Jump to content


Photo

Rating an ASA lower


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Eugene Lehnert

Eugene Lehnert
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 203 posts
  • Other
  • New York, NY

Posted 29 July 2005 - 08:42 AM

Is rating a filmstock at a lower ASA the same as overexposing it?

I read American Cinematographer and I keep seeing people say that so I just wanted to check it out.

Thanks!
  • 0

#2 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 29 July 2005 - 08:59 AM

Is rating a filmstock at a lower ASA the same as overexposing it? 

I read American Cinematographer and I keep seeing people say that so I just wanted to check it out.

Thanks!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Hi,

Yes.

Stephen
  • 0

#3 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

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

Posted 01 August 2005 - 02:06 PM

Here's an example:

Kodak VISION2 500T Color Negative Film 5218 is rated EI 500 Tungsten.

If you "rate" the film at EI 250, and calculate your T-Stop based on that rating, you will effectively INCREASE exposure by one stop.

Here's an exposure table:


http://www.kodak.com...t/h2/ilit.shtml
  • 0

#4 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 August 2005 - 05:29 PM

Yeah, it's just a way of saying how they exposed their film. Rating it at X ASA is an easy way since you can just set your meters accordingly and eliminate any mental figuring that might cause mistakes.


A lot of people do this to overexpose nominally and get a denser negative that will cause an apparent grain reduction. Or you could do the opposite if you want to underexpose and push the film.
  • 0

#5 Rolfe Klement

Rolfe Klement
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 668 posts
  • Director
  • London | LA

Posted 01 August 2005 - 05:37 PM

I have always been a fan of overexposing by one or more stops - but I must say I am drifting away from it recently. I have been nailing T Stops down to like a 10th of a stop and the neg looks great. Especially with the new vision2 stocks and new Fuji daylight stuff.

And I recently underexposed by 2 stops and got the neg pushed and the high contrast look was great.

Having said that all these decisions should be based on the required look and testing - just cause Robert Richardson and Co rate 500 at 400 - doesn't mean it will be best suited for your project

thanks

Rolfe
  • 0

#6 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 02 August 2005 - 05:07 PM

There are a couple of DP's I've heard about in commercials that consistently underexposes so the creatives/directors can't brighten it up enough and ruin it. Underexposere = looks good? I'm almost inclined to agree....
  • 0

#7 Brad Grimmett

Brad Grimmett
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2660 posts
  • Steadicam Operator
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 August 2005 - 03:08 AM

I did a whole feature at the beginning of the year that was intentionally underexposed by 2 stops. So we were shooting 5218 and rating at 2000ASA. Myself, the other operator, and our assistants could never figure out why we shot like this considering the film is getting a D.I., and the fact that we often needed the extra 2 stops. Dailies were sooo dark and grainy, and not the most flattering to a couple of the actors. I love the high contrast look, but at what cost? I don't think the producers even knew that he was underexposing like this. I'm very interested to see the final product and find out how much a D.I. can bring back.
  • 0

#8 Rolfe Klement

Rolfe Klement
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 668 posts
  • Director
  • London | LA

Posted 03 August 2005 - 06:26 AM

rating 5218 at 2000ASA is a bit too far - I once rated at 1600 and it was a bit tight. I think the whole thing swings in roundabouts (overexpose - underexpose, gritty handheld - solid smooth, etc)

But as I said I am coming back to the school of thought that an exactly nailed exposure with minimum filtration on good lenses is the best thing.

thanks

Rolfe
  • 0


Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

CineTape

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Technodolly

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Technodolly

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC