Jump to content


Photo

Monopack - Three Strip


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 20 March 2007 - 05:28 PM

Hi Everybody! :lol:

Before I start principal photography on Sacred Mushroom there is one more technical querie I have:

For the normal hallucionagenic scenes in this film I have purchsed some Monopack (K40), but it really doesn't have the look I want, I was thinking more along the lines of Three Strip Technicolor.

How would I go about modifying the image, prefferably without the digital post production palava?


Kind Regards - Matthew Buick. :)
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 20 March 2007 - 05:41 PM

Is this for direct projection of the original reversal? Because if you want more saturation, there are limits. 5285 Ektachrome 100D or Fuji Velvia would give you more saturation than K40, and perhaps underexposed a little and push-processed, you'd get more grain and saturation out of them, but again, within limits.

You have to understand that the priority of Kodak and Fuji are to create film stocks that get you fairly natural-looking colors, especially for consumer use as Super-8 was designed for. Psychedelic effects are sort of the realm of special effects, and Super-8 was never invented as a format for doing effects work really. That sort of leaves transferring Super-8 to a digital realm for more extreme forms of manipulation, especially with color saturation.

Sometimes the best way to make something look more saturated (beyond just art-directing, lighting, and filtering for strong color effects) is to surround the footage with rather desaturated shots.
  • 0

#3 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 20 March 2007 - 05:51 PM

I would be for direct projection. Whatr would you say to putting a bright Red, Green and Blue filter on the camera?

Thanks. ;)
  • 0

#4 Jan Weis

Jan Weis
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 158 posts
  • Student
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 20 March 2007 - 06:06 PM

Im not quite sure about this but wouldnt the combination of green,blue,red give you an orange color, hence creating a orange toned image?

/Jan

Edited by Jan Weis, 20 March 2007 - 06:09 PM.

  • 0

#5 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 20 March 2007 - 06:16 PM

Filters, as their name implies, only remove color -- they don't add it. An orange filter doesn't add orange, it subtracts the opposite colors so that the resulting image is left with more of the orange colors.

So stacking red, green, and blue filters would basically get you a very dark grey filter, i.e. it would be like a heavy ND filter. Except that since it wouldn't be a perfect balance, nor are the filters narrow enough in bandwidth, that there would be some sort of remaining color tint to the filter.

A Color Enhancer filter would make reds pop out a little more because it cleans out some near-red wavelengths, and a Pola would deepen green grass and blue skies a little by removing glare, but a Color Enhancer combined with a Pola is nearly a 3-stop light loss right there.
  • 0

#6 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 20 March 2007 - 06:44 PM

A Color Enhancer filter would make reds pop out a little more because it cleans out some near-red wavelengths, and a Pola would deepen green grass and blue skies a little by removing glare, but a Color Enhancer combined with a Pola is nearly a 3-stop light loss right there.


Can K40 be pushed that far?
  • 0

#7 Jan Weis

Jan Weis
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 158 posts
  • Student
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 20 March 2007 - 06:49 PM

Can K40 be pushed that far?


Youre not pushing the filmstock when you add a filter infront of your lense. You just have to open the aperture to let in more light to compensate for the amount of light lost due to the filter.
  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 20 March 2007 - 06:52 PM

Can K40 be pushed that far?


No, not really -- I mean, you may end up with something, maybe, after a 3-stop push, but you've recorded so little information to be brought out.

You could just compensate for a 3-stop loss by opening the f-stop by three stops -- in bright sunlight, it wouldn't be a problem even though that's an effective 3 ASA (K40T plus 85 = 25 ASA, minus 3 stops, is 3 ASA.) You may be shooting wide-open. In overcast, the Pola isn't going to help much anyway so you'd remove it.

Or compensate for two-stops and push the film for the remaining one stop.

Kodachrome isn't as flexible at being pushed as E6 and color negative films. I also don't think there would be any improvement in saturation anyway, since in Kodachrome, the dyes are added later in processing. You'd mainly just get more grain and contrast.
  • 0

#9 Christian Appelt

Christian Appelt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 470 posts

Posted 21 March 2007 - 02:27 PM

Matthew, the thing you refer to as Technicolor look has more to do with lighting style than with the actual film stock. Look at some movies that have the style you want to emulate and experiment with lighting. One has to remember that classic Technicolor films were more stylized in set design and costume colors to achieve a certain aesthetic goal.

Trying to manipulate film stock does not make sense unless you really know the basic craft of film photography and lighting. Look at the way classic films are lit and experiment yourself - there's no special magic in Technicolor or any other system of reproduction - it's the way the people made use of it back then
  • 0

#10 John Holland

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

Posted 21 March 2007 - 02:36 PM

Matthew K40 ,thats Kodachrome yes? can you still get that processed in this country ?
  • 0

#11 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 21 March 2007 - 05:02 PM

Matthew K40 ,thats Kodachrome yes? can you still get that processed in this country ?


Yes. And no, USA only.

Edited by Matthew Buick, 21 March 2007 - 05:03 PM.

  • 0

#12 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 21 March 2007 - 06:15 PM

I'll just shoot the Monopack conventionally this time, if I find it to be unsatisfactory I'll do a George Lucas and mess around later. :D

Thanks everyone! ;)
  • 0

#13 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 22 March 2007 - 04:15 PM

I'd say that B&W then E6 then K14 then C-41 is the order going from greatest to least pushability, although B&W is a very broad category in that there's such a wide range of B&W films made, even with like two B&W manufacturers seeming to close up almost yearly now :-( IDK honestly how much better E6 is than K14, but I know color negative is not designed for it at all, and since it only has a color developer (E6 and K14 both ahve B&W development steps as their first chemical before color developing) and generally has to be processed at a set temperature it just isn't as pushable as the slide films or B&W. C-41 was designed to be quick, not good for push. I doubt ECN-2 films are that much better than C-41, and probably worse than K-14. Same thing, it was designed to work 30 degrees F hotter (and therefore about 2 1/2 to 3x faster) than the old C-22 and ECN [1] processes.

There are actual speed-increasing B&W developers, designed for the older-emulsion "K" grain films, mind you, but nonetheless registered detail in highlights and shadow areas showing a true speed increase. If someone were to formulate the right developer for C-41, I'm sure that one could get a few stops of speed increase out of it.

I'd say that 3 stops is the absolute maximum true speed increase obtainable with B&W, with 2 1/2 for E6 (maybe) 2 for K14, and 1 1/2 for ECN2 and C-41. But again, IDK if color negative developers can really do the trick. I think you'd ahve to adjust concentration for a true push not just increase the processing time, as all that really does is just "bake" the negative, giving you some chemical fog to build density.

IDK

~Karl
  • 0

#14 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 22 March 2007 - 04:39 PM

I think I'll have to read that when I'm not so tired, but thanks, Karl. :)

Now can we please bury this accursed Hatchet and get back to whatever sort of neutral alliance type thing we had before. :)
  • 0

#15 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 22 March 2007 - 05:34 PM

I think I'll have to read that when I'm not so tired, but thanks, Karl. :)

Now can we please bury this accursed Hatchet and get back to whatever sort of neutral alliance type thing we had before. :)


I have no problem with intelligent posts, I have a problem with ridiculous ones. It's one thing if you're joking; hell knows I joke a lot around here myself, as do many others, but you can't post nonsense on a forum that's supposed to be for professional users, or play yourself off like a pro or try to regurgitate information you haven't learned for yourself and play yourself off like an "expert" here. I've seen several peolpe take you seriously when they shouldn't have. Another thing, I don't like you posting condescending poop about me on a public forum out where everyone can see it. Your generation even moreso than mine, people will check on each other over the internet, and, no offense, I don't want my name associated with some mindless bullshit you've posted for kicks. Then they'll say "Hey, that Karl guy must be a real a**ho** to have people all riled up at him like that" :unsure: Needless to say, I don't want the internet to cost me business because of your less-than-serious jokes can be taken out of context, like the death threats or the private messages. . . Bad decision picking those. . .

Oh, and PS, you're still blocked (but really though)! ;-)

Edited by Karl Borowski, 22 March 2007 - 05:35 PM.

  • 0

#16 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 22 March 2007 - 06:14 PM

You needn't worry any more about the mindless crap, those days are over. :)

I do try to offer as much professional advice as I can, but I never regurgitate gen that I don't understand in the first place, which is why I have almost nothing to offer in the lighting and film departments. :D

I'm afraid I'm a very eccentric individual, while I've been trying not to spam (which is much easier these days) I wrote Aspoof Arthur Freed musical called 'GIGI-GIGI-GIGI'.

I hope to be a more helpful force in the running of this site, I love passing on what I know (which isn't a lot :lol:) and hope to learn loads more. I try to be as friendly as possible. :)
  • 0


Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Visual Products

CineTape

The Slider

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

CineTape

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets