Low-budget problems

Jens Harvard · November 13, 2005

Hi!

I'm about to shoot my first 16mm short film, it's a very low-budget film and therefore I have some problems.

We are going to use an old Arriflex 16BL with a 10-100 lens. I think it is some kind of standard for this model. We borrowed the camera from a friend

In the front of the lens it says that the apertures largest stop is 2.8, but the f-stop ring only goes to 3.3, does anyone know why this is?

We've got a hold of some film rolls for free. These rolls are about ten years old, but have been kept in a freezer, how is this going to affect the results.

Unfortunally the stock is out of production so I can't get any information about it, but maybe someone knows anything. It's a

Fujicolor negative film F-64 8610 Tungsten 16mm 122m. When did it go out of production?

And an easy calculation, considering that the aperture only goes to 3.3 and the film iso is 64, says that we need plenty of light.

We can only get a hold of a couple of 800w readheads, about 7-12 ones. This wont be enough, we are going to lit some large areas

An apartment, a church and an hospital corridor with almost no natural light. My solution is simply to push the film two stops to

iso 250. We have done some calculations and that?s what we need, two stops. How is this going to look, will it be very bad, also

considering that the film is ten years old. Have anyone done something like this?

After developing its going to telecine and later to be released on video.

J. Harvard

Sweden

David Mullen ASC · November 13, 2005

F-64T went out of production about eight or ten years ago I believe, around the time the '01 series came in. The '02 series started appearing in 1998-99 and now they are just introducing '03 series stocks like Eterna 500T.

Dickson Sorensen · November 13, 2005

Hi!

In the front of the lens it says that the apertures largest stop is 2.8, but the f-stop ring only goes to 3.3, does anyone know why this is?

The difference is the compensation for light loss in the lens. An f stop is the diamater of the iris divided into the focal length of the lens. You use f stops for calulating depth of field. The marks on your aperature ring are most certainly "T" stops which compensate for light loss. On some lenses with complex optics (a lot of elements) the difference between the two is significant. Some lenses will have different colored markings for f stops and t stops. You don't find this as much on modern lenses as the glass and especially the coatings have improved to the point where there is very little light loss through the glass and thus little difference between the two.

Another thing is that there were early zooms (the Ang. 12 to 240 for instance) which were only at their maximum aperature at part of their zoom range.

Robert Glenn · November 13, 2005

The difference is the compensation for light loss in the lens. An f stop is the diamater of the iris divided into the focal length of the lens. You use f stops for calulating depth of field. The marks on your aperature ring are most certainly "T" stops which compensate for light loss. On some lenses with complex optics (a lot of elements) the difference between the two is significant. Some lenses will have different colored markings for f stops and t stops. You don't find this as much on modern lenses as the glass and especially the coatings have improved to the point where there is very little light loss through the glass and thus little difference between the two.

Another thing is that there were early zooms (the Ang. 12 to 240 for instance) which were only at their maximum aperature at part of their zoom range.

This is going to sound bad of me, but which should you meter using: t stops or f-stops? Are they scaled the same?

Dickson Sorensen · November 13, 2005

This is going to sound bad of me, but which should you meter using: t stops or f-stops? Are they scaled the same?

Use the t stop for your exposure (t is for transmission)and your f stop for depth of field calculations. Yes the scales are the same, 1.4,2,2.8,4,5.6 etc.

Jens Harvard · November 14, 2005

F-64T went out of production about eight or ten years ago I believe, around the time the '01 series came in. The '02 series started appearing in 1998-99 and now they are just introducing '03 series stocks like Eterna 500T.

What will the results be using this old stock? How bad will it look? is there anything I can do to compensate the age?

David Mullen ASC · November 14, 2005

What will the results be using this old stock? How bad will it look? is there anything I can do to compensate the age?

It will have lost some sensitivity and the blacks will be foggier. You can compensate by overexposing it, like by rating it at 32 ASA. In other words, it's the wrong stock to use for low-light interiors already, and you were going to underexpose and push two stops to boot. However, the results of doing that to this old stock may be very interesting visually (blue foggy blacks, high graininess, murkiness, green cast, etc.)

Jens Harvard · November 15, 2005

It will have lost some sensitivity and the blacks will be foggier. You can compensate by overexposing it, like by rating it at 32 ASA. In other words, it's the wrong stock to use for low-light interiors already, and you were going to underexpose and push two stops to boot. However, the results of doing that to this old stock may be very interesting visually (blue foggy blacks, high graininess, murkiness, green cast, etc.)

How much grain are we talkin', considering the low iso.

Now that I know the loss of sensitivity can i underexpose and push three stops, develope it as 500 but exposing it as 250? Can it be done, or does it sound like we'll end up with a meterial thats unusable?

Dominic Case · November 15, 2005

Low-budget problems, old stock, low light, pushing?

You should never use all these words in the same sentence. They are all ganging up against you.

It's impossible to say how grainy, or what loss of speed etc without knowing the exact condition of the stock. That's why people do dip tests (clip tests), to measure the increase in fog level.

1. If the stock is in trouble you will get high fog levels and grain.

2. The best way to fight that is to over-expose.

3. If you are short of light you can't overexpose - you probably can't even expose enough.

4. If you push process, you will increase the fog level and grain.

5. See point 1.

The usual salvation is to use a really fast lens to get more exposure. There's a downside:

6. Wider aperture means less depth of field means more out-of-focus areas.

7. Soft areas of the image look grainier.

8. See point 1.

The good news is that your lens isn't very fast.

Bottom line: test the stock before continuing. See how bad the problem is. If, you are in trouble, you really either have to spend a lot of money on more lighting, or spend some money on getting the right stock for the situation.

David Mullen ASC · November 15, 2005

How much grain are we talkin', considering the low iso.
Now that I know the loss of sensitivity can i underexpose and push three stops, develope it as 500 but exposing it as 250? Can it be done, or does it sound like we'll end up with a meterial thats unusable?

I'm tempted to say you're nuts -- it's like you don't want to hear bad news.

It's a 64 ASA film that's probably more like a 32 ASA film by now, with fogged blacks. That's for starters.

Now on TOP OF THAT you want to underexpose and push it three stops??? Look, you MAY get acceptable results if you rate it a 32 ASA and develop it normally. MAY is the operative word here -- there's no guarantee of even that.

Anything else and you had better want an experimental look. I'm not saying that you won't get an image on film with your approach, but you had better expect something quite odd-looking, grainy & foggy with a color cast (probably green or blue). If you don't, you're incredibly lucky. You're playing with dice here, basically, so good luck. You seem to want assurances when none are possible.

Remember that push-processing does not increase sensitivity -- it merely increases density of whatever got recorded.

Hans Engstrom · November 18, 2005

Bottom line: test the stock before continuing. See how bad the problem is. If, you are in trouble, you really either have to spend a lot of money on more lighting, or spend some money on getting the right stock for the situation.

Thats the only way you´ll get answers to your questions,