Matt Irwin Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 I'm shooting an action short soon on super35, finishing to D5 (for now). It's all day exteriors in an alpine setting-- under tree cover, as well as on top of a barron hill with snow all around. This will most likely be in sunny/ cloudless weather. The director and I are looking for a hi-con, cold look overall and he really wants red to pop in a few scenes (blood on snow). I'm trying to do as much of this on the negative as I can prior to telecine because there is a possibility of a photochemical release print down the road. I'm planning on testing Vivid 160 at the location or similar setting with an 85, 81EF, and no correction filter. What I'd like to get an idea of prior to testing is how much latitude to expect from this stock-- how many stops over and under key can I expect to hold full detail, and where does information burn out or disappear into shadow? I've got action in front of trees/foliage, as well as wide landscapes and talent haloed with sunlight. Any considerations for shooting this hi-con stock in snow? Any other quirks or unique characteristics to V160? I'm used to shooting lower contrast films like Eterna 250 & 400, and Kodak '18. Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Murphy Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Matt, I've used the 160 Vivid quite a bit recently but always pushed it for extra contrast and saturation. For my taste it got a little too contrasty with a one stop push but the saturation was beautiful. Personally i might use a light low con the next time i push it. Although it is higher in contrast and saturation then most other negative stocks it isn't as contrasty/saturated as a reversal film so you wont need to worry about loosing detail in your whites too quickly. Hope this helps, S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Irwin Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 Matt, I've used the 160 Vivid quite a bit recently but always pushed it for extra contrast and saturation. For my taste it got a little too contrasty with a one stop push but the saturation was beautiful. Personally i might use a light low con the next time i push it. Although it is higher in contrast and saturation then most other negative stocks it isn't as contrasty/saturated as a reversal film so you wont need to worry about loosing detail in your whites too quickly. Hope this helps, S Thanks Stephen, good info. I'll try a short load with a low con and push when we test. You think a #1 or 1/2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted February 8, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted February 8, 2008 An idea I've always wanted to try was to shoot tungsten-balanced stock outdoors uncorrected for a cool look, but use a Color Enhancer filter to make the reds saturated. This may be a chance to test out that trick... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalton Swift Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 An idea I've always wanted to try was to shoot tungsten-balanced stock outdoors uncorrected for a cool look, but use a Color Enhancer filter to make the reds saturated. This may be a chance to test out that trick... How exactly does that give a "cool" look? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Irwin Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 An idea I've always wanted to try was to shoot tungsten-balanced stock outdoors uncorrected for a cool look, but use a Color Enhancer filter to make the reds saturated. This may be a chance to test out that trick... Good idea! That could actually work very well for this project... If I try it, I'll scan and post the results. How exactly does that give a "cool" look? Shooting tungsten-balanced film in daylight without an 85 (or other) correction filter will result in an overall blue cast to the image (aka "cool") because daylight is blue (5600K or more) when compared to warmer tungsten light (3200K). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Murphy Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Thanks Stephen, good info.I'll try a short load with a low con and push when we test. You think a #1 or 1/2? Test a 1/2 and see what you think - I'd love to see the results myself:) Or you could flash, or just use a bit more fill. Please do let us all know how you got on. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Miles Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Mr. Murphy, I realize that this thread is a few years old, but do you have any links to the Vivid 160 pushed a stop that you could post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Murphy Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Mr. Murphy, I realize that this thread is a few years old, but do you have any links to the Vivid 160 pushed a stop that you could post? Hi Larry - you can look at to give you an idea. The online version doesn't really do it justice but its a useful starting point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Hi Larry - you can look at to give you an idea. The online version doesn't really do it justice but its a useful starting point. stephen, how did you shoot the flames during the title sequence at the beginning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now