Jump to content


Photo

photgraphy film and cinema film


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 RAJENDRA BISWAS

RAJENDRA BISWAS
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Other
  • india

Posted 11 November 2009 - 08:49 AM

hi i do photograhy on film like e6 positive and pro negatve films,I wanted to know why dont people makes movies on positive,in photography world e6films capture more detail than negative,so in cinema world its more negative...plus how do they deal with the overexposure for saturation etc..
  • 0

#2 Tom Jensen

Tom Jensen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1234 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 11 November 2009 - 12:41 PM

hi i do photograhy on film like e6 positive and pro negatve films,I wanted to know why dont people makes movies on positive,in photography world e6films capture more detail than negative,so in cinema world its more negative...plus how do they deal with the overexposure for saturation etc..


Negative is much more forgiving, it has more latitude and you can make adjustments in printing and developing that you can't do with reversal.
  • 0

#3 K Borowski

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

Posted 11 November 2009 - 04:19 PM

Not that I am a consumate expert, but, at least at Kodak, I notice a lot of discontinuation notices for E6 films.


E6, as I understand it, was, recently, from the era when you had poor scanning capability and wanted the same results on the monitor and in print that you had on the film.

Neg film, even in still photography, has, as such, become much more acceptable, except when old habits intervene. New scanners can just-as-easily handle neg film as tranny film.

With movies it has been that way for almost thirty years now.
  • 0

#4 Antti Näyhä

Antti Näyhä
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Other
  • Belgium/Finland

Posted 11 November 2009 - 04:54 PM

Traditionally, a photochemical release print of a film goes through several generations of printing – first from camera negative to interpositive, then to internegative and finally to the release print. Each of those steps increases contrast, so you want to start with something less contrasty than reversal film – ie. negative.

Of course, there are films that were shot in reversal. As I understand it, those productions often had to resort to some rather unorthodox printing methods to keep the contrast from pumping up too much. (Buffalo '66 being a famous example.)

Nowadays, one would think that the DI process made shooting reversal a little more feasible. Still, Tom's point remains an important one: shooting on reversal simply leaves much less room for adjustment in post. Also, when shooting movies you really want the extra latitude that negative film offers – you rarely get to bracket your exposure on a film set. ;)

Edited by Antti Näyhä, 11 November 2009 - 04:58 PM.

  • 0

#5 Dominic Case

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

Posted 11 November 2009 - 05:17 PM

Cinemafilm needs a format that can easily be mass-reproduced for release prints.

That is the negative-positive system, not reversal. Manufacturing neg and pos stock, and processing it, is easier, more reliable, cheaper, and better quality than reversal. In particular, neg has several stops more latitude than reversal, allowing for more image manipulation and colour correction than you can achieve with reversal.

The original negative image doesn't need to look good in itself. You don't preject the negative. It simply needs to act as a carrier of information to be printed onto another piece of film. That is the one that you look at.
  • 0

#6 RAJENDRA BISWAS

RAJENDRA BISWAS
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Other
  • india

Posted 12 November 2009 - 01:56 AM

so the photography world is somewhat same yet different comapred to cinema world..nowadays theres lot of good profesional negatives out there..but in photograhy postive seems to have much higher image quality...and then scanning would also matter.. the funny thing is 120film negative resoloution is high so it doesnt matter...but for 35mm if you have agood lense then that can also be afacter in image quality...is it same for 70mm film bigger the print better the resoloution? or its all depends on lens? is it true that mnay details are lost in negative?
  • 0

#7 K Borowski

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

Posted 12 November 2009 - 12:03 PM

There is nothing inherently negative about shooting neg's instead of chromes.

The negative thing, with any system is the copying process.

Neg's used to have better latitude. Chromes used to have better grain.


Now with the lack of improvements on chrome film, I would say a neg film of comparable speed wins every time.

Of course, what's the slowest speed neg film in still photography, 100? 200?
  • 0

#8 Antti Näyhä

Antti Näyhä
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Other
  • Belgium/Finland

Posted 12 November 2009 - 02:12 PM

Of course, what's the slowest speed neg film in still photography, 100? 200?

Yeah, I guess that's it now that Konica Impresa 50 is discontinued. Unless you count the black & white negs, where we still have eg. Ilford's Pan F Plus (50) and of course Gigabitfilm (25).
  • 0

#9 Chris Keth

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

Posted 12 November 2009 - 07:14 PM

in photography world e6films capture more detail than negative


This is completely false.
  • 0

#10 RAJENDRA BISWAS

RAJENDRA BISWAS
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Other
  • india

Posted 16 November 2009 - 01:42 PM

This is completely false.


waht i meant was the e6 film process is somehwat better..but there a re great negatives too..when u scan the postive holds more detail than negative..
  • 0

#11 Charles MacDonald

Charles MacDonald
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1157 posts
  • Other
  • Stittsville Ontario Canada

Posted 16 November 2009 - 11:48 PM

waht i meant was the e6 film process is somehwat better..but there a re great negatives too..when u scan the postive holds more detail than negative..


Slightly off topic on a movie discussion , My understanding is that Kodak now makes "Ektar 100" a still camera film for process c-41, which they consider as producing better results than any of the current Ektachrome line. The technology is based on current Vision Movie negative

One version of Ektachrome Pro 100 is sold for Movie use. It is mainly used for Music Videos and the like, and basicaly must be scanned to video/Digital to make distributable copies.

Now if you are a still camera user, you will probably enjoy an Ektachrome slide projected on a 4 foot screen,much more than a 4 inch print from Colour Negative that has been scanned at low resolution and developed in stale chemicals and colour corrected by some kid as a part time job. Since the Ektachrome does not have any colour correction needed, the lab can't add or subtract, and since there are now few labs that handle it, it is much more likely to be processed well.
  • 0

#12 RAJENDRA BISWAS

RAJENDRA BISWAS
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Other
  • india

Posted 17 November 2009 - 03:14 AM

Slightly off topic on a movie discussion , My understanding is that Kodak now makes "Ektar 100" a still camera film for process c-41, which they consider as producing better results than any of the current Ektachrome line. The technology is based on current Vision Movie negative

One version of Ektachrome Pro 100 is sold for Movie use. It is mainly used for Music Videos and the like, and basicaly must be scanned to video/Digital to make distributable copies.

Now if you are a still camera user, you will probably enjoy an Ektachrome slide projected on a 4 foot screen,much more than a 4 inch print from Colour Negative that has been scanned at low resolution and developed in stale chemicals and colour corrected by some kid as a part time job. Since the Ektachrome does not have any colour correction needed, the lab can't add or subtract, and since there are now few labs that handle it, it is much more likely to be processed well.


yes i ektar 100 is agood film so are other negatives,I have good amzing results with negatives..but pehaps e6 film is alwys part of the pro photogrpahers..atleast in 35mm...maybe the negative technolgy matters like you mentiones the vision technology...kodak didnt think that way earlier...
  • 0

#13 Anthony Schilling

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

Posted 21 November 2009 - 11:17 AM

I've been shooting a lot of the Ektar 100 35mm still film. It boasts "the worlds finest grain". Has tons of latitude and decent color. Although it's called "ultra color" it sill lacks the punch E100 reversal (original slide) It's hard to get real prints from E6 now days. But if you reallt want a negative film that has some reversal punch, check out the Lomo 100ASA... super saturated.
  • 0

#14 RAJENDRA BISWAS

RAJENDRA BISWAS
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Other
  • india

Posted 21 November 2009 - 12:40 PM

I've been shooting a lot of the Ektar 100 35mm still film. It boasts "the worlds finest grain". Has tons of latitude and decent color. Although it's called "ultra color" it sill lacks the punch E100 reversal (original slide) It's hard to get real prints from E6 now days. But if you reallt want a negative film that has some reversal punch, check out the Lomo 100ASA... super saturated.


but thats what i want to know how does motion pictures film boast boast of good image quality when in negative..does that mean its a different sciene of films in motion films?
  • 0

#15 Dominic Case

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

Posted 21 November 2009 - 10:28 PM

I can't quite see what your problem is, Rajendra.

The Ektar 100 is a stills film - and it may well have" the world's finest grain". But it's only 100 EI, which these days is only used if you really need fine grain. Most motion picture stocks are rated at 250 or 500. Faster speed naturally equals more grain.

But if you are still wondering why the motion picture industry doesn't use reversal, there are many reasons, but the simplest is that it doesn't suit the workflow. You have to do a lot of image processing (which traditionally was always donbe photochemically, though mostly digitally now), and you have to make dupe negatives and prints. If you start with a reversal original, which is optimised for immediate viewing, then however beautiful it is, those duping and printing processes will degrade the image far more than they would if you start with a negative, which is optimised for duplication, not for direct viewing.
  • 0

#16 RAJENDRA BISWAS

RAJENDRA BISWAS
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Other
  • india

Posted 24 November 2009 - 03:18 AM

I can't quite see what your problem is, Rajendra.

The Ektar 100 is a stills film - and it may well have" the world's finest grain". But it's only 100 EI, which these days is only used if you really need fine grain. Most motion picture stocks are rated at 250 or 500. Faster speed naturally equals more grain.

But if you are still wondering why the motion picture industry doesn't use reversal, there are many reasons, but the simplest is that it doesn't suit the workflow. You have to do a lot of image processing (which traditionally was always donbe photochemically, though mostly digitally now), and you have to make dupe negatives and prints. If you start with a reversal original, which is optimised for immediate viewing, then however beautiful it is, those duping and printing processes will degrade the image far more than they would if you start with a negative, which is optimised for duplication, not for direct viewing.


so ur saying that the film in cinema world is different comapred to photography
  • 0

#17 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 24 November 2009 - 06:40 AM

Yes motion picture negative film is not the same as still negative film !!!
  • 0

#18 Dominic Case

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

Posted 24 November 2009 - 06:49 PM

so ur saying that the film in cinema world is different compared to photography

I am saying that the purposes, the processes, the applications, the requirements, and the ways of viewing the image are different.

But since you ask, yes, the film is different too.

A simple example. Nearly all still photography, both professional and consumer, is now digital. The majority of feature film photography (image capture) and the majority of cinema exhibition is still on 35mm film. There are many reasons why the cinema world is changing far more slowly: some of them are to do with image quality, some of them are to do with the purposes, the processes, the applications, the requirements, and the ways of viewing the image. And some with cost structures.

Every one of these considerations is different in still photography compared with cinema.

So it is not surprising that photographic or cinema film is designed and used in a slightly different way for each.

I really don't think there is much more to be said.
  • 0


Ritter Battery

CineLab

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Metropolis Post

Opal

Visual Products