Jump to content


Photo

Bad 200T processing?


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Michael Ryan

Michael Ryan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Other
  • Toronto, Canada via Huntington Beach, California

Posted 16 March 2006 - 04:00 PM

Hello All,

I had viewed some examples of 200T and was very impressed. I shot some 200T with a Bolex I had sent it away to be develped and was shocked when the 200T was telecined. It looked bad. Lots of grain and a bit out of focus. I decided it was the fault of the camera, so I shot another roll of 200T with a Canon 814XLS (a camera I know that is in good working order). I sent the film to the same lab and when I saw the results (telecine). It looked almost as bad as the first roll.

The image is has a great deal of grain. These are all outside shots with correct exposure. Along with the grain, the image looks farily overexposed. I know the camera is OK, so I'm wondering can the lab be doing something to make the 200T look so grainy and overexposed?

Can anyone recommend a lab that can correctly process 200T?

Thanks,

Mike
  • 0

#2 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 16 March 2006 - 04:33 PM

Perhaps you should mention the labs name. Also, how old was your film that you used? And another question that pops up, how contrasty were the images that you were shooting, was it more close-up oriented or wide shot oriented, and what was the dominant color scheme to your footage?
  • 0

#3 Preston Herrick

Preston Herrick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts
  • Producer
  • Washington

Posted 16 March 2006 - 04:37 PM

I wouldn't necessarily blame the lab either. Telecine and the colorist behind the knobs can have a dramatic affect on the output.
  • 0

#4 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 16 March 2006 - 04:43 PM

Underexposure can cause increased graininess, and "milky" blacks. So can a poor transfer.

If you look at the negative itself, is it "thin", with little detail in the darker areas of the scenes? Except for the very deepest shadow areas, you should see some information recorded on the film if it was properly exposed. If the negative looks normally exposed, ask the lab to try a new transfer.
  • 0

#5 S8 Booster

S8 Booster
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 132 posts
  • Other
  • retired

Posted 16 March 2006 - 05:01 PM

did you use an external 85b filter for daylight shooting. if not the film is set to 100D with no filtering and it wont help but the problem you describe seem to be a transfer and/or processing problem.

this is why the 200t gets improper setting in the camera but it will be perfect with an external 85b filter.

the cartridge is normally incorrectly notched from Kodak so the built in 85 filter is disabled.

here is what you need to do to make the cam read the cart as 160/100:

this is where the filter notch is located - open it and the cam is allowed to read it as either 160 for tungetsen (when the built in 85 filter is disabled) or 100 with the filter in place for daylight shoot.

Click images for biger size:

Posted Image

how to mod and why:
Posted Image



s8hôôt
  • 0

#6 Michael Ryan

Michael Ryan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Other
  • Toronto, Canada via Huntington Beach, California

Posted 16 March 2006 - 06:45 PM

Hello All,

Thank you for all your answers.

I wouldn't want to print the name of the lab as I don't know why the 200T looks this bad (it may be something that I'm doing wrong). So, I really don't want to place any blame incorrectly.

Unfortunately, I don't have the film with me (it's at the telecine company).

I wish I had the ability to upload the images so you guys could take a look, but not for now at least. Since the roll was a "test" roll I shot a variety of scenes. I shot indoor close ups of a fruit bowl (lit by sunlight, no other type of light used or present). I had a medium shot of a F86 Sabre Jet (outside) on the ground with close ups of the canopy. Also medium shots of a Sherman tank. Indoor or outdoor, the scenes look very grainy and there seems to be a milky haze over the entire shot and overexposed. The blue sky looks almost completely washed out (although the jest has quite a bit of good detail, you can see the rivets, small numbers on the tail, good shadow detail in the 50 caliber gun holes.

So, if I read you guys correctly, a poor transfer can show too much grain?

I know it's not the fault of the film, because I've seen some really excellent results with 200T. It's just a little bit frustrating trying to get those same fantastic results.

Mike
  • 0


The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

CineTape

CineLab

Opal

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

CineLab

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS