Jump to content


Photo

typical fogging causes?


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Joshua Dannais

Joshua Dannais
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Student
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 November 2007 - 07:15 PM

I shot some footage on an NPR and it came back really fogged. Are there any trouble area's where the NPR is prone to light leak? Would pulling the negative one stop during processing be the cause? I think I may have pulled rather than pushed by mistake.

thanks
  • 0

#2 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 November 2007 - 08:33 PM

I shot some footage on an NPR and it came back really fogged. Are there any trouble area's where the NPR is prone to light leak? Would pulling the negative one stop during processing be the cause? I think I may have pulled rather than pushed by mistake.

thanks


I don't know of any "problem areas" on an NPR specifically. Check all of the light seals and that all of your magazines attach to the body properly.

If you exposed the film with the intention of pushing it and then pulled it, it would be quite dark and lower in contrast than normal.

Is the fogging even? Is the film in date and has it been well-kept?
  • 0

#3 Joshua Dannais

Joshua Dannais
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Student
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 November 2007 - 09:16 PM

I don't know of any "problem areas" on an NPR specifically. Check all of the light seals and that all of your magazines attach to the body properly.

If you exposed the film with the intention of pushing it and then pulled it, it would be quite dark and lower in contrast than normal.

Is the fogging even? Is the film in date and has it been well-kept?


The film was bought directly from kodak... I picked it up myself. Take a look and tell me what you think... Could something wrong with the camera do this? This is the beginning of the roll so that's why the top has nothing at all, but the rest of the roll has the second perf look.

Posted Image
Posted Image
  • 0

#4 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 November 2007 - 10:04 PM

I don't see the problem unless that's reversal film. It just looks like quite a thick negative. There is an image, right?
  • 0

#5 Joshua Dannais

Joshua Dannais
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Student
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 November 2007 - 10:18 PM

I don't see the problem unless that's reversal film. It just looks like quite a thick negative. There is an image, right?


yea there is an image, it's really foggy... but what is the dark spot under each perforation? It's like that for the entire roll... and compared to this negative there is a noticeable difference.

Posted Image
  • 0

#6 Dominic Case

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

Posted 06 November 2007 - 10:36 PM

SO far as I can see an image on your negative, it appears overexposed or overedeveloped. I suspect the latter as the d-min area (outisde the frame) seems to be a little darker than on the second piece of film you've posted.

If you pulled instead of pushing (in the lab) as you say you might have done, (aren't you sure?) then the neg would be lighter, not heavier.

My guess is that you actually overexposed by a stop, then told the lab to push (which increases the development) where you should have asked for a pull process. That would leave you with an image two stops too dark on the negative.

It is very hard to see the detail of the dot under each perf that you refer to. Is it possible to do a close-up shot of it and post it? Is it consistent throughout the roll? It could be a pressure mark from the film going through a sprocket wheel incorrectly: it could be a fogging print-through from perforations in the previous turn of film at some point (but that wouldn't be throughout the roll, and it would change position. Does the mark intrude into the frame area (looks as though it might, but again, hard to see in the shot you've supplied).
  • 0

#7 Joshua Dannais

Joshua Dannais
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Student
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 November 2007 - 02:29 AM

The digital camera I have isn't high quality... so tomorrow I will borrow a friends camera and take a better picture then post it. As for not knowing what I wrote, push or pull, I took a bunch of projects in at once and had to label which were to be pulled or pushed... may have written the wrong thing. I'll also try to post a short clip of the transfer so you can see exactly how it turned out.

thanks
  • 0

#8 Adam Thompson

Adam Thompson
  • Sustaining Members
  • 161 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 07 November 2007 - 10:32 AM

Since you have perfs burned into the film it looks like that could only happen with a major light leak as it was rolled up, or it was flashed when it was being unrolled. Either the lab did it or your mag. has a major leak issue.
  • 0

#9 Joshua Dannais

Joshua Dannais
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Student
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 November 2007 - 10:39 PM

Since you have perfs burned into the film it looks like that could only happen with a major light leak as it was rolled up, or it was flashed when it was being unrolled. Either the lab did it or your mag. has a major leak issue.




If it was the mag leaking then it would have been my fault for not closing it properly, I have shot other stuff with the same mag in bright daylight and never had a problem. If it was the lab, could it have been because I gave them daylight-spool film on a core? Maybe when they took it out they were expecting a daylight spool?

Is there anything that could have gone wrong with the camera to cause this effect? An improper loop, out of sync, etc.?

Thanks for all the input everybody.

here are a few more pictures (the dust is from the scanner):


Posted Image

Posted Image
  • 0

#10 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 November 2007 - 12:09 AM

Do the burned in perfs go the whole length of the film or are we looking at one end? Is the fogging the whole way through the roll or only on one end or the other? Remember that another possible problem area is the changing bag.
  • 0

#11 Joshua Dannais

Joshua Dannais
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Student
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 November 2007 - 12:30 AM

Do the burned in perfs go the whole length of the film or are we looking at one end? Is the fogging the whole way through the roll or only on one end or the other? Remember that another possible problem area is the changing bag.



Yes, the burned in perfs go the entire length of the film, same for the fogging. The negative on the right, in the picture above, is some negative I shot with the same camera, same magazine a few weeks prior. I put them side by side for comparision. I didn't use a changing bag, they were daylight spools that I covered when loading. However, I only had film cores for the take up side (exposed side of the magazine). I covered it as best I could when it was taken out since I didn't have a bag. That could be a possible cause... but if that was the cause wouldn't the outer edge of the roll be more overexposed and the film toward the middle of the roll be more protected, thereby closer to normal? The fogging is consistent throughout the roll, like the light was leaked evenly on the whole roll. Which makes me think that the film was run through the leak.
  • 0

#12 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 November 2007 - 03:17 AM

I think you just plain overexposed (and apparently over developed). Notice that the density of the edge of both pieces of film you show in the last photo are very close to the same. If it was exposed to light anywhere except through the film gate, that would have an exposure level present. The negative outside of the frame area doesn't show density other than normal base+fog (other than the perfs which I can't explain) so I think it is just plain overexposed in camera.
  • 0

#13 Joshua Dannais

Joshua Dannais
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Student
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 November 2007 - 03:41 AM

Another thing I noticed is the definition between frames on the good film versus the fogged film... the film strip on the left looks like each frame trails into the next. I shot in a very dark bar so I didn't think that overexposure was even possible. What would you guess caused the burned perfs?
  • 0

#14 Tim Terner

Tim Terner
  • Sustaining Members
  • 340 posts
  • Producer
  • Prague, CZ

Posted 08 November 2007 - 04:42 AM

.......What would you guess caused the burned perfs?


Don't suppose it's possible that 2 films went through the developer together at the same time, just a thought
  • 0

#15 Tim Carroll

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

Posted 08 November 2007 - 09:04 AM

It looks like the film was VERY overexposed, and I would also suspect the pressure plate was not functioning properly. If you notice the burned perfs, they go in and out of focus, which if they were caused by a light leak in the gate area, the film was moving close to the gate then back far away, then close to the gate, which tells me pressure plate issues. Also, the image bleeds well past the 16mm frame, and although I have seen this on badly overexposed film, it would naturally be much worse if the pressure plate wasn't holding the film firmly against the gate.

It could also be that some of the baffling between the gate an the lens mount is not as it should be. It looks like light may have been bouncing around inside the gate area, and the overexposure would make that situation worse.

Just some thoughts,
-Tim
  • 0

#16 Joshua Dannais

Joshua Dannais
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Student
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 November 2007 - 07:14 PM

May have found out what was wrong... On the NPR, when looking in the viewfinder, there is a little orange light used for slating the audio. I wired the XLR cable for only power, bypassing the other two pins used for audio. Apparently this light is supposed come on briefly then turn off. However it stays on when there is something wrong with the wiring and since the two XLR pins used for audio were bypassed, it was detecting that as something wrong. I was told how to take bulb out using a quarter, hopefully problem solved. The light was staying lit, constantly flashing/overexposing the film as it went through the gate. We are shooting tests tonight to see what the lighting at our location looks like and to see if removing the bulb fixed the problem.
  • 0

#17 Dominic Case

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

Posted 08 November 2007 - 07:26 PM

Wow!

If that turns out to be the answer, then it's a good one. Had everyone guessing!

Though I have a feeling that you've got an overexposure problem and or a film-in-the-gate problem as well, as others have guessed. The exposed/fogged perfs aren't consistent - they move around a little and get sharper and softer, suggesting that the film isn't well-locked into place.

Anyway, be sure to let us know the results of your new test.
  • 0

#18 A. Whitehouse

A. Whitehouse
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 267 posts
  • Director
  • Melbourne

Posted 08 November 2007 - 07:52 PM

I didn't use a changing bag, they were daylight spools that I covered when loading. However, I only had film cores for the take up side (exposed side of the magazine). I covered it as best I could when it was taken out since I didn't have a bag. That could be a possible cause... but if that was the cause wouldn't the outer edge of the roll be more overexposed and the film toward the middle of the roll be more protected, thereby closer to normal?


Sorry, Im not sure what you meant here. Are you saying you unloaded the camera in daylight? Im not sure I understood you correctly, but this could obviously be the source of the problem. If it was a light in the eyepiece then there wouldn't be fogging between frames as the shutter would be closed during the film transport. Ive come late to this conversation, sorry you might have already covered this.
  • 0

#19 Joshua Dannais

Joshua Dannais
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Student
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 November 2007 - 04:13 PM

I just watched the test shots I did using the same camera and both mags, without the amber lightbulb in the view finder and everything came out great. Problem solved. thanks everyone
  • 0


Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

CineLab

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Technodolly

CineTape

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Opal

CineLab

Tai Audio

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Technodolly