Jump to content




Photo

Light spill (?) on the edge of frame

35mm telecine

  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 Edgar Nyari

Edgar Nyari
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 July 2016 - 06:20 AM

Hi there,

 

Recently I made some very low light tests with a new camera, and when I got the material back from telecine, I noticed a light spill of some sort on the left edge of frame.

I framed it in black so it's easier to see. Don't mind the poor quality of the transfer (plus the image is kinda grainy, because it was exposed intentionally under limiited light conditions).

 

Couple of things come to mind. Could it be light spill from the sprockets on the telecine?

One other thing is that, the door and viewfinder I was using has a kind of a mirrored double image on the left side which I can see in the viewfinder beyond the black frame. I have other doors that don't have this "problem" (if it is a problem...I really have no idea...). So I was thinking, what if the light of the mirrored image somehow going back through the groundglass?

 

Any opinions would be most appreciated.

 

thanks

Attached Images

  • edge.jpg

Edited by Edgar Nyari, 03 July 2016 - 06:33 AM.

  • 0




#2 Edgar Nyari

Edgar Nyari
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 July 2016 - 06:40 AM

Sorry I forgot to mention. This is 35mm, Arriflex 35-3... and I haven't gotten the negs back from the lab yet to check if this is present on the negative. I got the files first by internet, still waiting for the negs.


  • 0

#3 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2354 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 July 2016 - 08:48 AM

And the line is there on the whole shot right?
  • 0

#4 Edgar Nyari

Edgar Nyari
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 July 2016 - 08:50 AM

On the entire roll, yes. Also forgot to mention that this is super35. And obviously my lens can't handle super35 that well as seen from the vignetting on the left.


  • 0

#5 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2354 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 July 2016 - 09:08 AM

Those cameras have a single pulldown position and that's the right side of the frame when exposing, so when you play it back, it's the left side. It would be worth looking at the negative to see if the sprocket area is over exposed or if it's just one little line.

The line is so straight and perfect, it's gotta be coming from the gate. I don't know that particular camera very well, but I don't quite understand how the viewfinder could have caused this issue without other parts of the frame being over exposed as well.

It could be the transfer, but I think that maybe the last option. I can't quite think of how you'd achieve that on any modern transfer machine.
  • 0

#6 Edgar Nyari

Edgar Nyari
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 July 2016 - 09:21 AM

Well, since it's a super35 gate, the edge of the pressure plate comes pretty close to the edge of the gate, so maybe a tiny slit is somehow made there. But on the other hand, there should be no light in the camera body even if the pressure plate didn't close the frame, because otherwise the entire frame would be exposed once it gets out of the mechanism and runs freely on the inside. Honestly, I can't imagine what could cause such a thin leak....

 

As for the telecine....I don't think it's a very modern telecine machine. It was a very cheap transfer. Might have been a very old Rank. I'm even seeing slight ghost images of high contrast details, such as street lamp posts, which is something that's certainly an artifact of the telecine process.


Edited by Edgar Nyari, 03 July 2016 - 09:24 AM.

  • 0

#7 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2354 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 July 2016 - 12:19 PM

The problem side is standard 35 side with the pull down. Its only the other side, the non problem side which would have been increased for super 35. So it's not a s35 problem in my eyes.

Can you check the negative?
  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18788 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 July 2016 - 01:48 PM

I thought the soundtrack area was to the left side of the image so this would be the Super-35 side...
  • 0

#9 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2354 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 July 2016 - 02:29 PM

Isn't the image upside down in the gate? So the left side would actually be the right side in camera?
  • 0

#10 Edgar Nyari

Edgar Nyari
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 July 2016 - 03:05 PM

The negative is on the way, and I should receive it next week in mail, so I'll check it out.


  • 0

#11 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18788 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 July 2016 - 03:58 PM

Isn't the image upside down in the gate? So the left side would actually be the right side in camera?

 

Sure, but the images he posted weren't upside down...

 

You can see here that the Academy (sound) image is offset to the right with the soundtrack area to the left of the image:

http://www.northwest...17956111796.jpg

 

Yes, running through the camera, that would right side I guess (?) since the image is upside down, so opposite the door to the camera, if one is thinking that's where the light leak is coming from.


  • 0

#12 Edgar Nyari

Edgar Nyari
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 July 2016 - 06:24 PM

Here is gate, and the pressure plate. I did a little cleaning so I took the chance to take some good photos. Does anyone spot any anomalies here? I really don't have experience, but to me everything seems fine. I'll add two more photos later if needed, there is a post limit.

Attached Images

  • gate1.jpg

Edited by Edgar Nyari, 03 July 2016 - 06:25 PM.

  • 0

#13 Edgar Nyari

Edgar Nyari
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 July 2016 - 06:26 PM

Here is the other side. I regret that I didn't notice I was making a shadow exactly on the important part of the gate, at the time of taking this photo.

Attached Images

  • gate2.jpg

Edited by Edgar Nyari, 03 July 2016 - 06:26 PM.

  • 0

#14 Edgar Nyari

Edgar Nyari
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 July 2016 - 06:30 PM

Here is the eyepiece "problem" I was talking about. Notice a mirror image left to the black framed area that contains the groundglass image. This mirrored image happens in the door, and not around the actual groundglass. Even when I open the doors and look away from the groundglass window and the camera body, into empty space, I can still see this. My other doors don't show this problem and have everything black around. Is this normal, or did something maybe fall off inside the door?

Attached Images

  • groundglass.jpg

  • 0

#15 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2354 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 July 2016 - 07:22 PM

Yes David, I see my mistake. I'm so use to looking at film from the gate perspective not the front.

It could be a mis machined gate, but I'd have to see the negative to determine.
  • 0

#16 Edgar Nyari

Edgar Nyari
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 July 2016 - 07:25 PM

I managed to make new photos of the crucial part of the gate. Here it is.

 

 

Attached Images

  • gate3.jpg

  • 0

#17 Edgar Nyari

Edgar Nyari
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 July 2016 - 07:29 PM

and the other side

Attached Images

  • gate4.jpg

  • 0

#18 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1199 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 03 July 2016 - 10:20 PM

I'd wait to check the neg. Gate reflections should mirror the lighting changes of the scene, so the intensity should vary. The gate looks fine anyway. The fact that the bright edge line extends past the lens image circle would suggest that it hasn't happened in the camera gate. Perhaps the film got edge fogged at some point, exposed to light while in a roll? Anyway the neg will tell you more.

 

The viewfinder double image is just from the prism, it shouldn't affect the film. If you had a bright light source shining into the open eyepiece (and you weren't covering it with your eye) the light could travel back to the ground glass and potentially cause some flashing/fogging, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.


  • 0

#19 Edgar Nyari

Edgar Nyari
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Other

Posted 06 July 2016 - 08:27 AM

Finally I got the negative back in mail today. I see absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. But  I guess I'd have to create an even-light background to see subtle changes in density. It's a very thin part of the negative. This shot was one or two stops under I think.

Attached Images

  • negative.jpg

Edited by Edgar Nyari, 06 July 2016 - 08:28 AM.

  • 0

#20 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18788 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 July 2016 - 10:14 AM

Clearly there's no light leak crossing the perfs into the frame in this example, it's starting to look more like a tiny bit of gate flare on that edge...


  • 0



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: 35mm, telecine

Visual Products

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Zylight

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Pro 8mm

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Zylight

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Pro 8mm

Ritter Battery

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Glidecam

CineTape

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

CineLab