Jump to content


Photo

Shooting day ext. without 85 Filter


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Thomas Merker

Thomas Merker

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 22 October 2006 - 05:14 AM

Hi everyone,

I am going to shoot a movie in S-16mm for television. The final edited negative will be transferred to digital HD-Tape by a Spirit Data Cine in 2K resolution.

Most of the sets are located in the european alps and will look warm and colorful. I shoot on Kodak's 7201 and 7205 for the daylight ex- and interiors and the 7218 for all night locations.

There is a New York part, which I would like more desaturated with rich blacks and a bit more contrast for a slightly stronger image. Therefore I decided to shoot the New York locations in daylight without an 85 Filter on Fuji Eterna 500.
The bluish look should be balanced later in the digital post (DaVinci) to get a more natural look. I' am aware of loosing saturation in the redtones. But.. Can I? Or should I use an 81 EF?
Is anyone experienced in 2K transfer on a Spirit DataCine? What happens to the skintones?

Thanks in advance

Thomas
  • 0

#2 Dirk DeJonghe

Dirk DeJonghe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Kortrijk,Belgium

Posted 22 October 2006 - 07:54 AM

There is no need to do anything special in the shooting except taking care that you have a 'good' negative. I would avoid shooting without proper filtration unless you are short of light.
if you shoot without an 85 filter, the blue channel will reach overexposure before the red and green channels. This may give undesirable effects in the highlights.

Everything you propose to do to make the NY footage stand out can be done in post.
  • 0

#3 Charles MacDonald

Charles MacDonald
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1157 posts
  • Other
  • Stittsville Ontario Canada

Posted 22 October 2006 - 07:31 PM

The bluish look should be balanced later in the digital post (DaVinci) to get a more natural look. I' am aware of loosing saturation in the redtones. But.. Can I? Or should I use an 81 EF?

I would agree from the old days of making slides with ECN.- overexpose the Blue and the colour is uncorectable.
  • 0

#4 Andy Sparaco SOC

Andy Sparaco SOC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 203 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Chicago and most airline lounges

Posted 22 October 2006 - 08:21 PM

Your objective as a DP should be to deliver a properly exposed and sharply focused negative. In transfer you have 250 units of three colors to work with 1 thru 250. If the film is overly blue you are skewed to one end of the scale and have less elbow room to work with in the primary and secondary color channels. You will find it diffcult to color correct in the shadows with an overexposed color channel and get many suprises in the hi-light areas. All of this "stuff" you can do more affordably, conveniently and controlably in AFE or Combustion during post. Including color and adjusting sharpness. There are a slew of filter plug-ins which can duplicate almost any effect most effectively with a properly shot negative.

You need only insist that you attend the Xfer

An 81 EF will help but a LLD would be better
  • 0

#5 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 23 October 2006 - 01:18 AM

I've shot two or three features where I didn't use the 85B filter outdoors on tungsten stock and corrected it (mostly) in post. After all, "Barry Lyndon", "Excalibur", and "Heat" were shot that way and they turned out OK...

Yes, you can pick a little color bias in the shadows or highlights, so if you really want to play it safe and give yourself more flexibility in post, do at least a halfway correction like with an 81EF. I don't really agree that he should correct fully for daylight IF he is sure he is going for a colder, desaturated look because what's the difference then between making a colder (uncorrected) image slightly less cooler versus making a warmer (corrected) image more cold? Either way, you are shifting the color balance halfway towards the opposite direction, so why is adding blue to a warmer image better than adding orange to a bluer image?
  • 0

#6 Andy Sparaco SOC

Andy Sparaco SOC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 203 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Chicago and most airline lounges

Posted 23 October 2006 - 04:11 PM

Either way, you are shifting the color balance halfway towards the opposite direction, so why is adding blue to a warmer image better than adding orange to a bluer image?


Are you adding blue or orange or blowing out the blue layer? Or are we talking a difference in overall philosphy here?

Can you achieve the look you want by only shooting without an 85 and consequently commit yourself to that result regardless of consequence or can you acheive the sames look using the more controllable and predictable results available in xfer or in the Fire or Flame suite?

Whatever floats yer boat. I like the choice and the ability to change my mind. In my personal experience I've never heard a colorist recommend shooting T under D without an 85.
  • 0

#7 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 23 October 2006 - 04:24 PM

Can you acheieve the look you want by only shooting without an 85 and consequently commit yourself to that result regardless of consequence or can you acheive the sames result using the more controllable and predictable results available in xfer or in the Fire or Flame suite?


Hi,

Yes you can. However if you shoot with an 85 on 1 roll and another without an 85 you won't quite match the 2 perfectly.

Do your color correction in the transfer. A Flame is at best 12 bit, but often only working in 8 bit. I have had Flame operators telling me it's 12 bit, then I point to the no's max of 255 and say thats 8 bit!

Stephen
  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 23 October 2006 - 11:46 PM

Whatever floats yer boat. I like the choice and the ability to change my mind. In my personal experience I've never heard a colorist recommend shooting T under D without an 85.


Not just my boat -- Dante Spinotti, John Alcott, and Alex Thomson's boats too... There's a reason why these guys are (or were) artists. The defining characteristic of an artist is often not to create art with the maximum flexibility of changing one's mind and undoing the work. Sometimes you go for an effect... and live and learn from the results rather than play it safe.

But of course a colorist or timer or film stock manufactacturer will always recommend that you expose and filter an image "correctly" and not go for some non-standard approach that achieves non-standard results that limit the ability to correct the image.

But sometimes the "correct" image is the one with the incorrect color. Shooting tungsten stock without the 85 filter for a bluer look is no different than gelling a light to make it bluer -- it's a choice, and sometimes it can produce the best results technically rather than pushing a neutral image in post towards some non-standard look, compared to simply achieving it in-camera.
  • 0

#9 Jonathan Benny

Jonathan Benny
  • Sustaining Members
  • 166 posts
  • Other
  • Vancouver, Canada / Paris, France

Posted 24 October 2006 - 12:37 AM

If the film is overly blue you are skewed to one end of the scale and have less elbow room to work with in the primary and secondary color channels. You will find it diffcult to color correct in the shadows with an overexposed color channel and get many suprises in the hi-light areas.


Sometimes those limitations might be the objective if one is to achieve a particular desired look.

There are no surprises when exposing a negative "skewed" if the goals are clearly thought out and a strong vision is in place based on the screenplay and discussions with the director.

AJB
  • 0

#10 Andy Sparaco SOC

Andy Sparaco SOC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 203 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Chicago and most airline lounges

Posted 24 October 2006 - 05:03 AM

The negative is the score, the (print ) transfer is the performance. Can you you achieve the same results in a more controllable, cost effective, artistic manor without closing off your options, in the xfer?

I would say yes you can.

Is it easier to make a "correctly" exposed negative blue or try an make a "blue" negative look normal?

If you can't achieve a particular look any other way, then the in-camera approach or a chemical approach is legite. But to "whack" your negative for artisitc effect in the face of the powerful, available and pervasive digital technologies is soooo retro.

If I slipped on my producers hat my response might be " Listen pal, you didn't expose MY film right it's to damn blue, it's hard to get the blue out of the skin tones especially when our blonde, female, swedish roller derby team is interacting with our black female roller derby team-it's a nightmare, I don't like it what are you gonna do about it?"

After all film is like beer "we don't own it we rent it"
  • 0

#11 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 24 October 2006 - 10:27 AM

Sorry cant agree, if there is enough light ie, sunny day in summer will stick an 85 in , other wise never do , and over last 25 years never had any problems . John Holland ,London.
  • 0

#12 Jonathan Benny

Jonathan Benny
  • Sustaining Members
  • 166 posts
  • Other
  • Vancouver, Canada / Paris, France

Posted 24 October 2006 - 11:30 AM

If I slipped on my producers hat my response might be " Listen pal, you didn't expose MY film right it's to damn blue, it's hard to get the blue out of the skin tones especially when our blonde, female, swedish roller derby team is interacting with our black female roller derby team-it's a nightmare, I don't like it what are you gonna do about it?"


Have you ever experienced this? The scenario you are describing sounds like a mistake was made, not a decision based on a vision with the director and with the producer's approval.

AJB
  • 0

#13 Jon Kukla

Jon Kukla
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 399 posts
  • Other

Posted 24 October 2006 - 03:06 PM

I'd say that the LLD is a good option in the sense that it will at least protect against uncorrectable shifts in UV and the like, and shouldn't cost you anything stop-wise. It's designed so that otherwise unfiltered daylight shots using tungsten film should be color-correctable to match scenes which were filtered. You might want to try some quick tests?
  • 0


Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Opal

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS