Jump to content


Photo

HD and Super 16mm


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Jess Seymour

Jess Seymour

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Student
  • Gabriola Island, BC

Posted 05 August 2009 - 02:46 PM

Hi,

I am shooting a film this September and doing some on super 16 and some on HD.
I am using an Arri II and the Panasonic HPX300. Most 16 mm will be shot using natural Sunlight as most of of the shots take place on the beach or in the forest, with one shot in a bedroom with a wall of full wall windows facing the ocean and direct sunlight.

The HD will be shot in the forest and indoors with less light.

I am wondering what stock(s) would be best to use in terms of cutting together well with the HD. Obviously I want a slightly different look from the film. . . I would like it to be more washed out. (sort of dreamlike) But do not want the shots to look TOO different.

Thanks in advance!
  • 0

#2 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 05 August 2009 - 03:14 PM

For lowest grain S16 images I would use 7212 (100T) with or without the 85b filter or 7201 (50D). If you are going to 2k telecine you should make either one sing.

Personally I would be more concerned about making the depth of field from the 2 formats match. So I would aim for exposing the film at around f16-f22, not a lot of ND, polarizing or color correction filtering, in other words.

But if you are shooting on the beach during the day and in the forest indoors, the footage doesn't necessarily have to match as the conditions are completely different. The grain could give it away, but 7212 and 7201 arguably have the tightest grain structure there is in 16mm stocks, so you should be fine with either one.
  • 0

#3 Elliot Rudmann

Elliot Rudmann
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 208 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago

Posted 05 August 2009 - 03:31 PM

For lowest grain S16 images I would use 7212 (100T) with or without the 85b filter or 7201 (50D). If you are going to 2k telecine you should make either one sing.

Personally I would be more concerned about making the depth of field from the 2 formats match. So I would aim for exposing the film at around f16-f22, not a lot of ND, polarizing or color correction filtering, in other words.

But if you are shooting on the beach during the day and in the forest indoors, the footage doesn't necessarily have to match as the conditions are completely different. The grain could give it away, but 7212 and 7201 arguably have the tightest grain structure there is in 16mm stocks, so you should be fine with either one.


Use low grain stocks like Saul said, and at the minimum, try to get a good HD transfer, either from a spirit, or if you can afford it; scanning from a northlight or arriscan, which will yield the best results for super 16. However I would not shoot with the lens closed down to f16-22, especially on a small format like 16mm; that will introduce diffraction and most likely degrade the image quality. I wouldn't close the lens down past F11, but that's just me.
  • 0

#4 David Rakoczy

David Rakoczy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1579 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • USA

Posted 05 August 2009 - 04:08 PM

I would exopse the S16 between 4 and 5.6. Why not make it look the best it can? Otherwise you mine as well shoot it all in video. I have never shot at 11 or 16 and I shoot S16 for HD all the time.

(.....except of course when shooting longer exposures with an intervalometer)
  • 0

#5 Chris Burke

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

Posted 05 August 2009 - 04:21 PM

Hi,

I am shooting a film this September and doing some on super 16 and some on HD.
I am using an Arri II and the Panasonic HPX300. Most 16 mm will be shot using natural Sunlight as most of of the shots take place on the beach or in the forest, with one shot in a bedroom with a wall of full wall windows facing the ocean and direct sunlight.

The HD will be shot in the forest and indoors with less light.

I am wondering what stock(s) would be best to use in terms of cutting together well with the HD. Obviously I want a slightly different look from the film. . . I would like it to be more washed out. (sort of dreamlike) But do not want the shots to look TOO different.

Thanks in advance!



Kodak stocks today yield very clean, very sharp images. They are very pretty, but some might think that they are starting to look digital in there rendition. Fuji on the other hand is very filmic. If you are going for different looks between the two, I would suggest the Fuji 64D. AT the beach or elsewhere, it yields very tight grained images with great punch to the contrast. Much like the old 7245. Don't miss understand me, either of the Kodak stocks already mentioned won't let you down at all, just offering an alternative.

chris
  • 0

#6 K Borowski

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

Posted 08 August 2009 - 09:53 AM

Kodak stocks today yield very clean, very sharp images. They are very pretty, but some might think that they are starting to look digital in there rendition. Fuji on the other hand is very filmic. If you are going for different looks between the two, I would suggest the Fuji 64D. AT the beach or elsewhere, it yields very tight grained images with great punch to the contrast. Much like the old 7245. Don't miss understand me, either of the Kodak stocks already mentioned won't let you down at all, just offering an alternative.

chris


No offense, but this is more marketing hype and perception than actual fact.

Fuji stocks have also been moving towards lower-contrast, finer-grained imagery too. I think the only exception is their older Reala 500D.

However, despite scanner optimization, film stocks from either company can still render very rich results. Overexposure and denser printing can help render higher saturation and punchiness in the traditional printing process.


In summation, yes, to an extent, you are right about changes in Kodak stocks (Fuji too though), but these changes are so minor that you can still achieve practically the same results with modern stocks as you could with older ones with testing and tweaking and perhaps a little bit of exposure/process modification.
  • 0

#7 David Rakoczy

David Rakoczy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1579 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • USA

Posted 08 August 2009 - 10:58 AM

..... not to mention Telecine & DI.
  • 0

#8 K Borowski

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

Posted 08 August 2009 - 11:22 AM

..... not to mention Telecine & DI.


Yes, as probably at least 80% of movies are finished digitally these days, you can dial in basically whatever amount of saturation and contrast that you would like.

So, if you are going to HD, you would want the lowest contrast, therefore greatest amount of image information, possible to have the broadest range of possible grades possible digitally.

I kind of forgot, David, that the original poster said that he is finishing to HD anyway, so you almost wouldn't want to shoot on an older-emulsion stock that isn't as scanner-friendly.
  • 0

#9 Anthony Schilling

Anthony Schilling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1053 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR

Posted 13 August 2009 - 07:39 PM

I would use 50D 7201 on the beach, and 250D 7207 in the forest-
  • 0


Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Opal

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

Metropolis Post