Premium Member Pawel Saladziak Posted February 15, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted February 15, 2009 Then you can simply crop the image to a 16mm or so size which you framed for in camera and away you go - no under/over exposure, push etc... Instant dial in 'grainifier' Only issue is to make sure you have the wide angle lenses you'll need to compensate for the reduction in film size. Maybe I do not get it right.... I was thinking that what Shubham wanted is just to add more and maybe a custom grain and grade the shots to make it looking older. So what is the reason for cropping? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chris Keth Posted February 15, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted February 15, 2009 Maybe I do not get it right.... I was thinking that what Shubham wanted is just to add more and maybe a custom grain and grade the shots to make it looking older. So what is the reason for cropping? He means to crop the frame and then, in printing, enlarge it to effectively have a S16 size frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Pawel Saladziak Posted February 15, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted February 15, 2009 He means to crop the frame and then, in printing, enlarge it to effectively have a S16 size frame. Yeah, I know, but what for? He is shooting on 35mm, so as I assume the prints will also be on 35mm stock. If he is going to use DI, then all the grain in term of size, quantity, and specs will be added in Inferno, also all of grading is probably going to be done there, so what is the reason for cropping that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Millar Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Yeah, I know, but what for?He is shooting on 35mm, so as I assume the prints will also be on 35mm stock. If he is going to use DI, then all the grain in term of size, quantity, and specs will be added in Inferno, also all of grading is probably going to be done there, so what is the reason for cropping that? Reason: To make 500T 5219 look more grainy. :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Pawel Saladziak Posted February 18, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted February 18, 2009 Reason: To make 500T 5219 look more grainy. :huh: Yeah but this would be done in post, you can manipulate there size of grain particles, amount of grain particles, select colour layers respectively to manipulate grain on, even select the kind of grain according to the stock that you used, so after all when you have frame with the grain and grade that you like, do you still see the reason to crop it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Millar Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Yeah but this would be done in post, you can manipulate there size of grain particles, amount of grain particles, select colour layers respectively to manipulate grain on, even select the kind of grain according to the stock that you used, so after all when you have frame with the grain and grade that you like, do you still see the reason to crop it? Well, um, no there would be no reason to crop after you simulated grain like that, unless you wanted grain on grain (?!). I just prefer to avoid a post solution if instead a real process can be used, to a limit however (time, $$$) - but the process I outline isn't going to break the bank, and will just mean a bit of tinkering/thinking at the front end and a the same in post, certainly wont involve a Flame. More fun/more old school/more ... jeez I dunno ;) But sure, if you have access to the gear and the budget then go for it - you'll have more options. In saying that though to take your logic to the extreme - which is not to suggest you are wrong, just discussing things here - why not just shoot HD and then put your grain on in post ? Yet if you're being asked to shoot on 35mm, but then using digital solutions where arguably simpler and real ones can be used instead, isn't that something to think about ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Pawel Saladziak Posted February 18, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted February 18, 2009 In saying that though to take your logic to the extreme - which is not to suggest you are wrong, just discussing things here - why not just shoot HD and then put your grain on in post ? Yet if you're being asked to shoot on 35mm, but then using digital solutions where arguably simpler and real ones can be used instead, isn't that something to think about ? Well, I think that 1. they already choosed to shoot on film, 2. picture shoot on HD differs from this what you get by shooting on film, isn't it?. 3. They even decided already to shoot 35mm (so camera rentals and stock aquisition decisions are probably made and timelined). 4. Is HD really going to be simpler? I do not know. I do not know even if DI for grain and grading is going to be harder than pushing and testing and all the processing manipulations. What I know is that DI simply gives them much much more controls over the image that they will capture. As this is a diploma film with limited budget (they can have DI for free, both scanning and grading and graining and some other vfx) thay can capture all the picture without putting it into shape that cannot be modified after some steps and have freedom and comfort of deciding in the post (still for free) what look and grain they like. Of course there is factor of time there. But I assume they rather insist on the better result than shorter time of production. So maby it is not the discussion of what is complex or simple, but of this what will let them work more freely. But it is only my point of view and like always it could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shubham Kasera Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 hello i did discuss the possibility of going for a DI, but unfortunately it wont happen as we have some restricted time to finish this project. Moreover, we would require a film out and not a digital output. Sorry, but thanks to help me out. I went to Kodak today and I got 5279 stock for my grainier scenes (i.e. VISION 500T) has anyone used this stock? how different is it from VISION 3 500T? moreover I did manage to get arricam st tomorrow for testing, since it had gone for a 4 perf change. So ill get to test the stock as well.. looking forward to it the lab here would push process to a max of 2 stops and pull it by 1 stop max (which i might use for the other scenes in the film, using 5205) thanks shubham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shubham Kasera Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 embassy in poland. The only caveat is that the result will be digital file (of your choice), so if stock print is needed, you have to find a optical printer that can print from digital files. If you are interested then write me back. Hello, well i will try to send you the negative once its gone for an edit, which will be ready by May, which you could use for making your demo reel. Ill keep you posted. cheers shubham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Pawel Saladziak Posted February 18, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted February 18, 2009 Hello,well i will try to send you the negative once its gone for an edit, which will be ready by May, which you could use for making your demo reel. Ill keep you posted. cheers shubham that would be great, thanks, we'll be in touch 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