Current Stocks/rich blacks/lush night

[edward read]

Hello all,

 

So its been a while since I've shot film - the prevalence of the variacam blah blah - and the last time that I knew the look of stocks and could choose them from memory was when 5277 and 5279 were the primary working stocks. I think 87 was just coming in and people were liking its low con properties. I'm reading here that 5218 is being shot a lot and wondering how people would contrast (pun) this to the older stocks.

 

I'm online to shoot a short in either super 35 or 'scope (for 2:35). Its a psych. thriller set in and around a mansion with lots of int. and ext. night. I'm looking for rich blacks, and a warm, soft keys from just behind the 180 (to increase the ratio)

 

Thanks for your input.

Edited June 13, 2007 by edward read

[David Mullen ASC]

Is this for print or for video transfer only?

 

Overexposing the negative and then printing on a higher-contrast stock like Vision Premier will give you rich blacks and colors.

[edward read]

Is this for print or for video transfer only?

 

Overexposing the negative and then printing on a higher-contrast stock like Vision Premier will give you rich blacks and colors.

 

Thanks for the reply David, I was hoping to hear from you.

 

This will be a graduate film student's thesis so I'm pretty sure we'll go to print.

 

I usually overexpose the trad. 1/3 but I've rarely been able to pick my print stock. Any suggestions? I'm hoping to take it to Technicolor here, in NY. I've seen some amazing work from them in the past.

 

Do you like the 18? I'll be doing a small test of course but...I'm curious on your take.

[David Mullen ASC]

If this is a student thesis film, how will you convert Super-35 to 4-perf 35mm anamorphic for making prints? An optical printer blow-up or a D.I.? It may be simpler to just shoot with anamorphic lenses, at least, in terms of post.

 

Kodak 5218 is the industry workhorse stock and works great. I usually rate all stocks 2/3's of a stop over, but conversely, I also underexpose night work but using this slower rating as a base (so I'm not underexposing as much as I think I am.) For example, a moonlit scene may be underexposed by two stops, but since I'm rating the stock 2/3's of a stop slower than normal, the actual negative is only 1 1/3 of a stop underexposed.

 

If you're printing 35mm, it shouldn't be a problem to request that the print be made on Kodak 2393 (Premier) rather than 2383 (regular Vision.) You'll pay slightly more, that's all.

[Arvin Farahmand]

Hi David,

 

I have a small question about overexposing 2/3 (i.e. rating the stock slower than it is). Do you overexpose and then pull the same amount on neg development or do you overexpose and just print it down (time it down) by 2/3 when getting your positive prints?

 

I've always gone the printing down route myself, but I had a discussion with a DP who said he prefers to just pull it by 2/3 during when getting his neg developed. To me that almost defeats the purpose because the whole point is to get more silver halide activation and a denser neg. Granted once the halides are activated they would release more color dyes at the same time, by pulling should inhibit some of that richness -- correct?

[edward read]

If this is a student thesis film, how will you convert Super-35 to 4-perf 35mm anamorphic for making prints? An optical printer blow-up or a D.I.? It may be simpler to just shoot with anamorphic lenses, at least, in terms of post.

 

For this aspect ratio I would think the spherical lenses and lower shooting stop, combined with an optical blowup are what the budget will maintain. That said I think the director is thinking anamorphic. I would love to shoot anamorphic but truthfully I never have and I'm concerned that the higher shooting stop will need more of everything - crew, equipment ect. - to do well.

 

I am very much in your camp regarding overexposure. I however wouldn't pull a stop in developing, as the below poster discusses, I would think that is self defeating. You would have much more experience about the legitamacy of the comment regarding desaturating colors by thinning the negative with underdevelopement; it is something I havn't run into.

[David Mullen ASC]

Hi David,

 

I have a small question about overexposing 2/3 (i.e. rating the stock slower than it is). Do you overexpose and then pull the same amount on neg development or do you overexpose and just print it down (time it down) by 2/3 when getting your positive prints?

 

I've always gone the printing down route myself, but I had a discussion with a DP who said he prefers to just pull it by 2/3 during when getting his neg developed. To me that almost defeats the purpose because the whole point is to get more silver halide activation and a denser neg. Granted once the halides are activated they would release more color dyes at the same time, by pulling should inhibit some of that richness -- correct?

 

It's just a different look -- you still get the benefits of grain reduction from the overexposure, but you don't get the deeper blacks from printing down a denser negative, plus you get lower contrast and more pastel colors from pull-processing.

 

I usually just develop normally and bring the image down to normal in print timing or video color-correction, etc.