Posted 04 September 2008 - 08:16 PM
Posted 05 September 2008 - 02:46 AM
Use sharp lenses with good coatings. Don't shoot with them wide open. You will usually get better optical performance stopped down about 2 stops from wide open. If the lens opens to a T2, shooting around 4 or 5.6 It will help with getting more punch out of your image. Take great care in preventing flares, because these will lower your contrast and make the image less contrasty and saturated.
Posted 05 September 2008 - 12:29 PM
Remember though that stock, processing, and printing are the last steps in, hopefully, a process that includes art direction, set design, lighting, filtration, and other factors to allow for a "look". Hitchcock considered the actual filming of a movie to be rather boring because he planned so meticulously in advance. Remember too that, for a long time, cinematographers really only had one stock to choose from, whatever Kodak's movie stock was. They managed to get a wide range of looks from this one stock until the early to mid '80s when multiple neg. stocks began to be offered at the same time by Kodak, Fuji, and, at that time, Agfa as well.
Hope this helps!
Posted 05 September 2008 - 12:31 PM
Posted 05 September 2008 - 12:53 PM
Posted 05 September 2008 - 01:38 PM
Yea, i have been in preproduction for a year and have been getting my designs to where the colors will "pop" but I was curious about the actual filming stage; which films have a higher saturation, etc. I was planning on shooting the film on a steady 5.6 for those reasons Andrew Koch mentions. The posts have helped and I invite more people to drop in with their comments and personal experiences.
7285, E100VS, the "VS" stands for "vivid saturation" or something similar, so it is probably your best bet, again, assuming you are good enough with a light-meter to expose it properly.
For neg., Vivid 160 is probably your best bet. I've never used it though. I'm of the opinion that *Kodak* has better colors. So whoever told you that Fuji was better is probably taking kickbacks from them ;-) In terms of "better", it has a better, i.e. cheaper price than Kodak. Remember the old saying though: "You get what you pay for."
IMHO, Kodak is tops for caucasian flesh rendition. Fuji always has an uncorrectable magenta bias that I abhor. Just me though. Some people like Fuji's pinkish bias and some people like Kodak's "orangish" bias.
You'd really need to do tests to determine which will best replicate the "look" you are going for. Don't blindly follow the advice of internet armchair experts. Lol. We have a lot of knowledge on this board, but for all you know, one of the responders here (not me) could be some 12-y.o.
Remember the old film shooter's adage of test, test, and test again.
Edited by Karl Borowski, 05 September 2008 - 01:39 PM.
Posted 05 September 2008 - 02:37 PM