What is the secret of Film

Blade · October 7, 2004

Hello,

I have been shooting an indie on 16mm film, this is not the first time I have shot on film but this is the first time I have been involved in the entire process of shooting, getting the beta transfer back from the lab, and post production.

I told the lab to develop the film at Best light, they transferred it to beta and I am not exactly blow away with the footage. Some of the shots are very nice, sharp and clear but a lot of the footage looks grainy low contrast, especially in the blacks.

My questions is how do you get that great clear, sharp, and vibrant look I see from other films shot on 16mm, is their a secret or additional steps I am missing?

Thanks,

Tom

steadicam1138 at hotmail.com

J Costantini · October 7, 2004

I guess `density´ is the key. But how to get it right?

Why do some shots work and other don´t?

Try to see if there´s any similarity between the "grainy shots" in terms of lighting or exposure. Try to remember what aperture you used.

What about the footcandles?

Where did you place what appears to be grainier on the so called "straight line portion" of the characteristic curve?

Why do some shots are crispy but others appear grainy?

Good question, I would like to get some info too.

David Mullen ASC · October 7, 2004

Unless you actually supervise the telecine transfer, you don't really know what your footage looks like or can look like.

But higher-contrast photography generally helps 16mm look snappier with better sharpness and less obvious grain (i.e. the graininess is still there but is less visible if you avoid having large flat areas of midtones.)

Nate Downes · October 7, 2004

which film stocks? what exposure settings? Which lenses? How were they lit?

Patrick Neary · October 7, 2004

Hi-

You need to talk with your colorist and lab about the negative, or better go see for yourself if possible. it sounds like maybe your neg is a little thin, but you can't tell just from an unsupervised transfer.

A little extra exposure never hurts with 16!

Let us know what you find out-

Mark Sasahara · October 7, 2004

Exposure meter -properly calibrated and accurate?

Exposure?

Was the lens properly set? Some zoom lenses have a variable max aperture, that is reduced at the tele end.

Filters? Were they compensated for?

Sometimes a half, to a full stop of over exposure is helpful. You can always print down a beefy neg. Over exposure helps reduce grain a bit and helps color saturation.

What stocks did you use? In 16mm try and use the finest grain films you can get a way with.

How was the film processed? Normal? Push?

Was the transfer supervised? Although more expensive, it is always worth it to supervise the transfer, otherwise you are at the mercy of the lab.

Sorry if I'm sounding pedantic, but there are a lot of factors that go into the "right" exposure and a lot of things that can go wrong. It does sound like you may have under exposed some parts, but you should look at the negs, if you've got them and see what they look like. Go to the lab and talk with them, maybe they can load up the film and go over it with you.

Keep us posted.

J Costantini · October 8, 2004

is it always better to OVERexpose in 16mm?

Is it easier to bring it down later?

Where does the negative tend to show more grain? Highlights or lows?

What is the best thing to do when you want to crush the blacks (good blacks)?

thanks

Dominic Case · October 8, 2004

is it always better to OVERexpose in 16mm?

The simplest general answer is YES. Especially if you are going for a blow-up to 35mm. Less so if you are finishing only for video. The main thing is to avoid underexposure - so adding 1/2 to 2/3 stop is always safe.

Where does the negative tend to show more grain? Highlights or lows?

In the shadows. The biggest grains in the emulsion are the ones that are exposed with least light. So, more exposure adds a few smaller grains to the shadow area - and ensures that you have enough density in the negative to print or transfer with good black shadows.

What is the best thing to do when you want to crush the blacks (good blacks)?

Overexpose and print down (see above).

Adam Frisch FSF · October 8, 2004

Like David and the guys say: an unsupervised telecine - best light, one light, whatever they want to call it - ALWAYS look like poop. And it does so because the goal is evenness, not a look. Just like the holiday snapshots you get from the lab - they also always look crap because they get evened out by a bored technician.

J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR · October 8, 2004

When I go in the telecine suite, the colorist usually just jumps right in to the work. I like to spend a bit looking at the 'base' image and also frequently look at it for comparison during the session.

Phil Rhodes · October 8, 2004

Hi,

That's actually something that I've heard many colourists complain about - people asking "what does it REALLY look like?" It's almost a meaningless question because what it "really" looks like depends on what the colourist did to get the image to a reasonably normalised state before you started correcting, which can itself involve large corrections. There is no "real" image - it's just a case of where you can go with it.

Phil

Filip Plesha · October 8, 2004

Well, in case of negative film, the "real" image would be how would it look

like when printed on print film without any color corrections.

Sam Wells · October 8, 2004

"Well, in case of negative film, the "real" image would be how would it look

like when printed on print film without any color corrections. "

Interesting question. I did an extensive telecine session yesterday, some was from negative previously workprinted. some was from neg I was seeing for the first time, well I shot it but..

With the previously printed (best lighted, and nicely altho not "definitive") I tend to go toward what the look of the print was, but not always -- sometimes I went in a different direction, couple times in a way different direction.

Or as I said to the colorist, we've got a million dollar Hazeltine here :)

(I'm gonna come back here and erase that smile when I get my next bank statement)

With the new stuff it was interesting, what IS the negative really ?

If finish this film optically, it's one thing.

If it's a DI ? It's whatever we say it is I guess.

Sometimes I miss the existential clarity of shooting B&W reversal <_<

-Sam

Blade · October 8, 2004

Hello,

I have been shooting an indie on 16mm film, this is not the first time I have shot on film but this is the first time I have been involved in the entire process of shooting, getting the beta transfer back from the lab, and post production.

I told the lab to develop the film at Best light, they transferred it to beta and I am not exactly blow away with the footage. Some of the shots are very nice, sharp and clear but a lot of the footage looks grainy low contrast, especially in the blacks.

My questions is how do you get that great clear, sharp, and vibrant look I see from other films shot on 16mm, is their a secret or additional steps I am missing?

Thanks,

Tom

steadicam1138 at hotmail.com

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What is the professional process then when dealing with film?

- You have your camera original negative which you send to the lab.

- Then you get a best light beta transfer to work with for editing.

- when you done editing you EDL list and get a Poitive negative made.

- Color correct each shot at the lab.

- the color corrected Positive Negative is transfered to beta.

Am I even close to a professional process?

Tom

J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR · October 8, 2004

Hi,

That's actually something that I've heard many colourists complain about - people asking "what does it REALLY look like?" It's almost a meaningless question because what it "really" looks like depends on what the colourist did to get the image to a reasonably normalised state before you started correcting, which can itself involve large corrections. There is no "real" image - it's just a case of where you can go with it.

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly Phil, some do get a bit upset but I find it to be incredibly useful. I'm not foolish enough to ask what it "really' looks like, it helps me to see it because of my years of experience printing color stills negative. I only want to look at the overall densities and tonality of it and confirm they are what I was looking for. The "real" image is the one in my head.

The base image is supposed to be the one coming from the telecine with no CC or just the CC used to correct the TK output. It does have a standard '0' point to work from. I can't say I've taken the exact same piece of negative around to a bunch of machines for comparison. Maybe they vary, I have seen the same footage on and URSA Y-front and then a Spirit (operated by the same company) and the 'base' looked the same to my eye.