Jump to content


Photo

Question regarding fuji stock


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 debal banerjee

debal banerjee
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Student

Posted 05 October 2010 - 01:47 AM

some people says that to get the correct exposure in Fuji stock one have to fix his aperture 1/3 stop over from the meter reading.

is it the reality?
  • 0

#2 Edgar Dubrovskiy

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

Posted 05 October 2010 - 04:39 AM

I do it on 16mm just to tighten the grain a bit, and get that tiny bit more info in shadows.
  • 0

#3 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 05 October 2010 - 08:33 AM

I tend to rate most stocks 2/3 slower than recommended, but that's just personal taste. Rating it at it's "factory" EI won't hurt you, but you should try testing a bit to flavor it your own way.
  • 0

#4 Charles Boileau

Charles Boileau
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Other
  • Montreal

Posted 05 October 2010 - 07:41 PM

some people says that to get the correct exposure in Fuji stock one have to fix his aperture 1/3 stop over from the meter reading.

is it the reality?


You want to slightly over expose any film stock you'd shoot with... For example I used 500 speed film on a short I shot last year. My meter was set to 400 in order to overexpose. Which is about 1/3 of a stop overexposed.

This process helps with the blacks. And film holds highlights much better. I think the saying is: Expose for the blacks and print for the highlights.

I don't think that Fuji needs any special treatment...

THakns

Edited by Charles Boileau, 05 October 2010 - 07:44 PM.

  • 0

#5 Saul Rodgar

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

Posted 05 October 2010 - 11:50 PM

The consensus around here is to overexpose 2/3 of a stop to tighten up grain. 1/3 of a stop overexposure is hard to notice. For fast Fuji 16mm stocks I tend to overexpose at least 1 full stop. While I like grain, the grain on fast Fuji 16mm stock tends to bother me more than that of equivalent Kodak stock. You, of course, are free to do your own tests and choose whatever works for your project, which is the best way of going about it.
  • 0

#6 Edgar Dubrovskiy

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

Posted 06 October 2010 - 05:06 AM

But surely by overexposing a whole stop, you could've just shot 250 instead of 500, for example, no?
  • 0

#7 John Holland

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

Posted 06 October 2010 - 11:23 AM

Over the last 20 plus years i have always overexposed [ what ever the neg stock ].by at least 2/3 of a stop
  • 0

#8 Edgar Dubrovskiy

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

Posted 06 October 2010 - 12:17 PM

John, with 35mm is it to have cleaner blacks?
  • 0

#9 John Holland

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

Posted 08 October 2010 - 03:52 AM

Its with 35 and 16 ,if you have a nice thick neg you can do anything with it print down or up . Your problem with your dirty or what ever its on your other thread , shows a very underexposed image it looks flat and nasty .
  • 0

#10 Edgar Dubrovskiy

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

Posted 08 October 2010 - 04:46 AM

Yeah, that's what I though, John.
But also I can't get my head around something I had on every student shoot for some reason: I always overexposed 16mm by around half-stop for the purposes you mentioned.
Then it usually went through the processing overnight, and one-light-telecine to miniDV, digi which goes to the editor - and I get a DVD copy next day. But it always always look like that - soft overall, underexposed and grainy.
But, that's what I don't get - we go to HDCAM tech grade after the picture lock and the moment they load the footage into Spirit or other machine they use at the facility - it's fine, grain is normal for 16mm, it's not underexp etc... I am not trying to make excuses, honestly. I just don't get it - is it normal to get your dailies looking quite poop, especially grain-wise? Or is it just a student thing? Or is it purely technical thing that when you telecine to SD it won't look "pretty"? Does HD tighten the grain SO much?
I will try to dig up couple stills of SD dailies vs HD scan.

Edited by Edgar Dubrovskiy, 08 October 2010 - 04:46 AM.

  • 0

#11 Edgar Dubrovskiy

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

Posted 08 October 2010 - 07:56 AM

Here is an example that I really want to show you, guys.
Was doing some exposure tests for the grad film. This is shot on Kodak 100 and 200T, Vision 2s - exposed as on the can.
This shot, for example, was definitely exposed correctly - spot metered and double checked :)
Footage was developed as normal and transfered to digibeta - as this what uni wanted us to finish the project on.

Here is the grab (split-screen was done for some producers' presentation):
Posted Image

But I started to suspect that it's definitely too dark for a normally exposed grey card, so went to FCP (I know, not highly scientific :) ) and put up a waveform. And to me this looks way under for a greycard:
Posted Image

What are you thoughts, guys?
Thanks so much for all the suggestions!
  • 0

#12 Michael Kubaszak

Michael Kubaszak
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Chicago

Posted 08 October 2010 - 09:32 AM

Yeah, that's what I though, John.
But also I can't get my head around something I had on every student shoot for some reason: I always overexposed 16mm by around half-stop for the purposes you mentioned.
Then it usually went through the processing overnight, and one-light-telecine to miniDV, digi which goes to the editor - and I get a DVD copy next day. But it always always look like that - soft overall, underexposed and grainy.
But, that's what I don't get - we go to HDCAM tech grade after the picture lock and the moment they load the footage into Spirit or other machine they use at the facility - it's fine, grain is normal for 16mm, it's not underexp etc... I am not trying to make excuses, honestly. I just don't get it - is it normal to get your dailies looking quite poop, especially grain-wise? Or is it just a student thing? Or is it purely technical thing that when you telecine to SD it won't look "pretty"? Does HD tighten the grain SO much?
I will try to dig up couple stills of SD dailies vs HD scan.



1st off, a half stop is not enough. That's barely recognizable. You need to over-expose by 2/3 of a stop minimum. I'd also argue that your grain is NOT normal for 16 and is excessive, hence people commenting that it was underexposed. When you underexpose the grain becomes much more 'in your face'.

2nd, why are you doing a one-light? Even if you can't afford to sit in you should at least do a best-light. Your film holds everything you put into the production: Writing, casting, camera, film , lenses, acting, art dept. etc. Why skimp on making it look great?!

Also what you can do in today's world is take some stills of each scene(lighting set up) or each shot if you want to be anal. Then color grade them in photoshop and send them along with your film(i.e. thumb drive or email them to whoever is doing the telecine). This gives them an idea of what you want without you having to be there.

Does your telecine house do Uncompressed 10 bit to a hard drive?? If so you might want to look into that.

Also, are the lightmeter(s) you use(d) properly calibrated?

Edited by Michael Kubaszak, 08 October 2010 - 09:34 AM.

  • 0

#13 Edgar Dubrovskiy

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

Posted 08 October 2010 - 09:52 AM

2nd, why are you doing a one-light? Even if you can't afford to sit in you should at least do a best-light. Your film holds everything you put into the production: Writing, casting, camera, film , lenses, acting, art dept. etc. Why skimp on making it look great?!


That's usually on the rushes level - then we do HDCAM tech grade from neg. And then the actual grade at the post house.

Also what you can do in today's world is take some stills of each scene(lighting set up) or each shot if you want to be anal. Then color grade them in photoshop and send them along with your film(i.e. thumb drive or email them to whoever is doing the telecine). This gives them an idea of what you want without you having to be there.

I always do that now - shooting at the same settings as 16mm shot, sometimes with adjusted WB - to give the desired look. Sometimes PShopped.

Also, are the lightmeter(s) you use(d) properly calibrated?

I usually check with a gaffer on the first day, so both meters show the same, plus the back-up light meter - so far always showing same exposures.

What I don't get - how is this transfered if it's definitely under? Wouldn't lab call production up and say your tests are way under? They do send reports - 99% times it will say all good, sometimes occasional "flare".
Sorry for all this moaning :) It's just I am really frustrated as student graduate - because it's so often we had some random problems with labs. Starting from not following the frame leader to taking all colour out (happened on the grad film where lab took out all orange (CTOs on tungsten) in the final scene - despite the e-mailed pictures and shot greycards).
And then when you actually DO make a mistake - it makes you never sure is it the lab again, or you this time?

Edited by Edgar Dubrovskiy, 08 October 2010 - 09:54 AM.

  • 0

#14 Michael Kubaszak

Michael Kubaszak
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Chicago

Posted 08 October 2010 - 12:18 PM

One more BIG question i forgot. How old was the stock you shot? That could definitely be a contributing factor to the graininess.

It doesn't look WAY under. But under enough that people here noticed. I'd call call up whoever did the telecine and ask them. Tell them it look underexposed and see what they say. maybe your neg was too thin, etc.

What I would do if I were you is to find a lab you like and stick with it. Go there in person or call. Talk to someone you've dealt with before. Same thing with telecine. That was my big mistake in film school. I just sent out my stuff and barely spoke with the people.
  • 0

#15 Ian Cooper

Ian Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Other
  • England

Posted 08 October 2010 - 12:28 PM

I've had similar experiences: I expose the film 2/3 stop over, using a known accurate light meter (no probs when I use it with reversal film). The film gets sent off for processing & best light Tk, only to find the tape version I get back looks under exposed with very obvious grain (even using 50D). ...at least in my opinion it is anyway.

I've brought up waveforms of the image and found similar levels to yourself, and also gone back to the lab who've checked the negative and confirmed the exposure on that is ample. I posted a thread in the telecine section seeking people's opinions on the last film I shot - as you'll see from the thread, the general consensus on the forum seemed to agree with the response I got back from the lab - that there's nothing wrong with it.

Have to confess it's left me somewhat disillusioned with 16mm at the moment - I don't have lots of spare cash to keep spending on multiple telecine sessions, and living 200 miles from London doesn't exactly make popping into a lab easy for me either! Lol. :D It's frustrating, because I can shoot reversal film and get results that look fine, but shooting neg. stock for Tk seems 'mission impossible'!
  • 0


Glidecam

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Opal

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Opal

Paralinx LLC