Jump to content




Photo

What have I done wrong here?


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Brenton Lee

Brenton Lee
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Student
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 19 June 2016 - 06:05 AM

Hello! 

 

I fired of a few rolls of 16mm film recently, two of them came back heavily foggy and I'm pretty sure it's due to over exposure? 

 

If you can give me any tips or think it may be anything else, please throw your thoughts in - I'd appreciate it!

 

Info -

 

Both scenes were shot on a Bolex EBM, modded for S16. I used a canon FD lens, most likely 50mm on this one as it's relatively fast and versatile. Film was bought directly from Kodak, was stored in a cupboard for maybe 3 months. Shot and processed within a week. I was pretty careful loading and unloading, although there's a slight light mark on the side.

 

The interior shot was on Vision 3 500T, the lighting was dim with only bulb in the ceiling and a crummy skylight. Outside the sky was very overcast but not entirely dark. Light meter on my lady friends face said 1.8ish

 

The exterior shot was on Vision 3 250D, I can't remember too many details of the shot but it looks like it also has quiet a lot of of fogging too. 

 

I included an effort to clean it up too just to give you an idea of the finished product, but what can I make sure to do next time to get a better result?

 

Thanks for any advice.

 

 

 

Follow this link for the pics

https://goo.gl/photo...VS5VufA1V3F6iW8


  • 0




#2 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4743 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 19 June 2016 - 06:23 AM

Does your camera have a filter holder fitted into the slot behind the lens? Not having one fitted will cause fogging.


  • 0

#3 Brenton Lee

Brenton Lee
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Student
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 19 June 2016 - 06:33 AM

Yeah, the filter holder is empty but is installed. I'm pretty sure if it's installed, light can't leak in that way. But you never know ... I'll make sure I double check and maybe even put some tape over that area to make sure for next time.


  • 0

#4 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2182 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 19 June 2016 - 06:52 AM

Are you sure it's not just a flat scan? I'm not sure it's fogging based on the photographs.

How does the film look? Is there fogging in the rebate?


  • 0

#5 Brenton Lee

Brenton Lee
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Student
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 19 June 2016 - 07:19 AM

Oh that's a good thing to check ... It's in a 400 ft reel so I'll set it up and look tomorrow. thanks for the idea.
  • 0

#6 Heikki Repo

Heikki Repo
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 350 posts
  • Director
  • Finland

Posted 19 June 2016 - 11:19 AM

I'd say it's just a flat scan. After levels being set:

s16.jpg


  • 0

#7 John E Clark

John E Clark
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Other
  • San Diego

Posted 19 June 2016 - 01:54 PM

Are you sure it's not just a flat scan? I'm not sure it's fogging based on the photographs.

How does the film look? Is there fogging in the rebate?

What is a 'flat scan', vs say a 'log' representation of some sort... or a 'telecine' scan... since I've never dealt with this, I am not that familiar with how motion picture scans are specified.

 

For stills I did not have any real concern about this as the resulting TIFF files (typically) were spec at say 24 or 48 bits, of (8,8,8) or (16,16,16) RGB.

 

Given how they 'cleaned' up, I don't thing the problem is due to processing/fogging, although perhaps could be slight over exposure. But the white book covers some have something other than 'white' so the over exposure, if that's what it is, isn't all that off to me.


  • 0

#8 Jeff L'Heureux

Jeff L'Heureux
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Director
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 19 June 2016 - 04:37 PM

The graded footage looks fine to me.  Maybe slightly overexposed, but you didn't lose too much details and it looks like film should/would look, ie: very nice.  The lens and stop you shoot at can also affect the contrast/exposure, of course, but this is pretty much exactly what I'd expect Bolex 16mm footage to look like.


  • 0

#9 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2352 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 19 June 2016 - 06:07 PM

Generally a flat scan doesn't have that high of mid's lifted, but it really depends on the log curve.
  • 0

#10 Shawn Sagady

Shawn Sagady
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Maryland

Posted 19 June 2016 - 06:08 PM

Generally a flat scan doesn't have that high of mid's lifted, but it really depends on the log curve.

Its also really inconsistent between the two samples, though that could be the stock I guess, 250D vs 500T, but I would expect a more consistent curve.


  • 0

#11 Brenton Lee

Brenton Lee
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Student
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 19 June 2016 - 08:36 PM

It may well be the scan, but I had S8mm scanned on the same machine and it came back beautifully coloured so I assumed it was something I haven't done right.


  • 0


Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

CineLab

Zylight

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Pro 8mm

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Abel Cine

CineLab

Pro 8mm

Zylight

The Slider

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape