Chequing exposure with Digital Camera

herminio cordido · January 5, 2007

Hi guys

I am in film school now and we have been picked for the final term project to be film on 35 mm and i am the D.O.P

I was wondering if anyone has made experiments cheching exposure with a digital camera.

I have a Canon Rebel, and we are going to be using T200 Film.

I know the latitude is wider on film, but do you think is possible to "see" basic contrast and exposure using the Rebel on 200 ASA? or should i get a polaroid with 200 ASA?

Thanks in advance

H

Chance Shirley · January 5, 2007

I've done a couple of tests with VISION2 200T and my wife's Nikon DSLR. The DSLR tends to be more contrasty, but I felt the digital stills definitely gave me a ballpark idea of how the 200T would come out.

Jonathan Bowerbank · January 5, 2007

I was wondering if anyone has made experiments cheching exposure with a digital camera.

I've only used an SLR camera as a reflective light meter by setting the shutter speed to 1/48 and setting the ISO to match...it was ALMOST accurate. The good thing is I didn't rely on it and went by my reflective readings.

Get a light meter :)

James McBee · January 5, 2007

I wouldn't rely on it too much. Most of the major DSLR makers tweak their ISO settings. They're not really the same as with film, or with other digital cameras for that matter.

K Borowski · January 5, 2007

Use Polaroids if you want a good idea. Kubrick, on 2001, figured out a way to get the colors to the right degree of saturation using B&W Polaroid, you should have no trouble doing it with color. You could probably rent a Mamiya RB with a lens and Polaroid back for around $50 a day. Even better, find someone in your school's still photography, befriend them, and ask them to do the tests for you as a favor.

Regards,

~Karl Borowski

Robert Hughes · January 5, 2007

I've just bought a 50's era 4x5" press camera (Busch Pressman D) and a Polaroid back. This should not only provide me with almost instant exposure check, but will double as a dynamite publicity photo camera. All for less than a consumer digital still camera.

K Borowski · January 5, 2007

Hey Rob, a 4x5 is a good choice, as most Polaroids don't fit exactly below the 4x5 inch size. I'd recommend doing some tests and checking for bellows cracking and missing felt around the latches that connect the back to the body, and then you're good to go. Also, keep in mind professional Polaroids are time and temperature dependant, nothing too critical, but definitely something to keep in mind by checking the temperature for the time of day it is and keeping an eye on a watch when timing development.

It's too bad Polaroids really aren't compatible with movie cameras themselves. I do recall they made an instant movie film once, but it was a flop.

Regards,

~Karl

Charles MacDonald · January 6, 2007

It's too bad Polaroids really aren't compatible with movie cameras themselves. I do recall they made an instant movie film once, but it was a flop.

My uderstanding is the Poloroad movie film was a close cousin of "original" Kodacolour and so did not have great resoultion or brightness due to having to deal with the lenticular filter. In the polaroid case the filter was right on the film.

K Borowski · January 6, 2007

My uderstanding is the Poloroad movie film was a close cousin of "original" Kodacolour and so did not have great resoultion or brightness due to having to deal with the lenticular filter. In the polaroid case the filter was right on the film.

Charles, yes, I recall something similar (keeping in mind this film is completely before my time), that it had a very low ASA due to the filtration you describe, and it also had to be projected through a special, super-bright Polaroid "tape player", as the Polaroid company insisted it be called "tape" because it needed no chemical lab processing.

~Karl

Leo Anthony Vale · January 6, 2007

Charles, yes, I recall something similar (keeping in mind this film is completely before my time), that it had a very low ASA due to the filtration you describe, and it also had to be projected through a special, super-bright Polaroid "tape player", as the Polaroid company insisted it be called "tape" because it needed no chemical lab processing.

It had the saome EI as KodachromeII. But since it was a B/W stock, it was a fast one, thus grainy.

I don't think it was lenticular, but straight color filters like Dufaychrome or Autochrome instead.

Lenticular needs a filter n the projector.

Edited January 6, 2007 by Leo Anthony Vale

Mark Dunn · January 6, 2007

Polavision suffered from being strikingly expensive- two or three times the price of Super-8, IIRC- and being uneditable and unprojectable, despite having Super-8 dimensions. The film had to stay in the cartridge so it could be back-projected in the special viewer. It was much too dense to project and never had a chance against the beginnings of home video.

A high-speed Polavision camera, with b/w film, had a slightly longer life as an on- set check for slow-motion 16 or 35mm. It featured in Samuelson's catalogue until the late 80's.