Which film stock is normally used for dailies?

[Alex Lindblom]

I went through some old stuff today and stumbled on a piece of an old work print of mine.

 

And that raised the question...

 

 

What stock does labs normally use for dailies -- is it 2395 / 3395 or is it something else?

 

When you cheek there home pages, they list prices and but nothing else so grateful for answer.

[Dominic Case]

Normally 2383 (35m) or 3383 (16mm) - that is on the rare occasions when labs actually get to print dailies/rushes on film.

 

2395 is the lower contrast "teleprint" stock. Using that would defeat the purpose of printing dailies, which is to allow you to check on what you've shot and what it looks like when printed.

[K Borowski]

2395 is the lower contrast "teleprint" stock. Using that would defeat the purpose of printing dailies, which is to allow you to check on what you've shot and what it looks like when printed.

 

Speaking or rarities these days, do you ever run into instances where 2395 is used anymore? Aren't most shows scanned off of the OCN during DI these days and then downconverted for TV?

 

That being said, I prefer the little bit of extra grit to transfered prints on old shows like Murder She Wrote than negative scans. It'd be interesting to see if they still have the same appeal when transferred to high defiinition.

[Alex Lindblom]

Thanks for the Info Dominic.

 

Just one follow up question does anybody know what the price for print stock is?

 

Why did Kodak drop there online price list, they used to have one a couple of years ago if I remember right.

 

I know you can call them, but after all this is 2008.

 

They should at least have a list price on there site, this goes for Fuji as well.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Alex Lindblom

[David Mullen ASC]

Probably because print stock is sold in large volumes under various deals, so the price can be somewhat negotiable...

 

I just recall someone at Kodak telling me that Premier was 10% more than regular Vision.

[James Steven Beverly]

Probably because print stock is sold in large volumes under various deals, so the price can be somewhat negotiable...

 

I just recall someone at Kodak telling me that Premier was 10% more than regular Vision.

 

Shouldn't you have to buy considerably less stock though as you are only printing usable takes?

[David Mullen ASC]

Shouldn't you have to buy considerably less stock though as you are only printing usable takes?

 

You don't buy the print stock, the lab buys it -- and they buy in large quantities thanks to release prints, which use the same stocks as dailies. Film dailies have almost disappeared as a regular thing. A filmmaker generally buys the negative stock, not the intermediate and print stocks. Of course, they pay for them when the lab uses the stocks.

[James Steven Beverly]

Well, you don't buy it unless you happen to BE the lab, :D anyhoo, is there a print stock that REALLY make colors pop and a normal to somewhat high contrast quality?

[Dominic Case]

2383 is the normal print stock.

 

2393 is Vision Premiere stock - higher contrast, blacker blacks - which automatically means that saturated colours can be a little more saturated (as a red, for example, has even less green and blue getting through). But it's the rich black tones that are most noticeable rather than the colours.

 

2395 is the low contrast or teleprint stock. Designed for telecine transfer of finished shows - but nowadays everyone who hasn'[t gone through a DI would master from an IP, which gives an even better result. If you print on 2395 for projection it looks very wishywashy. Not recommended at all.

 

Agfa and Fuji both make print stock too - they have a slightly different colour rendition - hard to describe the differences in words.

 

Kodak don't publish prices on the internet for the reason that David gave - it's really only labs that need to buy print stock, and they are regular customers so they don't need to browse to get the info. They know who to call.

[James Steven Beverly]

So IF I were to shoot 5279 and print to 2393, somewhat under expose due to the limitations of my lenses and push one stop.....hummmm........that should give me a pretty unique look particularly using a lot of red light and the oranges, reds and dark blues of our dusky southwestern skies. I wonder how the desert tans and mesquite greens would look as they are kinda muted colors. How bad would grain be if I were to shoot 5279 and print 2393? Also what would happen using the same combination if we over exposed and PULLED one stop? Would that kill some of the grain but still retain the color saturation while increasing shadow detail? How much could we fiddle with printer lights to compensate for certain color estetics :unsure:

Edited February 27, 2008 by James Steven Beverly

[David Mullen ASC]

You've got your own lab so testing all of these variations should be easy...

 

Trouble is, what if you get a distributor for your film and he insists on releasing it on regular Vision 2383 but you've underexposed on the hopes that printing onto Vision Premier 2393 or Fuji XD will save the footage?

 

Shoot so that it looks good on regular print stock and then it will look even richer on Premier.

 

If you want more saturation, try pushing a little without underexposing, for more negative density.

 

Pulling softens contrast and therefore colors.

 

There's no free lunch here.

 

Faster film is grainier than slower film.

Pushing adds more grain than not pushing.

Underexposure adds grain.

 

If you want the least amount of grain, overexpose a slow-speed stock and pull-process it. If you want the most grain, underexpose a high-speed stock and push-process it.

[James Steven Beverly]

You've got your own lab so testing all of these variations should be easy...

 

Trouble is, what if you get a distributor for your film and he insists on releasing it on regular Vision 2383 but you've underexposed on the hopes that printing onto Vision Premier 2393 or Fuji XD will save the footage?

 

Shoot so that it looks good on regular print stock and then it will look even richer on Premier.

I'm gonna assume he'd insist because 2383 is cheaper.......Good advice! B)

 

If you want more saturation, try pushing a little without underexposing, for more negative density.

I thought about that but from what I understand 5279 is noticeably more grainy that 18 and a 1 stop push would add even more grain but the saturation is the higher priority aesthetic I'm trying to achieve, however an over abundance of grain would ruin the look I envisioned and with the Lomo anamorphcs having a mere 3.3 effective aperture and the very real possibility we may have to stop them down to f4 to f5.6 to get any kind of reasonable DOF , I'm in a quandary. I'm afraid we'll have to pour so much light onto the foreground that the surrounding desert will virtually disappear and negate the effect of the 'scope framing or we'll have to light the surrounding desert to the extent it if will look instead of somewhat surreal, just plain fake. I know these concerns are somewhat premature but given the low, LOW budget on this picture, I'd like to work out the problems as much as can be done mentally prior to shooting and avoid any need for any exhaustive testing if possible. I suppose I'll have to live with the elevated levels of grain if need be.

 

Pulling softens contrast and therefore colors.

 

That's what I thought BUT I was hoping with the 5279-2393 combo the results would be less dramatic

 

 

There's no free lunch here.

 

The story of my life :D

 

Faster film is grainier than slower film.

Pushing adds more grain than not pushing.

Underexposure adds grain.

 

If you want the least amount of grain, overexpose a slow-speed stock and pull-process it. If you want the most grain, underexpose a high-speed stock and push-process it.

 

You're right, you've told me and everybody else this a dozen times already in other threads but I guess I was hoping I could cheat physics or something. I imagine it's just a question of finding the right balance of light, exposure, stock and processing to get as close as I can to what I see in my head and being able to live with the compromise.....Hey I think I just defined cinematography, huh? :D

[Dominic Case]

How much could we fiddle with printer lights to compensate for certain color estetics

Fiddling with printer lights can |: make the entire shot lighter or darker; redder, greener, bluer, more yellow, more magenta or more cyan.

 

That's it.

 

You can't change saturation, or contrast. You can't change some colours without changing everything. You can't change shadows without changing midtones and highlights.

 

With a little skill you can fudge things so you think you've got more saturation, or make the reds pop, or whatever. But really, all you can do is :| (go to first par).

 

Still, if you're the grader and the client, you've only got yourself to convince ;) -oh! and the audience.

[David Mullen ASC]

Use the slowest speed film stock that is practical, rate it a little slower so that it prints at higher numbers, and use Vision Premier for more saturation in the print. That's about all you can do.

 

So if you're using 5279, rate it at 400 or 320 ASA and print onto Premier and use enough light to get enough exposure for that speed.

[James Steven Beverly]

Fiddling with printer lights can |: make the entire shot lighter or darker; redder, greener, bluer, more yellow, more magenta or more cyan.

 

That's it.

 

You can't change saturation, or contrast. You can't change some colours without changing everything. You can't change shadows without changing midtones and highlights.

 

With a little skill you can fudge things so you think you've got more saturation, or make the reds pop, or whatever. But really, all you can do is :| (go to first par).

 

Still, if you're the grader and the client, you've only got yourself to convince ;) -oh! and the audience.

 

The audience is the one I'm worried about :D But David's right, you can only do what you can do. My "plan" is to slowly raise the saturation in the red tones ( through a well thought out lighting lighting design) as the evening time frame of the film moves towards midnight so careful manipulation of the printer lights to add an subtle, overall cast of red and make the reds appear to pop more, may be a useful option.

 

That is one of the biggest advantages of of going to all the trouble of building and equipping a lab is there is no committee to deal with, as a film maker, my vision will be what makes it to the screen.....that's assuming, of course, that I don't screw up the processing, can communicate my needs to my DP....my cameraman....and everyone else working with me! :D

[Hal Smith]

This thread reminds me of the Cliff Notes' version of Three Laws of Thermodynamics:

 

You Can't Win,

 

You Can't Break Even,

 

---and---

 

You Can't Even Get Out of the Game.

 

:(

[K Borowski]

This thread reminds me of the Cliff Notes' version of Three Laws of Thermodynamics:

 

You Can't Win,

 

You Can't Break Even,

 

---and---

 

You Can't Even Get Out of the Game.

 

:(

 

On the contrary, I find that the challenge of achieving success within the rigidities of a defined system to be one of the most satisfying experiences of all.

 

The game wouldn't be as fun without rules of play. . .

 

That being said, obviously advancements that push this art of ours past its current limitations are exciting. Now why haven't we gotten a faster lens than F/0.7 since "Barry Lyndon", or a faster stock since essentially 1976 (Sure, we have 500T stocks as opposed to 400D stocks back then, but that is essentially no speed gain at all; 1/3 of a stop is practically nothing. Grain has gotten finer, but there is no 1000, 2000, 4000 speed stock, and there should be. Kodachrome 25 had higher sharpness than EXR 50D or even Vision 2 50D, stocks that are almost two generations removed from K25. Digital cameras offer little to no improvement in the actual color and clarity available to filmmakers. Where has the true technical innovation gone? We have replaced our ambition for technical improvement with ambition for ease of use. Now, if you really want to complain about "limitations in the game", you need to spend time with people that still hand-coat glass plates, or make Daguerrotypes, or shoot wet plates. I would love to see a modern videographer who can't even be bothered now with changing tapes or swapping SD cards try to coat, shoot, expose, and process a glass plate in the field before it dries and becomes useless, carrying a 200 lb camera and 500 lb darkroom around with him through a mountainous wilderness. Just trying to put things into perspective ;) )?

 

~KB