Jump to content


Photo

Shooting film with Mixing and Matching Footage in Mind.


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 20 October 2017 - 03:07 PM

Howdy all,

 

I think the forum knows I own an Eclair NPR since I never shut up about it, but I also have a 2-Perf 35mm camera. I'm about to start pre-production for a drama to be shot next Spring.

It will be finished in 2.35:1.  The NPR is getting converted to Ultra 16.

 

The thing is that in indoors, that 2-Perf sounds like a gawshdarned blender x10. I can't do dialogue with it. I can shoot dialogue with it outside because of the zoom lens. But in confined spaces I was thinking of just going Ultra 16.

 

So how would I shoot those interior shots in a way that in the Ultra 16 footage, the grain didn't seem that different from the 2-perf?

 

So far my idea was to use slow  50D 16mm stock and light the living daylights out of the interior set, aiming for about f/5.6. Then do all the 35mm exteriors on 250D.

 

If this sounds insane, it's because I've never shot for matching before. I'm just trying to think of the best way to balance the grain.

 

The ratio of a 2-perf gate is natively 2.35:1, which is the same ratio as the projected image of anamorphic widescreen. Techniscope is almost half the height of 4-perf widescreen, and the same width: 9.47mm x 22mm. Techniscope is often used when transferring to anamorphic widescreen, due to it's native 2.35:1 ratio. It is also often used in place of Super16, since the frame area is 2.2 times larger (super16 is 2mm shorter and 11.6mm narrower), 2-perf is considered by some to be less expensive to shoot than super16.

 

 

Thank you for any information leading to the capture of beautiful images. :-)

 

Edited to add:

 

Lens on the Eclair NPR: 12-120 Angenieux

Lens on the Techniscope: 25-250 Angenieux


Edited by Samuel Berger, 20 October 2017 - 03:08 PM.

  • 0

#2 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 22 October 2017 - 12:02 AM

Hate to bump this, but it's essential that I find the truth soon...


  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19705 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 22 October 2017 - 12:58 AM

Your plan is reasonable, shoot 50D for 16mm and 250D (or 500T) for 35mm, though I think you'll find that the 16mm will still look a bit softer / grainier, but it also depends on how large the image will be presented.  Shoot a test if you really need to know the difference.


  • 0

#4 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 22 October 2017 - 02:03 AM

Your plan is reasonable, shoot 50D for 16mm and 250D (or 500T) for 35mm, though I think you'll find that the 16mm will still look a bit softer / grainier, but it also depends on how large the image will be presented.  Shoot a test if you really need to know the difference.

 

Thank you so much, David. Your input is always very valuable. I know it's a desperate plan, but that 2-perf sounds like an aerial attack emergency siren.

 

And do you agree that since I'm finishing in 2.35:1 I'm better off with Ultra 16 than Super 16?

Thanks again.


  • 0

#5 Doug Palmer

Doug Palmer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 302 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 22 October 2017 - 04:54 AM

  I've had similar ideas... mixing 35 and 16mm in a drama, since the shooting ratio is usually much higher doing the close shots of actors, and quieter cameras too.  Looking forward to David's thoughts on U16 v S.16.

If you go the U16 route, have you thought of extending the 2.35:1 frame as far as possible into the 'sound-track' area ?  Although the image would be slightly off-centre relative to the lens, I would have thought OK if you are using normal or longer lenses. 

I don't know how the 50D film is regarding the code numbers on the other side. It's just possible Kodak might supply you with stock without them ?


Edited by Doug Palmer, 22 October 2017 - 04:55 AM.

  • 0

#6 Manu Delpech

Manu Delpech
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 378 posts
  • Director

Posted 22 October 2017 - 05:54 AM

It sounds very distracting?! Either the 16mm is going to stick out, or the 35mm. Is there that much of a difference btw super 16 & Ultra 16 because imo there's a world of difference btw super 16 & 2 perf. See films like Silver Linings Playbook, On The Road, American Hustle, The Place Beyond The Pines for an example of 2 perf in a major motion picture. 


  • 0

#7 Doug Palmer

Doug Palmer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 302 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 22 October 2017 - 06:28 AM

  I've had similar ideas... mixing 35 and 16mm in a drama, since the shooting ratio is usually much higher doing the close shots of actors, and quieter cameras too.  Looking forward to David's thoughts on U16 v S.16.

If you go the U16 route, have you thought of extending the 2.35:1 frame as far as possible into the 'sound-track' area ?  Although the image would be slightly off-centre relative to the lens, I would have thought OK if you are using normal or longer lenses. 

I don't know how the 50D film is regarding the code numbers on the other side. It's just possible Kodak might supply you with stock without them ?

By 'normal'  I mean 25mm, that's assuming it doesn't vignette on one side. Longer lenses generally shouldn't vignette. And I'm also assuming the shutter covers that area OK.

 

Although as Manu points out a quality difference, maybe  the audience tends to accept less definition in close shots of actors as they are more intent on their words and performance.  In big wide shots they instinctively search the frame for detail.  

That said, grainy skin doesn't look good ?  I'd test the comparison between the 16 and 2-perf to see if the 16mm closeups can be matched better with grain reduction.


  • 0

#8 Manu Delpech

Manu Delpech
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 378 posts
  • Director

Posted 23 October 2017 - 05:12 AM

I think "grainy" skin looks great, I found super 16 on stuff like the first act in Steve Jobs, or One Tree Hill, or The Newsroom's pilot to be surprisingly sharp on close ups, but 2 perf is quite obviously higher quality, higher resolution, lesser grain, I mean, it's obvious but I think it bears remembering what 2 perf can look like, and it looks tremendous when done right. With good lenses, I feel it's not that far off from 3 perf. 

 

Download the QT 1080p files from here to get an idea, and even that is highly compressed:

 

http://www.hd-traile...nings-playbook/

 

http://www.hd-traile...yond-the-pines/


Edited by Manu Delpech, 23 October 2017 - 05:15 AM.

  • 0

#9 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19705 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 October 2017 - 02:26 PM

I don't have any experience with Ultra-16.  It seems it only exists to make older cameras pre-Super-16 useful for wider aspect ratios, but if you can shoot Super-16, then there is no reason to shoot Ultra-16.


  • 0

#10 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 23 October 2017 - 02:30 PM

I don't have any experience with Ultra-16.  It seems it only exists to make older cameras pre-Super-16 useful for wider aspect ratios, but if you can shoot Super-16, then there is no reason to shoot Ultra-16.

 

Wouldn't the 2.35:1 Ultra 16 crop look better than the S16 2.35:1 crop?


  • 0

#11 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19705 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 October 2017 - 03:30 PM

You'd have to give me the exact dimensions of the cropped area.  I'm never sure with Ultra-16 what the usable gate width is. According to this:

 

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/16_mm_film

 

Super-16 width: 12.52mm

Ultra-16 width: 11.66mm

Regular 16mm: 10.26mm

 

So you'd get a bigger negative area for 2.35 with Super-16.


  • 0

#12 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 23 October 2017 - 04:30 PM

It appears that Ultra 16 width is about 92-94% of S16. My colleague just spoke to Bernie O'Doherty on the subject and the cost of S16 conversion plus purchase of new Zoom would be way more than our budget.

So we're going with Ultra 16.

 

I'm thinking of building a blimp for that Arri, much like Carroll Ballard scratch-built one for his CM3. The thing was gigantic but at least they had sync-sound indoors.

3698.jpg


Edited by Samuel Berger, 23 October 2017 - 04:34 PM.

  • 0

#13 Gregg MacPherson

Gregg MacPherson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1873 posts
  • Other
  • New Zealand

Posted 23 October 2017 - 09:46 PM

It appears that Ultra 16 width is about 92-94% of S16. My colleague just spoke to Bernie O'Doherty on the subject and the cost of S16 conversion plus purchase of new Zoom would be way more than our budget.

So we're going with Ultra 16.

 

I'm thinking of building a blimp for that Arri, much like Carroll Ballard scratch-built one for his CM3. The thing was gigantic but at least they had sync-sound indoors.

attachicon.gif3698.jpg

 

I don't understand why you are conceiving of projects that need a quiet camera,  if this (Arri II blimp) is what it takes...The tools we choose imply a modality of working,  a set of possibilities re the tech that underlies the form....

 

One has a concept....it devolves to forms...an understanding of and sympathy for technology is required...we either have that, or we pay for that to be near us.....


  • 0

#14 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 23 October 2017 - 10:15 PM

 

I don't understand why you are conceiving of projects that need a quiet camera,  if this (Arri II blimp) is what it takes...The tools we choose imply a modality of working,  a set of possibilities re the tech that underlies the form....

 

One has a concept....it devolves to forms...an understanding of and sympathy for technology is required...we either have that, or we pay for that to be near us.....

 

I so thought of  you today when I looked at a used NPR and found nose grease around the gate.


  • 0

#15 Gregg MacPherson

Gregg MacPherson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1873 posts
  • Other
  • New Zealand

Posted 23 October 2017 - 11:50 PM

There's nothing old school or "nose grease" about my comments.  They remain relevant...


  • 0

#16 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 24 October 2017 - 12:12 AM

There's nothing old school or "nose grease" about my comments.  They remain relevant...

 

Well the Arri is chosen because it's 2-perf Techniscope. But it's noisy and I don't want to be completely limited by it. I believe it was Richard Boddington who had a thread on here on ways to build a blimp. 

 

But really. with today's filmstocks I believe 16mm only looks like "16mm" when this is a choice on the part of the filmmakers. 50D grain is extremely fine these days.


  • 0

#17 Gregg MacPherson

Gregg MacPherson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1873 posts
  • Other
  • New Zealand

Posted 24 October 2017 - 01:35 AM

 

But really. with today's filmstocks I believe 16mm only looks like "16mm" when this is a choice on the part of the filmmakers. 50D grain is extremely fine these days.

 

I agree.  50D is very fine and sharp looking...


  • 0

#18 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 25 October 2017 - 01:41 PM

I liked this Ultra 16 footage shot on the Eclair NPR but the cinematographer didn't say which stock was used.

 


  • 0

#19 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 25 October 2017 - 06:23 PM

So this one guy shot this test of 35mm 250D and 50D and it looks amazing. The 250D had expired in 1994.

 

 

One note is that usually you're supposed to overexpose expired film, I think one stop per decade. He accidentally underexposed by two stops and it still worked out great.

 

I'm feeling more confident that my idea will work.


  • 0

#20 Doug Palmer

Doug Palmer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 302 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 26 October 2017 - 04:39 AM

The ultra-16 will probably work well for the actual closeups, mixing with 35 2-perf for long shots. But I'm not sure about the mid-shots.  I'd think they should be shot on 2-perf, and add any sound dialogue later.  Or maybe rig up an imperfect blimp to work with just mid-shots.


  • 0


Glidecam

CineLab

Tai Audio

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC