Jump to content


Photo

Printer Points


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Jon Rosenbloom

Jon Rosenbloom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 713 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 11 September 2005 - 05:18 PM

Hi,

I know I should be able to figure this out on my own, and I am going to shoot a test, but:
A film I'm prepping has a bunch of dawn and dusk exteriors, and the schedule will dictate that we shoot most of them during the middle of the day. I have a few ideas about how to approach this, but I'm still a little bit fuzzy on the question of printer points, and getting optimal density on the print. If I underexpose in camera by a stop, (or 1.5 stops) and I want the underexposure to make it to the print, what does that do to the printer points and the density of the print? (This would drive the points down, right??)

Or, would I do better in terms of grain to shoot my day for dusk shots at a "normal" exposure, and then print down? (This would drive up the printer points, right??)

Last, are print stocks so fine grained that I don't need to worry about their density?

Thanks for any info,

J
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 11 September 2005 - 05:30 PM

Assuming you are rating the stock normally, if you underexpose for effect and want the image to stay dark, then it would be printed at normal lights. It would only be printed "up" using lower numbers if you wanted to correct for the underexposure and have the scene look normal in brightness.

You could also expose normally and print down (higher numbers) for a darker image.

I usually start out rating a stock slower than normal. From this base rating, I expose however I want the scene to look, so I underexpose a dark scene. However since my base rating gives me a denser negative than normal, the underexposed shot is not as "thin" as it would be if I were using the manufacturer's rating.

So in other words, I may generally rate a 250 ASA stock at 160 ASA, but for a dim, dusk scene, I may underexpose (using that rating) by one or two stops for effect.

When in doubt as to HOW MUCH to underexpose, be conservative. For example, you may underexpose by a stop with the idea you can darken further in post if that is not enough.
  • 0

#3 Jon Rosenbloom

Jon Rosenbloom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 713 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 11 September 2005 - 07:00 PM

I usually give it an extra 1/3rd stop (200asa for 250d) ... that seems to work.

"When in doubt as to HOW MUCH to underexpose, be conservative. For example, you may underexpose by a stop with the idea you can darken further in post if that is not enough."

Yeah, my last film I did a shot stopped down 2 2/3's; that one is a bit thin.
  • 0

#4 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

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

Posted 12 September 2005 - 06:53 PM

Hi,

I know I should be able to figure this out on my own, and I am going to shoot a test, but:
A film I'm prepping has a bunch of dawn and dusk exteriors, and the schedule will dictate that we shoot most of them during the middle of the day. I have a few ideas about how to approach this, but I'm still a little bit fuzzy on the question of printer points, and getting optimal density on the print. If I underexpose in camera by a stop, (or 1.5 stops) and I want the underexposure to make it to the print, what does that do to the printer points and the density of the print? (This would drive the points down, right??)

Or, would I do better in terms of grain to shoot my day for dusk shots at a "normal" exposure, and then print down? (This would drive up the printer points, right??)

Last, are print stocks so fine grained that I don't need to worry about their density?

Thanks for any info,

J

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



In general, if you change your camera exposure by a stop, to maintain the same midscale print balance, your printer lights will change by about 7 lights.

If you underexpose by 1.5 stops and want the print to be heavy and dark because of it, your lab will likely print near their normal lights. If they correct for the underexposure during color timing or grading, they will reduce the printer lights, which will make the shadow areas lighter ("smoky" or "milky") in the final print.

Your best grain position would be to expose normally, and make the scene darker during printing. This will also hold more shadow detail in those dark black areas.
  • 0

#5 Jon Rosenbloom

Jon Rosenbloom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 713 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 12 September 2005 - 09:56 PM

Thanks for the info, John and David.

While I've got your ear, John (and anyone else), I should mention the unintended stock comparison I did on my last film shoot. I ordered 7218, and after shooting the first roll I glanced at the camera report and saw the stock listed as 7279. The production had picked up the wrong film! We sent someone out to exchange the stock while we finished the scene on the 79. The rest of the interiors were shot on the newer vision two stock, and I have to say I find the older stock to be crisper, and "bolder," than the vision two film, which strikes me as more lush, finer grained, but a little softer, and less dramatic ... Anyway, apologies for sounding like a wine taster. Any response from Kodak?
  • 0

#6 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

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

Posted 12 September 2005 - 10:02 PM

Thanks for the info, John and David.

While I've got your ear, John (and anyone else), I should mention the unintended stock comparison I did on my last film shoot. I ordered 7218, and after shooting the first roll I glanced at the camera report and saw the stock listed as 7279. The production had picked up the wrong film! We sent someone out to exchange the stock while we finished the scene on the 79. The rest of the interiors were shot on the newer vision two stock, and I have to say I find the older stock to be crisper, and  "bolder," than the vision two film, which strikes me as more lush, finer grained, but a little softer, and less dramatic ... Anyway, apologies for sounding like a wine taster. Any response from Kodak?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


The difference in tone scale and color palette is subtle, but most prefer the VISION2 "look". I really like the way the VISION2 films handle scenes with a mix of flesh tones. Certainly when comparing 7218 and 7279, the grain improvement is obvious.

And now you soon will have a new member of the Kodak VISION2 family:

http://www.cinematog...asp?newsID=8764 Kodak at IBC

The company is also previewing images recorded with the new KODAK VISION2 50D
5201/7201 color negative film, which is scheduled to be available in all
formats in October. Mayson says the new negative is designed to give
cinematographers more creative latitude while filming high-contrast exterior
scenes in bright daylight as well as shots in mixed color temperatures. The
film is also optimized as a recorder output film.

The new emulsion will be the sixth member of the Kodak VISION2 family of
films, which was introduced in November 2002. The others are KODAK VISION2
500T 5218/7218, KODAK VISION2 100T 5212/7212, KODAK VISION2 200T 5217/7217,
KODAK VISION2 250D 5205/7205, and KODAK VISION2 500T Expression 5229/7229.


  • 0


Opal

The Slider

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

CineTape

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

CineTape

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC