Grain in a blue studio

[crille haag]

Hello.

I filmed two commercials this year, for the same company and with the same setup. A completely blue studio with people and products interacting in it. It is not a bluescreen studio, it´s more of a babyblue color to it.

The problem I´ve had both of the times is that the pictures become so grainy. I´m shooting on 16mm film and exposing it correctly. The first time I used Fuji 125T and the other time Eterna 500T. But the problem was there both of the times. We had to use noisereduction in the telecine to get rid of the worst grains wich made the picture look smeared and out of focus.

 

I´ve heard from different sources that the blue channel is the most "grainy". especially with 16mm. Thas anyone know about this? I´m doing the same kind of shoot in a couple of month and I don´t want it to happen again.

 

 

Thanks!

 

Christian Haag

[David Mullen ASC]

Try a daylight-balanced film stock and HMI lighting -- the blue layer is slower & less grainy in a daylight stock.

[crille haag]

Try a daylight-balanced film stock and HMI lighting -- the blue layer is slower & less grainy in a daylight stock.

 

Thank you david! I will try that the next time. The only problem is that we are shooting it in a tv-studio (due to budget issues) with tungsten lights already rigged in the roof. I will try to see if I can correct the lights with CTB and use daylight film. Otherwise I´ll try to convince them to change to hmi.

Thanks again

Christian Haag

[Stephen Williams]

Hello.

I filmed two commercials this year, for the same company and with the same setup. A completely blue studio with people and products interacting in it. It is not a bluescreen studio, it´s more of a babyblue color to it.

The problem I´ve had both of the times is that the pictures become so grainy. I´m shooting on 16mm film and exposing it correctly. The first time I used Fuji 125T and the other time Eterna 500T. But the problem was there both of the times. We had to use noisereduction in the telecine to get rid of the worst grains wich made the picture look smeared and out of focus.

 

I´ve heard from different sources that the blue channel is the most "grainy". especially with 16mm. Thas anyone know about this? I´m doing the same kind of shoot in a couple of month and I don´t want it to happen again.

Thanks!

 

Christian Haag

 

Hi,

 

Probably not a big help to you, but avoid 16mm for blue/green screen work if you can, and use the slowest speed daylight stock, overexpose by 2/3 stop and use a Spirit telecine,

 

Stephen

[crille haag]

Hi,

 

Probably not a big help to you, but avoid 16mm for blue/green screen work if you can, and use the slowest speed daylight stock, overexpose by 2/3 stop and use a Spirit telecine,

 

Stephen

 

It´s actually not a blue screen. The style of the films is to keep all the blue in the background. But I will try the daylight film and overexposure. We´re using spirit telecine.

Thanks!

[David Mullen ASC]

It´s actually not a blue screen. The style of the films is to keep all the blue in the background. But I will try the daylight film and overexposure. We´re using spirit telecine.

Thanks!

 

Just don't use Fuji F-500D -- it's too grainy, especially in 16mm. Try the new Fuji Eterna 250D or Kodak 7205 Vision-2 250D, overexposed, or if you have the light level, Kodak 7201 50D.

[Frank Barrera]

Crille

 

Did you find that the grain was less apparent with longer lenses? I shot some 16mm Kodak 200T recently and felt like the 10MM stuff appeared to have way too much grain. The longer lens stuff looked much tighter.

 

F

[crille haag]

Crille

 

Did you find that the grain was less apparent with longer lenses? I shot some 16mm Kodak 200T recently and felt like the 10MM stuff appeared to have way too much grain. The longer lens stuff looked much tighter.

 

F

 

Actually, yes! Last time we shot some setups with a 50mm lens wich looked great. But all the wide lenses are grainy. And this time we only used the wider ones wich resulted in the grain..... hmm strange. Does someone have a good answer to that?

 

I was thinking the other day that next time I might use a slow daylight stock but correct it with a blue filter on the camera . Is that completely stupid? We have plenty of lights in the roof (f11 on a 500T stock!) and since they might not want to change location and lights I was thinking about that solution. Or would it be better to correct all the lights (wich is a pretty big job for one tv-studio electrician he he)

Thanks a bunch for all the input!

Crille

[Mike Panczenko]

Well, the filter you would use for the tungsten lighting on daylight balance film setup would be the 80A, and it cuts down 2 stops. So using that and the 250D, you'd be losing 3 stops. But if you're getting a T11 with 500 speed film, it might be worth it to stick with the tungsten lighting setup and correct on the camera, since you seem to have enough light to afford the loss.

[Frank Barrera]

"Actually, yes! Last time we shot some setups with a 50mm lens wich looked great. But all the wide lenses are grainy. And this time we only used the wider ones wich resulted in the grain..... hmm strange. Does someone have a good answer to that?"

 

Well I asked this question over here a couple of weeks ago.

 

The consensus is that its a perception thing controlled by what's in and out of focus in the composition: the larger the dof = more apparent grain; hence wider lens = "more" grain. I think another factor may be that our eyes are increasingly getting used to seeing the "grainless" images of HD all over the TV etc that we are looking for something cleaner when we shoot 16. But the truth is that 16 aint so clean to begin with.

f

[Tenolian Bell]

Actually, yes! Last time we shot some setups with a 50mm lens wich looked great. But all the wide lenses are grainy. And this time we only used the wider ones wich resulted in the grain..... hmm strange. Does someone have a good answer to that?

 

What brand and type of lens are you shooting with? That makes a huge difference.

 

 

I think another factor may be that our eyes are increasingly getting used to seeing the "grainless" images of HD all over the TV etc that we are looking for something cleaner when we shoot 16. But the truth is that 16 aint so clean to begin with.

 

I agree. This can depend on your definition of grainy.

 

Seeing any grain vs seeing no discernible grain?

 

You are pretty much always going to see some grain in 16mm. Rarely will you have a completely grainless image in 16mm.

[K Borowski]

Want no grain in 16mm? Shoot Vision2 50D. . . I'd say that the 500T stock in 16 is lower-res than an HD image is, so avoid it unless you're shooting at night when grain is minimized anyway. Avoid it like the plague in a gray room too ;-)

[Tenolian Bell]

I'd say that the 500T stock in 16 is lower-res than an HD image is, so avoid it unless you're shooting at night when grain is minimized anyway.

 

I wouldn't go quite that far. The amount of grain you will get depends on many factors.

 

In general I would say the less light you use you need to make up in a faster sharper lens.

If using older lenses you need more light and and a higher F-stop.

 

 

example2.tiff

 

 

example1.tiff

 

This film I shot with 7279 on Zeiss Ultraprimes wide open.

The only light are the practicals you see in frame.