cinema stock grain vs still photography

[Laurent Andrieux]

I know a 35 mm cinema image is only 16/22 while a still photography is 24/36, but that doesn't explain it all...

 

I've made paper prints from cinema stock negatives sometimes ago and was quite astonished by the graininess compared to a "standard" still 24/36 photo printed neg...

 

But I'm even more thinking of something else :

 

When you project in a lab, you have the ability of slowering down the projection speed (it's usually fastening that is used for color timing). If you slow down enough so that it looks like slides that are projected (that you can't do too long if you don't wanna take the risk of burning the positive) you suddenly see the grain upcoming very strongly. it's really amazing.

 

My first question is : do you advised people think or know that it's our brains or just even our eyes that sort of cut off the grain (considered as a random effect) and gives sharpness to the 24 fps projected image ?

 

second : do stock manufacturers take this in account and then actually give more graininess to cinema stock compared to still photo ?

 

third : considering things like grain, definition, circle of confusion etc... on the basis of an image itself without consideration to the actual rendering at 24 fps is then meanfull or just useless ?

 

David ? John ?

Edited November 15, 2004 by laurent.a

[Filip Plesha]

I've had very little contact with MP film, but I've seen 2K and 4K scans, and

they are no different in graininess from typical still image scans.

In fact the grain of 5245 in the examples I have seen is finer than most still negative films I have seen and used.

 

What was the film stock you have used for making those paper prints?

[David Mullen ASC]

They don't deliberately make the color negative movie films grainier than the still market films. Remember, you're talking about a half-frame format for movies compared to stills, and that's enlarged greatly for projection.

 

You can't really separate the eye from the brain, it's sort of a combined response. Due to persistence of vision (I know there is some controversy over this old theory) our eye/brain sort of averages frames together so we mentally combine the grain of surrounding frames, and since grain is random, it sort of fills in the gaps and makes the image seem finer-grained. Movies shot and projected at 60 fps like Showscan did look practically grainless (didn't hurt that Showscan used 65mm though...)

[John Pytlak RIP]

One thing to remember is that tungsten balance films require more speed (larger grains) in the blue sensitive layer, so they may seem a bit grainier than the equivalent daylight-balance still film. Other than that, if the film is the latest technology (e.g., Kodak VISION2 technology), you are getting a "state-of-the-art" film that uses the best technology of what is used in any film for that speed class, still or motion-picture.

[Laurent Andrieux]

Thanks for your replies, I'll keep going on this conversation later on, too tired tonight, shooting the 2 next days...

 

Thanks again, sounds interesting, see you soon

[Brad Grimmett]

John,

Has Kodak ever considered releasing any of their motion picture films loaded as still film? I know there are places that do this, but I'm curious if Kodak has ever considered doing it themselves. Maybe it wouldn't make sense because of the difference in how it's processed?

[Filip Plesha]

I allso have a question for John...

 

Is Kodak considering to use their vision2 technology on any new still negative films? Or perhapse the new UC films use it? (allthough I haven't notice any improvement in grain in those films)

[John Pytlak RIP]

Kodak does not normally spool its motion picture stocks into 35mm still film cassettes, except perhaps as occasional test samples. Definitely must be processed in the ECN-2 process that includes rem-jet removal.

 

Kodak's consumer, professional, and motion picture films often share technology (e.g., T-grains, 2-electron sensitization, etc.), but it is optimized for each use, and the films are not the same formulation.

[Filip Plesha]

Yes, I ment 2-electron sensitisation specifically. Is this technology used then

in the new UC100 and UC400 films? (Portra is older, so I suspect not)

[John Pytlak RIP]

Yes, I ment 2-electron sensitisation specifically. Is this technology used then

in the new UC100 and UC400 films? (Portra is older, so I suspect not)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am not privy to the formulations used in those still films. Here is the published data:

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona....14.13.16&lc=en

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona...3.16.14.4&lc=en

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona...14.4&lc=en#desc

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acroba....13.16.12&lc=en

[Greg Gross]

Its hard to print from a movie film negative to paper, You will have

contrast problems. You can print quality prints from a slide, movie

film positive,reversal. Method is to scan slide and transfer to a pro-

cessor that will give you a wet print. In my area here in Pennsylvania

they use a Fuji processor. I'm sure Kodak has processors also that will

give you a wet print. The Fuji Frontier Processor is what they use here.

I perfer Kodak myself as they always have the right answers for me,so

I stick with them. I use a color printer(professional) and he says that the

prints made via this process are superior.

 

Greg

[Laurent Andrieux]

Filip :

 

I've had very little contact with MP film, but I've seen 2K and 4K scans, and

they are no different in graininess from typical still image scans.

In fact the grain of 5245 in the examples I have seen is finer than most still negative films I have seen and used.

 

What was the film stock you have used for making those paper prints?

 

Do you compare the grain you see beetween still images and the grain of a MP scan at typical speed (24, 30 fps) or a still photo scan and a still image scanned from a mp neg ?

 

As I noticed a big difference beetween a still image from an MP film (either slow projection and a paper (traditionnal) print from the same MP neg, I don't consider the difference of grain beetween different stocks.

 

David :

 

Remember, you're talking about a half-frame format for movies compared to stills, and that's enlarged greatly for projection.

 

You can't really separate the eye from the brain, it's sort of a combined response. Due to persistence of vision (I know there is some controversy over this old theory) our eye/brain sort of averages frames together so we mentally combine the grain of surrounding frames, and since grain is random, it sort of fills in the gaps and makes the image seem finer-grained. Movies shot and projected at 60 fps like Showscan did look practically grainless (didn't hurt that Showscan used 65mm though...)

 

I consider the difference in sizes. The phenomenom cannot be explained by this only parameter.

 

What you say about eye and brains much more convince me. It's exactly what I thought of. Do you references (articles) about that ?

 

Greg : about contrast, it's true that the printed image is also less contrast that what one would expect but the phenomenom is very low compared to the grain.

 

John :

Kodak's consumer, professional, and motion picture films often share technology (e.g., T-grains, 2-electron sensitization, etc.), but it is optimized for each use, and the films are not the same formulation.

 

Exactly. So if what I was feeling like and that David Mullen somehow confirms is correct, is it that MP stocks don't require the same fine grain as still photography and if so, is it due to the phenomenom he and I describe, that is that grain looks finer because of the 24 fps projection and that the image of a MP projected like slides look more grainy than speed projected ?

 

Sorry, I don't remember well my courses about granularity, root mean square and all that -and didn't take the time to have a look back nor on ressources you might have given here - but, are the creteria parameters etc different for MP and for still photography ?

 

If not, may be the paper print is not too good for other reasons, and the phenomenom I observed in projection is only due to the different sight we have (still projection / speed projection) and would be the same with photo stock if one would do the same experiment ?

 

I know my topic has degressed a bit... Please don't forget my former demand and be kind not to forget it...

 

Whatever the answer is about stock structure, what do you guys think of definition and studies about circle of confusion and grain quantification based only on the parameters of a single frame and not including the fact that speed projection sort of changes the game - as David confirms-

 

Anyway, did you know that the hyperfocale definition : f'²/cc.N is wrong since it should be f' "normal" (viewing angle = eye's) X f' used for the calculation and not f'², since it's based on the angular creteria e = f'A (A separating power of the eye as an angle and f' the "normal" focal length) ? Then the formula is good only for the "normal" f.l.

Edited November 16, 2004 by laurent.a

[Dan Salzmann]

I spoke to key people at Kodak, France about the idea of movie stocks in 35mm still cartridges and how great it would be to have the possibility of walking around with a still camera and trying the stock in a wide variety of different situations. They basically laughed at the idea!

In my opinion this should be given to DP's and there should be mailers to get the results back on a print stock to look at on a light box or slide projector.

Considering the miles(or kilometers) of film we are responsible for ordering in the course of various productions, one would think that especially in the "digital age" we should be "encouraged" to continue.

It is real difficult sometimes to convince certain producers to shoot film instead of HD.

It would be nice to have a bit of help on this.

[Filip Plesha]

Filip :

Do you compare the grain you see beetween still images and the grain of a MP scan at typical speed (24, 30 fps) or a still photo scan and a still image scanned from a mp neg ?

 

As I noticed a big difference beetween a still image from an MP film (either slow projection and a paper (traditionnal) print from the same MP neg,  I don't consider the difference of grain beetween different stocks.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, like I said, I looked at 2K and 4K scans, this implies that they were not moving, right? Where would I have the chance to see 2K moving image, not being a filmmaker at all...

 

Anyway, I have been comparing 2K and 4K scans of 5245 to scans of still films.

My still film reference was portra 160NC, since I find it to be finest grain Kodak negative film.

To make it all fair, I resized my portra scans to be equal to 4K scanning resolution, and that is like 4200 dpi or more, I forgot the exact number.

But anyway, the dpi was the same. I find that 5245 had finer grain than

portra 160NC, the difference was not big, but clearly visible. Of course 5245 is a slower film so it was not 100% fair, but some old still slower films had more grain than protra 160NC. I think it was fair enough to rule out that MP films are generally grainier.

So I would conclude that 5245 is a very fine grain film by general standards of both cinema and still photography.

I didn't have a chance to do similar comparisons with some other MP films, but I did see some examples of other films as well. And I can say that you can be sure that MP films are not generally grainier than still films.

 

when you look at a 21mmx16mm image on photo paper, and a 36mmx24mm image on the same size, you can't just say to yourself:

"ok the grain is because of the area difference" and then be amazed how fine the grain is. Even though you consciously know why the image is supose to be grainier, that can not change your opinion you form. You can't help it.

If it feels grainier, it will feel grainier, even though you have a reasonable explanation for it. Your eyes and your brain form esthetical opinions automaticly, without listening to reason.

You can't look at a car all wrecked and say to yourself "when new it is supose to look great", and then have a impression that it is a nice looking car.

Even though you know that that car looks nice when it is new, your impression will be negative.

[Guest Sean McVeigh]

You'd assume that the grains are very similar. If the motion picture guys at kodak come up with finer grains, you can bet that the still photography guys will use it in their next product and vice versa. Of course the goals of designing the two film stocks may differ somewhat (finer grain vs. consistency of the emulsion over a run of film).

 

The reason grain may appear finer in a projected motion picture image is probably, as most people are saying, due to the speed at which it is projected. Even if you slow it down to a couple fps, the effects of grain will still be diminished when compared to a half-sized slide projected to the same size I'd reckon. Since the grain patterns are different between frames, your eye will average it all together.

 

Aside from scanning frames at a high resolution to compare, the next best thing would be to find a high-speed slide projector (if such a beast exists) and try projecting the two at a similar size :)

 

Of course, you'd want to either mask off half of a slide or blow it up twice as much.

[Yusuf Aslanyurek]

John,

Has Kodak ever considered releasing any of their motion picture films loaded as still film?  I know there are places that do this, but I'm curious if Kodak has ever considered doing it themselves.  Maybe it wouldn't make sense because of the difference in how it's processed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

you can manually cut and load film into casettes. ECN-2 process is not hard.

I made lots of tests and 2 years used vision 250D as Black and White of course with black and white processing. Ive changed formula of d-76 for it and exposured as 100ASA

 

removed remjet with (I dont know how its in english) 'soda'

but also you can remove after all process too.

 

some examples;

1

2

3

4

5

 

regards.