Jump to content


Photo

DOUBLE-X 7222


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Lars Zemskih

Lars Zemskih
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Other

Posted 29 February 2008 - 08:22 AM

I'm about to DP a film on Double X outside with natural light.

Are there any specific things to concider with the stock? I've done tests and it seems to be coming a somewhat too grainy when backlit for example.

The film needs to be shot at 2.8, so I will be NDing down quite a bit.
  • 0

#2 David Auner aac

David Auner aac
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 29 February 2008 - 08:39 AM

Are there any specific things to concider with the stock? I've done tests and it seems to be coming a somewhat too grainy when backlit for example.

The film needs to be shot at 2.8, so I will be NDing down quite a bit.


Maybe you could pull it? That should lower your ISO and reduce grain too.

Cheers, Dave
  • 0

#3 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 29 February 2008 - 12:21 PM

Double X always looked pretty flat to me pull processed.

-Sam
  • 0

#4 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 29 February 2008 - 01:43 PM

I'm about to DP a film on Double X outside with natural light.

Are there any specific things to concider with the stock? I've done tests and it seems to be coming a somewhat too grainy when backlit for example.

The film needs to be shot at 2.8, so I will be NDing down quite a bit.


If you have the choice you would be far better to shoot plus-x in your situation. Plus-x is a really beautiful stock and will work very nicely outdoors.

Double-X is a much more difficult stock to work with. Some people suggest you should even embrace the grain and push the stock (increasing the grain!) to get a nicer image. Occasionally I've seen people produce really beautiful stuff with double x but it appears to be a bit of a challenge.

This is of course why it's often possible to pick up double-x cheaply. :)

Good luck with your project and I'd love to see your results when finished!

love

Freya
  • 0

#5 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1585 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 29 February 2008 - 01:44 PM

Double X always looked pretty flat to me pull processed.

-Sam



I would try to over expose it a half or so i find it looks better with a bit more light on it, did you consider 7231 pushed 1?

-Rob-
  • 0

#6 Lars Zemskih

Lars Zemskih
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Other

Posted 29 February 2008 - 07:44 PM

If you have the choice you would be far better to shoot plus-x in your situation. Plus-x is a really beautiful stock and will work very nicely outdoors.

Double-X is a much more difficult stock to work with. Some people suggest you should even embrace the grain and push the stock (increasing the grain!) to get a nicer image. Occasionally I've seen people produce really beautiful stuff with double x but it appears to be a bit of a challenge.

This is of course why it's often possible to pick up double-x cheaply. :)

Good luck with your project and I'd love to see your results when finished!

love

Freya



Well plus-x is a slow stock, so I'm just worried about loosing light very fast especially this time of year in London, we don't have lights in most of the locations and we chose the ones with shadows mostly to keep better light continuity.
  • 0

#7 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 01 March 2008 - 09:57 AM

Well plus-x is a slow stock, so I'm just worried about loosing light very fast especially this time of year in London, we don't have lights in most of the locations and we chose the ones with shadows mostly to keep better light continuity.


If you push it a stop it will probably still be less grainy than double-x and it will be possible to avoid the N.D's to boot I bet, although obviously when it starts getting dark this time of year it gets dark really quick.

If you can, I would still consider plus-x. :)

It's also an incredibly beautiful stock whereas double-x, is a stock where you can work to get beautiful images.

love

Freya
  • 0

#8 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 01 March 2008 - 10:50 AM

All that said, the B&W sequences in this film were shot in S16 on Double-X, some exceptional work here by Raoul Germain:

http://homepage.mac....l/films/ton.mov

(I believe this was a 2K scan)


-Sam
  • 0

#9 Rod Otaviano

Rod Otaviano
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 March 2008 - 11:00 AM

...the B&W sequences in this film were shot in S16 on Double-X, some exceptional work here by Raoul Germain


Very beautiful indeed. 7222 at its best.
  • 0

#10 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 01 March 2008 - 12:21 PM

All that said, the B&W sequences in this film were shot in S16 on Double-X, some exceptional work here by Raoul Germain:

http://homepage.mac....l/films/ton.mov

(I believe this was a 2K scan)


-Sam


I like this but would love to know what the colour stocks were?
Nice locations too! :)

love

Freya
  • 0

#11 Edgar Dubrovskiy

Edgar Dubrovskiy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 348 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 01 March 2008 - 03:24 PM

Amazing '99 Problems' Jay-Z video (dir. Mark Romanek, dp. Joaquin Baca-Asay) was shot on 7222. Looks beautiful.
  • 0

#12 Mike Williamson

Mike Williamson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 534 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 March 2008 - 04:03 PM

"99 Problems" was shot on 5222, and yes, it's very beautiful.
  • 0

#13 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 01 March 2008 - 04:18 PM

"99 Problems" was shot on 5222, and yes, it's very beautiful.


Dubious lyrically in places tho! ;)
You can see it for your self here, not that I want to promote this nonsense!



Looks like he is making good use of filters to get the contrast up, probably been tweaked in post too but this is quite nice looking considering.

Also facinated that it looks like it was shot with a mos camera or async as the lip sync is completely out but he cuts so fast in the hope you won't notice. I actually sort of like that effect tho.

love

Freya
  • 0

#14 Mike Williamson

Mike Williamson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 534 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 March 2008 - 06:36 PM

I'd disagree about it being dubious lyrically, but that's a personal opinion. One of my theories on music videos has been that they're more important than people realize because they're one of the few places where black artists (as producers and actors if not always as directors, DP's, etc.) get to create their own moving images for a large audience. I think there's a noticeable lack of narrative films where the black community gets to deal with their own issues on screen, and part of the function that rap/R&B/hip-hop videos serve is to fill that void. So whether or not you agree with these images or values, or believe that they're representative of an entire community which I don't think they are, they're important simply for putting self-constructed images out on a broad scale.

As far as the video itself, I think it was shot with an Arri 435, there used to be some stills on the previous version of Mark Romanek's website that had a picture of Baca-Asay operating the camera and it looked 435-ish. I traded a few quick emails with Romanek about the video, he said they used Double-X and a lot of filtration on the camera. He felt that it was important to use real B&W stock to get the texture and grain structure he wanted, rather than desaturating color stock in telecine. As far as lip sync, I never noticed it being off watching the DVD but I wasn't looking for it.
  • 0

#15 Edgar Dubrovskiy

Edgar Dubrovskiy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 348 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 02 March 2008 - 04:19 AM

"99 Problems" was shot on 5222, and yes, it's very beautiful.


5222, indeed ;)
  • 0

#16 Edgar Dubrovskiy

Edgar Dubrovskiy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 348 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 02 March 2008 - 04:22 AM

Dubious lyrically in places tho! ;)
You can see it for your self here, not that I want to promote this nonsense!


I hate this version. (Nothing against you, Freya, just MTV ;) )
www.markromanek.com has the director's cut of this video.
  • 0

#17 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 02 March 2008 - 07:11 PM

I'd disagree about it being dubious lyrically,


Well I did say in places, and probably the more obvious ones.

I do like his exchange with the police man and a few other people and I think he is quite talented in his performance too. (I love the way he does fast forward and a few other things). He is obviously really talented lyrically and to me comes off as preety intelligent too which makes me sad about all his problems, both the ones that he lists and the ones that he has but perhaps doesn't realise so much.

In a lot of ways it's actually a lot more intresting than many rap videos, especially the ones with swimming pools and bouncy cars. I love the little girl who reminds me of the girl out of ghost dog, she is very cool.

I didn't know about the uncensored version at first and it's actually really intresting to watch both and to see what has been removed. It seems a black man aiming a gun is really bad, whereas a black man being shot to pieces is totally okay. Shots of almost naked men is really bad, whereas shots of women in tiny bikinis shaking it all over is totally okay. Unless it's a close up of breasts for some reason. Breasts are really bad you see. Dog fighting is also totally acceptable. This stuff says a lot about the society where the video exists.

I wonder if it was a white man in a suit aiming a rifle on a stand, if it would be totally okay. He could then after all be a member of the security services couldn't he. ;)

Anyway I might be being unfair a bit but it's worth watching both these videos and thinking about these things.

love

Freya
  • 0

#18 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 03 March 2008 - 10:31 AM

All that said, the B&W sequences in this film were shot in S16 on Double-X, some exceptional work here by Raoul Germain:
http://homepage.mac....l/films/ton.mov


Viscaya in Miami... what a beautiful place to shoot. I wonder what it cost him for that opportunity?

On Double-X, it definitely has it's own look. I found to my amazement that I could actually push Double-X with acceptable results. Grainy, but you don't use Double-X if grain is a concern.

Weren'tt the early black & white shots from the last James Bond movie shot on Double-X?
  • 0

#19 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 03 March 2008 - 08:57 PM

Weren'tt the early black & white shots from the last James Bond movie shot on Double-X?




Yes, 5222 and it looked great! I am just starting to write a werewolf script and myself and the others involved all agree that we will shoot it black and white. Probably both '31 and '22.
  • 0


Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Technodolly

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Opal

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Opal

Willys Widgets