"Printing down" in telecine

[Marc Levy]

I've been hearing conflicting accounts on this topic: As most of the shoots I'm involved in at the student level will go straight to video, printing is not an option. With certain stocks, overexposing one stop and printing down one stop yields a "better" image (blacker blacks, higher contrast) then exposing at recommended ASA and printing normally. Is this effect possible with telecine? Can one "print down" with telecine? Also, should one expose differently (than if printing is an option) when telecine is the final step in the imaging chain?

[Jarin Blaschke]

For telecine, I usually over-rate the film by 2/3, it's enough to add richness to the image and to tighten the grain, but stops short of adding video noise to the image from too much 'printing down.'

[Mitch Gross]

Jarin's got it. By overexposing a little you are getting a thicker negative, which will give you denser blacks. Don't overdo it too much or the telecine operator will have to pump up the signal so much that video noise artifacts will crop up. But when in doubt overexpose negative film a bit.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Exactly right. Slight overexposure of color negative usually helps increase shadow detail, gives "richer" blacks, and reduces granularity. The colorist has control of multiple parameters during transfer, at least "lift", "gain", and "gamma", and can certainly "print down" a slightly overexposed negative.

 

But a really dense (several stops of overexposure) negative can be problematic, and will increase noise level in some cases.

[Marc Levy]

If estimable, what percentage of the "final image" seen on screen is the result of printing versus exposure/development of the negative? Or, for scenes requiring "other-than-normal" looks (darker/lighter-than normal), does one usually try to nail the exposure (so that less manipulation in prinitng is required), or does one rely more on printing for the alterations?

 

Thanks.

[Michael Nash]

For telecine, I usually over-rate the film by 2/3

Not to nitpick the semantics, but don't you mean UNDER-rate the film (use a lower number ASA), to OVERexpose the image? I'm sure we're all talking about the same thing, but I wouldn't want someone to get the wrong idea and "overrate" (underexpose) their film, thinking they're going to get a better image in telecine.

[Michael Nash]

If estimable, what percentage of the "final image" seen on screen is the result of printing versus exposure/development of the negative?  Or, for scenes requiring "other-than-normal" looks (darker/lighter-than normal), does one usually try to nail the exposure (so that less manipulation in prinitng is required), or does one rely more on printing for the alterations? 

 

Thanks.

I'd say it's always, "a little of this, a little of that" -- meaning there's always some adjustment of ALL the variables to create the final image. For example it's common to rate the film at a different ASA to manipulate its color and contrast, and rely on printer lights or telecine to restore a normal density in the positive.

 

In general, you try to "nail" the exposure in camera for the processes you think you're going to use -- although those processes might not be exactly "normal" (manufacturer's ASA and 25-25-25 printer lights). So it's all in how you look at what is "normal." You do whatever you have to make the image come out looking the way you want it to, so long as it all "evens out" at the end.

 

You'll find many approaches and schools of thought about creating the look in the negative or in post (especially in the telecine'd commercial world). It all depends on workflows, personalities, and politics. ;) Commercials and music videos are highly manipulated in post, feature films less so but they still go through color timing.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

My general understanding has been that in 35mm, strive for as close to normal as possible since the electronic noise from an overexposed negative will be more noticeable in comparison to the reduced grain. With 16mm, the decrease in grain is more noticeable than the increase in telecine noise so it is more adviseable to overexpose.

 

I haven't tested the hell out of this but it seems to make sense.

 

- G.

[John Pytlak RIP]

The amount of "noise" you get from a telecine when transferring a very "heavy" negative depends on the telecine, and the amount of light and noise-free gain available. The Spirit is generally quite forgiving, as it uses a bright xenon arc light source developed by Kodak.

[Marc Levy]

Thanks.

[Jarin Blaschke]

Yes, I'm sorry, I meant 'under-rate' the film, or give it more exposure than it's "box" rating.