to use a filter?

[wallspray]

I am shooting a 5 minute dinner scene and want to get a warm/dim feeling in the room. im not very familiar with filters, but i want to start using them. which do you feel would apply to this situation? im shooting on 16mm color negitive with a bolex.

[Laurent Andrieux]

Filtering the camera is a point, gelling the sources is another. If you want the whole image to be warm, you can have a 85 B better than a 85 if shooting daytime daylight for a beginning or a 81 ef if shooting tungsten.

 

But I'd like better gelling the sources, my self. You have much easier control, as gels don't cost as much a a filter rental, if I'm not wrong. You can could find bits from someone or buy sheets cheaper than rolls.

 

Then you can decline nuances much easier. You can have CTO in full, half, quarter, 8th.

 

I like 1/4 + 1/8 cto better than a half when I want to warm the light, and you can have some possible color timing afterwards to perfect it.

 

If you have dimmable sources such as dedolight for instance, dimming them will warm them, so when you have several sources in the frame, you can control them much better with gels than with a filter on the camera. Chocolate, straw, deep amber... Are such gel tools that you shoot try, may be, make tests if you can afford it or have a look at what it looks like with a video camera and a monitor set if no money for film tests...

 

As different sources don't necessarly have the same TC (because of lamp life...) you should use a colormeter to match them at a certain TC that you like, with the different gel grades. Something around 2900 K would give you a warm look I would say...

 

Don't forget that the eye is concerned by contrasts also. If the whole image is warm, it might only look a bit crappy, sometimes. If some place in the frame is warm, while another, somewhere is "normal" or even cold, then the effect will work much better...

 

Just a 2 cents...

Edited December 9, 2004 by laurent.a

[wallspray]

Filtering the camera is a point, gelling the sources is another. If you want the whole image to be warm, you can have a 85 B better than a 85 if shooting daytime daylight for a beginning or a 81 ef if shooting tungsten.

 

But I'd like better gelling the sources, my self. You have much easier control, as gels don't cost as much a a filter rental, if I'm not wrong. You can could find bits from someone or buy sheets cheaper than rolls.

 

Then you can decline nuances much easier. You can have CTO in full, half, quarter, 8th.

 

I like 1/4 + 1/8 cto better than a half when I want to warm the light, and you can have some possible color timing afterwards to perfect it.

 

If you have dimmable sources such as dedolight for instance, dimming them will warm them, so when you have several sources in the frame, you can control them much better with gels than with a filter on the camera. Chocolate, straw, deep amber... Are such gel tools that you shoot try, may be, make tests if you can afford it or have a look at what it looks like with a video camera and a monitor set if no money for film tests...

 

As different sources don't necessarly have the same TC (because of lamp life...) you should use a colormeter to match them at a certain TC that you like, with the different gel grades. Something around 2900 K would give you a warm look I would say...

 

Don't forget that the eye is concerned by contrasts also. If the whole image is warm, it might only look a bit crappy, sometimes. If some place in the frame is warm, while another, somewhere is "normal" or even cold, then the effect will work much better...

 

Just a 2 cents...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

there will be no rental fee for a filter, cause its film school. i plan on using gels as well, but everything i get back that i havent used a filter on, just seems to look subpar to everything i have seen with filters. perhaps this is just my own personal

inadequacy. thanks for the input