Jump to content


Photo

KODAK VISION 2 50D 5201: Push processing or 2 stops over


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Robert Sawin

Robert Sawin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Student
  • Carlsbad, CA

Posted 18 March 2008 - 07:51 PM

I am a student at CSUF and I am doing a scene witch requires the environment to be over exposed or some what bright, like heavenly white. the scene will take place during the day using KODAK VISION 2 50D 5201. I am thinking I want the light to rap around the subject face. does anybody have any suggestions on how to achieve this with KODAK VISION 2 50D 5201 or should I just keep the EXP normal and bring it up in post.

Thanks :)
  • 0

#2 Vincent Sweeney

Vincent Sweeney
  • Sustaining Members
  • 686 posts
  • Director
  • LA at the moment.

Posted 18 March 2008 - 08:15 PM

Youll need to put your real name in your profile if you want to keep posting here.

There isnt enough information in your question. What kind of shots are you doing? Where are your actors? Sounds like you need to shoot into a lot of backlight. Lens flaring will take care of light wrapping if you have enough light. The question is how much before you can't see your faces. Shooting with a promist or a net might be a direction to start in.
  • 0

#3 Robert Sawin

Robert Sawin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Student
  • Carlsbad, CA

Posted 18 March 2008 - 09:45 PM

Youll need to put your real name in your profile if you want to keep posting here.

There isnt enough information in your question. What kind of shots are you doing? Where are your actors? Sounds like you need to shoot into a lot of backlight. Lens flaring will take care of light wrapping if you have enough light. The question is how much before you can't see your faces. Shooting with a promist or a net might be a direction to start in.


Trip is my nick name.

I was thinking back light is good, the actors are out in an open field in bright sun light. I have balance boards at my disposal as well. I don't know how to expose 50D except for shooting it normally. I heard that 50D stock is not as flexible as the faster stocks. But I want the fine grain structure. I have been shooting Photography for 11 years but motion picture film is new to me. I was unable to experiment with the stock because of cost. the back lighting is an option that I thought of stylistically to achieve the look to tell the story, but I am at a loss as what might be the best way to make the scene a heavenly look. also I don't want to put any defusers over the lens. I want to keep the image as clean as posable.
  • 0

#4 Vincent Sweeney

Vincent Sweeney
  • Sustaining Members
  • 686 posts
  • Director
  • LA at the moment.

Posted 19 March 2008 - 01:38 AM

What's a heavenly look to you? Are you working with a director? If so you might discuss the look with him and look at some references in photos, paintings and other films.
  • 0

#5 Robert Sawin

Robert Sawin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Student
  • Carlsbad, CA

Posted 19 March 2008 - 10:00 AM

What's a heavenly look to you? Are you working with a director? If so you might discuss the look with him and look at some references in photos, paintings and other films.


I am the director. However, because I am more technically savvy I am also the one in charge of the look. I have been doing lighting for a while so I understand that craft to an extent. I need the seen to look bright. Basically the sky looks white the land scape it bright and the subject are bright but not overexposed too much. I don't know whether it is a safe bet to shoot the stock 2 stops over and have them not correct it during the Telecine or shoot the stock 2 stops over and tell the lab to develop and Push process the film for compensation then bring it up in post. Any thoughts?
  • 0

#6 Robert Sawin

Robert Sawin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Student
  • Carlsbad, CA

Posted 19 March 2008 - 10:14 AM

What's a heavenly look to you? Are you working with a director? If so you might discuss the look with him and look at some references in photos, paintings and other films.


I also have gradient filters at my disposal. Maybe I can balance the sky light with the land scape. Or flip it and overexpose the shy while keeping the land scape normal exposure or something. I am manly looking for suggestions and Ideas as to what I should do.
  • 0

#7 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 19 March 2008 - 10:22 AM

I also have gradient filters at my disposal. Maybe I can balance the sky light with the land scape. Or flip it and overexpose the shy while keeping the land scape normal exposure or something. I am manly looking for suggestions and Ideas as to what I should do.

If you set up your shots so that the sun is above and behind the subject, while metering for the face of the subject, then you should get the sky to blow out, which appears to be what you're looking for. If this is the first time you've rolled 35mm film, I'd probably recommend against push processing, and first get the feel for the stock when processed normally.
  • 0

#8 Robert Sawin

Robert Sawin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Student
  • Carlsbad, CA

Posted 19 March 2008 - 11:21 AM

If you set up your shots so that the sun is above and behind the subject, while metering for the face of the subject, then you should get the sky to blow out, which appears to be what you're looking for. If this is the first time you've rolled 35mm film, I'd probably recommend against push processing, and first get the feel for the stock when processed normally.


Should I use ballence boards at all for the face. I like your idea. I think you are right I don't think it would be wise to not push the film yet and get a better feel for exposing this stock normally. How many stops over do you think the sky should be in contrast to the face.
  • 0

#9 Chris Burke

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

Posted 19 March 2008 - 11:47 AM

Should I use ballence boards at all for the face. I like your idea. I think you are right I don't think it would be wise to not push the film yet and get a better feel for exposing this stock normally. How many stops over do you think the sky should be in contrast to the face.



Honestly, if your shooting 35mm outdoors and want a more blown out look, then use a faster stock. You won't have to worry about grain. Either the 5205 or the Fuji Eterna 250D will do just fine. You will see no grain. I would meter for the shadow and the darkest part of it at that, all the rest will be blown out a bit and you can tweak that in the printing or tk as you see fit. If you have any pictures that you could post as a reference, I am sure you will get loads of input. Good luck.
  • 0

#10 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 19 March 2008 - 03:22 PM

It sounds like you're getting confused with several different subjects -- lighting, exposure, and post. Yes they all work together, but take a step back and look at each separately to figure out what to do.

Push processing just increases the density on the negative. And so does overexposing. If you just want a brighter image, either approach will do it. Both will increase the brightness of the entire image (shadows, midtones, and highlights), but pushing will also increase the grain and contrast. Pushing might make the highlights go a little "brighter" relative to the midtones compared to a normally-processed negative, but it seems like you don't want the added grain. So you make a choice which is more important to you -- a grainless image, or increased contrast on the negative.

I highlighted "on the negative" because you mentioned brightening the image "in post," without saying what the post path is -- film, or video? It makes a HUGE difference to what you do with the negative. In telecine/video post you can manipulate the contrast, exposure, and overall look to an incredible degree. It's usually more important to deliver a "clean" negative with as much picture information as possible when you're going to manipulate that image later. But for an all-film post path it's more important to get the desired look up front, on the negative, because you have comparatively less control over image manipulation in the lab.

As for lighting, yes you have to decide what this "heavenly" look is like to you. Is it an overall wash of white with pale, overexposed faces? Or is it normally exposed faces with bright, glowing rimlight? Or something else? Backlighting your subjects can give them a bright rimlight, but if you're shooting outdoors keep in mind that backlighting your subjects doesn't automatically mean the background will be overexposed. In all likelihood your background subjects will also be backlit, which means the "front" (camera side) will be just as normally exposed as the faces. Unless you're shooting in the desert or at the beach where the background is a lot of flat sunlit ground, you might not have the overexposed background you're looking for.

Contrast ratio is a matter of taste, for whatever you envision this look to be. The more you add fill to the faces, the lower your contrast ratio will be. So if you're going for "blown out" highlights with normally exposed faces, you probably don't want to add fill. But if you're going for a pale, washed out look to everything, you might want to fill the faces to an artificial-looking degree along with overexposing the image. It really comes down to how you envision this heavenly look.

Since you're a still photographer, it shouldn't be hard for you to shoot some test stills to try out different lighting "looks." Take your camera, a friend, and a bounce card to the location and try out different lighting and exposure combinations.
  • 0

#11 Dominic Case

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

Posted 19 March 2008 - 04:53 PM

I have been shooting Photography for 11 years but motion picture film is new to me. I was unable to experiment with the stock because of cost.

So test the set-up with a still camera.

You'll get a fair idea using a slow daylight stills stock, and a slightly more accurate one if you get a a cassette loaded with 5201. This forum is stacked with discussions about where you can get that processed.

But if you just want the answers, it sounds as though keeping your actors' faces in shadow with the sun behind them, and exposing for the shadowed faces would guarantee the sky blowing out, and probably some flare coming round the edge of the faces. You'd need the faces against the sky of course, so a low camera angle, and lots of sky will help.

A net or diffuser would help the flare too.

But if you want an overall bright look rather than burn and flare, it's all different. If you want the background landscape to be bright along with the sky, maybe you should darken the sky with a Pola, and then adjust your exposure upwards to compensate. It's vital that you have a full exposure on the actors' faces.

If this is a student film, you probably won't have too much time on telecine - but it might be that some secondary grading using windows to lighten and flatten everything but the main character would work.


One more point:-

shoot the stock 2 stops over and tell the lab to develop and Push process the film for compensation

Push processing compensates for under exposing, not overexposing. Until you are clear about that, I would avoid it.
  • 0

#12 Robert Sawin

Robert Sawin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Student
  • Carlsbad, CA

Posted 19 March 2008 - 05:42 PM

It sounds like you're getting confused with several different subjects -- lighting, exposure, and post. Yes they all work together, but take a step back and look at each separately to figure out what to do.

Push processing just increases the density on the negative. And so does overexposing. If you just want a brighter image, either approach will do it. Both will increase the brightness of the entire image (shadows, midtones, and highlights), but pushing will also increase the grain and contrast. Pushing might make the highlights go a little "brighter" relative to the midtones compared to a normally-processed negative, but it seems like you don't want the added grain. So you make a choice which is more important to you -- a grainless image, or increased contrast on the negative.

I highlighted "on the negative" because you mentioned brightening the image "in post," without saying what the post path is -- film, or video? It makes a HUGE difference to what you do with the negative. In telecine/video post you can manipulate the contrast, exposure, and overall look to an incredible degree. It's usually more important to deliver a "clean" negative with as much picture information as possible when you're going to manipulate that image later. But for an all-film post path it's more important to get the desired look up front, on the negative, because you have comparatively less control over image manipulation in the lab.

As for lighting, yes you have to decide what this "heavenly" look is like to you. Is it an overall wash of white with pale, overexposed faces? Or is it normally exposed faces with bright, glowing rimlight? Or something else? Backlighting your subjects can give them a bright rimlight, but if you're shooting outdoors keep in mind that backlighting your subjects doesn't automatically mean the background will be overexposed. In all likelihood your background subjects will also be backlit, which means the "front" (camera side) will be just as normally exposed as the faces. Unless you're shooting in the desert or at the beach where the background is a lot of flat sunlit ground, you might not have the overexposed background you're looking for.

Contrast ratio is a matter of taste, for whatever you envision this look to be. The more you add fill to the faces, the lower your contrast ratio will be. So if you're going for "blown out" highlights with normally exposed faces, you probably don't want to add fill. But if you're going for a pale, washed out look to everything, you might want to fill the faces to an artificial-looking degree along with overexposing the image. It really comes down to how you envision this heavenly look.

Since you're a still photographer, it shouldn't be hard for you to shoot some test stills to try out different lighting "looks." Take your camera, a friend, and a bounce card to the location and try out different lighting and exposure combinations.



Thanks for all your input I appreciate your wisdom immensely. I like all of your suggestions. They make a lot of sense. What I think I will do is meter for the shadows areas on the subjects then set the aperture. Then I will use the white balance board on the ground and angle a second one up towards there face on shadow side to add fill to keep the Faces from looking flat. when I go long then I will meter for the shadow, but I will not add any white balance boards for fill. I will meter the first shot for normal exposure with a color chart for lab reference. I will have the lab develop the stock normally then when they telecine it I will have them do a one light based off of that first normal exposed shot. In the mean time I will try to experiment with a still camera and to see if it works however, it is difficult to find KODAK VISION 2 50D film for still cameras. let alone any brand of 50D EI. But in theriry is what I discribed a valid aproch gathered from what you all told me.

Thanks a lot.

Your wisdom has been invaluable.
  • 0


Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

CineTape

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc