Lars Zemskih Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 I'm about to DP a film on Double X outside with natural light. Are there any specific things to concider with the stock? I've done tests and it seems to be coming a somewhat too grainy when backlit for example. The film needs to be shot at 2.8, so I will be NDing down quite a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Auner aac Posted February 29, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted February 29, 2008 Are there any specific things to concider with the stock? I've done tests and it seems to be coming a somewhat too grainy when backlit for example. The film needs to be shot at 2.8, so I will be NDing down quite a bit. Maybe you could pull it? That should lower your ISO and reduce grain too. Cheers, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Double X always looked pretty flat to me pull processed. -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 I'm about to DP a film on Double X outside with natural light. Are there any specific things to concider with the stock? I've done tests and it seems to be coming a somewhat too grainy when backlit for example. The film needs to be shot at 2.8, so I will be NDing down quite a bit. If you have the choice you would be far better to shoot plus-x in your situation. Plus-x is a really beautiful stock and will work very nicely outdoors. Double-X is a much more difficult stock to work with. Some people suggest you should even embrace the grain and push the stock (increasing the grain!) to get a nicer image. Occasionally I've seen people produce really beautiful stuff with double x but it appears to be a bit of a challenge. This is of course why it's often possible to pick up double-x cheaply. :) Good luck with your project and I'd love to see your results when finished! love Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Sponsor Robert Houllahan Posted February 29, 2008 Site Sponsor Share Posted February 29, 2008 Double X always looked pretty flat to me pull processed. -Sam I would try to over expose it a half or so i find it looks better with a bit more light on it, did you consider 7231 pushed 1? -Rob- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Zemskih Posted March 1, 2008 Author Share Posted March 1, 2008 If you have the choice you would be far better to shoot plus-x in your situation. Plus-x is a really beautiful stock and will work very nicely outdoors. Double-X is a much more difficult stock to work with. Some people suggest you should even embrace the grain and push the stock (increasing the grain!) to get a nicer image. Occasionally I've seen people produce really beautiful stuff with double x but it appears to be a bit of a challenge. This is of course why it's often possible to pick up double-x cheaply. :) Good luck with your project and I'd love to see your results when finished! love Freya Well plus-x is a slow stock, so I'm just worried about loosing light very fast especially this time of year in London, we don't have lights in most of the locations and we chose the ones with shadows mostly to keep better light continuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Well plus-x is a slow stock, so I'm just worried about loosing light very fast especially this time of year in London, we don't have lights in most of the locations and we chose the ones with shadows mostly to keep better light continuity. If you push it a stop it will probably still be less grainy than double-x and it will be possible to avoid the N.D's to boot I bet, although obviously when it starts getting dark this time of year it gets dark really quick. If you can, I would still consider plus-x. :) It's also an incredibly beautiful stock whereas double-x, is a stock where you can work to get beautiful images. love Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 All that said, the B&W sequences in this film were shot in S16 on Double-X, some exceptional work here by Raoul Germain: http://homepage.mac.com/mrraoul/films/ton.mov (I believe this was a 2K scan) -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Otaviano Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 ...the B&W sequences in this film were shot in S16 on Double-X, some exceptional work here by Raoul Germain Very beautiful indeed. 7222 at its best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 All that said, the B&W sequences in this film were shot in S16 on Double-X, some exceptional work here by Raoul Germain: http://homepage.mac.com/mrraoul/films/ton.mov (I believe this was a 2K scan) -Sam I like this but would love to know what the colour stocks were? Nice locations too! :) love Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Dubrovskiy Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Amazing '99 Problems' Jay-Z video (dir. Mark Romanek, dp. Joaquin Baca-Asay) was shot on 7222. Looks beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williamson Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 "99 Problems" was shot on 5222, and yes, it's very beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 "99 Problems" was shot on 5222, and yes, it's very beautiful. Dubious lyrically in places tho! ;) You can see it for your self here, not that I want to promote this nonsense! Looks like he is making good use of filters to get the contrast up, probably been tweaked in post too but this is quite nice looking considering. Also facinated that it looks like it was shot with a mos camera or async as the lip sync is completely out but he cuts so fast in the hope you won't notice. I actually sort of like that effect tho. love Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Williamson Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 I'd disagree about it being dubious lyrically, but that's a personal opinion. One of my theories on music videos has been that they're more important than people realize because they're one of the few places where black artists (as producers and actors if not always as directors, DP's, etc.) get to create their own moving images for a large audience. I think there's a noticeable lack of narrative films where the black community gets to deal with their own issues on screen, and part of the function that rap/R&B/hip-hop videos serve is to fill that void. So whether or not you agree with these images or values, or believe that they're representative of an entire community which I don't think they are, they're important simply for putting self-constructed images out on a broad scale. As far as the video itself, I think it was shot with an Arri 435, there used to be some stills on the previous version of Mark Romanek's website that had a picture of Baca-Asay operating the camera and it looked 435-ish. I traded a few quick emails with Romanek about the video, he said they used Double-X and a lot of filtration on the camera. He felt that it was important to use real B&W stock to get the texture and grain structure he wanted, rather than desaturating color stock in telecine. As far as lip sync, I never noticed it being off watching the DVD but I wasn't looking for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Dubrovskiy Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 "99 Problems" was shot on 5222, and yes, it's very beautiful. 5222, indeed ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Dubrovskiy Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Dubious lyrically in places tho! ;)You can see it for your self here, not that I want to promote this nonsense! I hate this version. (Nothing against you, Freya, just MTV ;) ) www.markromanek.com has the director's cut of this video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 I'd disagree about it being dubious lyrically, Well I did say in places, and probably the more obvious ones. I do like his exchange with the police man and a few other people and I think he is quite talented in his performance too. (I love the way he does fast forward and a few other things). He is obviously really talented lyrically and to me comes off as preety intelligent too which makes me sad about all his problems, both the ones that he lists and the ones that he has but perhaps doesn't realise so much. In a lot of ways it's actually a lot more intresting than many rap videos, especially the ones with swimming pools and bouncy cars. I love the little girl who reminds me of the girl out of ghost dog, she is very cool. I didn't know about the uncensored version at first and it's actually really intresting to watch both and to see what has been removed. It seems a black man aiming a gun is really bad, whereas a black man being shot to pieces is totally okay. Shots of almost naked men is really bad, whereas shots of women in tiny bikinis shaking it all over is totally okay. Unless it's a close up of breasts for some reason. Breasts are really bad you see. Dog fighting is also totally acceptable. This stuff says a lot about the society where the video exists. I wonder if it was a white man in a suit aiming a rifle on a stand, if it would be totally okay. He could then after all be a member of the security services couldn't he. ;) Anyway I might be being unfair a bit but it's worth watching both these videos and thinking about these things. love Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Will Montgomery Posted March 3, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted March 3, 2008 All that said, the B&W sequences in this film were shot in S16 on Double-X, some exceptional work here by Raoul Germain:http://homepage.mac.com/mrraoul/films/ton.mov Viscaya in Miami... what a beautiful place to shoot. I wonder what it cost him for that opportunity? On Double-X, it definitely has it's own look. I found to my amazement that I could actually push Double-X with acceptable results. Grainy, but you don't use Double-X if grain is a concern. Weren'tt the early black & white shots from the last James Bond movie shot on Double-X? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Burke Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Weren'tt the early black & white shots from the last James Bond movie shot on Double-X? Yes, 5222 and it looked great! I am just starting to write a werewolf script and myself and the others involved all agree that we will shoot it black and white. Probably both '31 and '22. 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