processing. He said he liked the increased contrast he got from the push process but on the low contrast stock. I think it was the affect on the colours that looked nicest, more punchy than normally shot '29.
Nice guy as well!
  • 0

#8 Tim Carroll

Tim Carroll
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2165 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 11 March 2006 - 10:10 AM

However, a 1/3-stop overexposure may be just enough for material to be telecine transferred straight to tape as opposed to negative to be printed.


David,

This is the workflow we are going to be doing, shooting film, transferring to tape (or hard drive in this case) and outputting digitally (DVD or Digibeta) for film festivals.

So we should go with the 1/3 stop overexposure instead of the 2/3 stop? And would this hold true all the way down the line with the Kodak Vision 2 stocks, 250D, 200T, and 100T?

Thanks,
-Tim Carroll
  • 0

#9 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 11 March 2006 - 12:17 PM

David,

This is the workflow we are going to be doing, shooting film, transferring to tape (or hard drive in this case) and outputting digitally (DVD or Digibeta) for film festivals.

So we should go with the 1/3 stop overexposure instead of the 2/3 stop? And would this hold true all the way down the line with the Kodak Vision 2 stocks, 250D, 200T, and 100T?

Thanks,
-Tim Carroll


Tim,

FWIW the first time I shot 5217, I had no time to test. I actually had the telecine operator complaining the neg was overexposed! I always take telecine operator opinions with a pinch of salt! However after testing 5212 & 5217 I came to the conclusion, that the film had the right speed printed on a can!

When shooting Vision 2 stocks for telecine transfer using a Spirit I would expose fairly normally and round up the exposure up by 1/3 stop. I think thats enough. Overexposure on telecine will show up as increased noise.

I have not tested Vision 2 stocks with a traditional photochemical finish, but would go with David's 2/3 stop over exposure advice.

Stephen
  • 0

#10 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 11 March 2006 - 02:06 PM

FWIW the first time I shot 5217, I had no time to test. I actually had the telecine operator complaining the neg was overexposed! I always take telecine operator opinions with a pinch of salt! However after testing 5212 & 5217 I came to the conclusion, that the film had the right speed printed on a can!

I'll second that. Another thing to watch out for is using too low color temperature, which is harder to correct with these stocks than with 5218.
  • 0


Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Opal

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Visual Products

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Opal

Abel Cine

CineLab

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery