Jump to content


Photo

Film stock, Lab, Telecine, manipulate digital stil


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Valentina Caniglia

Valentina Caniglia
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 03 May 2005 - 01:49 AM

Dear all,

I am filming a period film in 35mm which are involved many exteriors and some interiors in the courthouse. The director and I are aiming for a desaturated look with earth tones and more contrast.

I was thinking to use a silver retation with a combination of chocolate or tobacco filter.
The producers want to project in HD until they don't find a distributor that will help to make prints.

I would like to know if any of you knows someone in Technicolor LA (if you can drop me some names). I used them in Italy and I would like to use them in LA as well.

I am planning to use the new Vision 2 200T (or should I steak with 5274) and vision 2 100T and do a bleach by pass at 60% or 100% (Should I do on the neg. for more contrast?). I want to make some tests but I was wondering if any of you used these stocks and what you think about the contrast.

I am not going through DI and I am praying for an overcasting day but if the sun comes out even though I will use 20x to diffuse the light for the wider shots doesn't work, I would like to know if I will be able to match on a telecine session.

Also, Any of you knows a name of a program where I can shoot still with my digital camera and correct them to communicate with the timer?

I watched The Crucible and I want to go with that look. Anyone of knows technical info about that film?

Thank You

Valentina
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 May 2005 - 01:59 AM

I hear about a "60% Bleach-Bypass" now and then but I don't know who does that to a negative -- the only silver retention processes that are variable are ENR or ACE and those are for prints only. Most labs just offer an all-or-nothing bleach-bypass to the negative.

It looks different when you do it to the negative: more graininess, and hotter highlights instead of darker shadows.

If you do it to the prints, your HD version will just have to simulate that look with digital color-correction.

"The Crucible" was shot in a lot of bad weather, but I don't think any unusual processing was done. However, some sort of filter was used; it looks like a Fog Filter to me, like a #1/2 Fog. Could be a Low-Con or a Double Fog though.
  • 0

#3 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 03 May 2005 - 09:03 AM

Also, Any of you knows a name of a program where I can shoot still with my digital camera and correct them to communicate with the timer?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


That's what the new Kodak Look Manager System does: :)

http://www.kodak.com...=0.1.4.16&lc=en
  • 0

#4 Valentina Caniglia

Valentina Caniglia
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 04 May 2005 - 04:03 AM

Thanks David,

What about if I do the bleach by pass on IP and then transfer to HD ?

What you think?

Valentina
  • 0

#5 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 May 2005 - 07:56 AM

Thanks David,

What about if I do the bleach by pass on IP and then transfer to HD ?

What you think?

Valentina

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I don't see any reason to, since you can simulate that look in the color-correction on HD.
  • 0

#6 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 04 May 2005 - 08:59 AM

I don't see any reason to, since you can simulate that look in the color-correction on HD.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


If their production gets picked up for theatrical release, any "look" achieved using photographic techniques (e.g., lighting, filtration, bleach bypass in the negative or IP) would already be in the printing elements. But I agree, for HD or SD video, it can be done during digital post.
  • 0

#7 Dominic Case

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

Posted 04 May 2005 - 06:52 PM

I hear about a "60% Bleach-Bypass" now and then but I don't know who does that to a negative


I believe some labs offer a 1/3 bleach bypass, to attempt a less dramatic effect. What they mean is actually 1/3 bleach - therefore bypassing two thirds.

The exact proportion of bleach time is simply because of the layout of most film processing machines. You have to skip whole numbers of tanks, and the choices are twofold: skip the lot, or skip one out of three tanks.

I've always recommended against partial bleach bypass (it's been discussed on this site). Normally an emulsion is bleached to completion part of the way through the tank - maybe in 2 minutes out of the 3allowed in the process. Different emulsion types take slightly different times - and the bath will vary slightly within tolerances - quite OK as the process is to completion.

But if you cut the time, then it's uncertain what proportion of the bleach action will occur. So the results of partial bleach bypass are likely to be less predictable than for total bypass.
  • 0

#8 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 04 May 2005 - 08:48 PM

Simply cutting down on the ECN-2 process bleach time from the standard 3 minutes risks non-uniformity in the image. The largest and bottom-most silver grains are the last to be turned back to silver halide by the bleach.

http://www.kodak.com.../h247/h2407.pdf

The print process is a different story. Labs sometimes modify the ECP-2D print process to leave silver in the print film by adding a redeveloper stage after the bleach, which is much more controllable than simply shortening the bleach time. That can't be done in the ECN-2 process, since it only has one fixer, and the silver halide that was not used to form an image is still in the film as it leaves the bleach.
  • 0

#9 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 04 May 2005 - 09:20 PM

Dear all,


I am planning to use the new Vision 2 200T (or should I steak with 5274) and vision 2 100T and do a bleach by pass at 60% or 100% (Should I do on the neg. for more contrast?).

Valentina

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I thought Vision 2 100T did not exist.
  • 0

#10 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 04 May 2005 - 09:32 PM

I thought Vision 2 100T did not exist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


The complete family of Kodak color negative films, including Kodak VISION2 100T Color Negative Film 7212:

http://www.kodak.com...0.1.4.4.4&lc=en

Older, discontinued films:

http://www.kodak.com...=0.1.4.12&lc=en
  • 0


Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Opal

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

CineTape

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport