kevin jackman Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 hey folks, has anybody tried to shoot in redscale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Charles MacDonald Posted June 16, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted June 16, 2009 hey folks, has anybody tried to shoot in redscale? shooting what in which? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin jackman Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 shooting what in which? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redscale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chris Keth Posted June 16, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) A "technique?" That my friend is an accident that someone named to save their ass! I did it once when I was just starting out shooting large format stills.:D I doubt many people do it on purpose. The color is not very attractive. I don't think the still is color corrected somewhat. The color is a much stronger red-orange and is less attractive. It's also inconvenient because you have to set the camera up specifically to do it because the flange focal depth must be changed to compensate for the thickness of the film base you're now shooting through. If you don't do that, the focus will be off on all of your footage. It kind of looks like you consistently focus behind people rather than on them. Edited June 16, 2009 by Chris Keth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chris Keth Posted June 16, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted June 16, 2009 By the way, the wikipedia article's reasoning of why the image looks the way it does is a bit off. It looks so red because you're shooting through the filmbase which is red. The order if the emulsion layers probably has something to do with it, but the very red-orange base is a pretty strong filter to shoot through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tebbe Schoeningh Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 i tried "redscale"... out of accident :rolleyes: the telecine operator had to search a lot until he found some exposure on the negative ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin jackman Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 ah but it would be an interesting look if the shoot fitted with it and if you could get a handle on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chris Keth Posted June 17, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted June 17, 2009 ah but it would be an interesting look if the shoot fitted with it and if you could get a handle on it. Or you can just filter your footage the color red you want and have more control over the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Simon Wyss Posted June 17, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted June 17, 2009 ah but it would be an interesting look if the shoot fitted with it and if you could get a handle on it. Have you tried to shoot in clear scale? That may lead to very interesting looks as well. I appreciate any youngster's revolt against normal procedure, that's what I was on 30 years ago. Look, you are confronting yourself with practitioners who are likely to tell you: Shoot the right way first before experimenting wild. The right way is an experience already. That Wikipedia article is a fart in the wind, my humble opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Charles MacDonald Posted June 19, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted June 19, 2009 . The order if the emulsion layers probably has something to do with it, but the very red-orange base is a pretty strong filter to shoot through. Actually colour film has a grey or clear base. (Fuji's Data sheets mention a bit of blue dye) The orange colour is due to a photo engineering trick to make up for non-ideal dyes, and exists in the non-exposed areas of the actual image. The version of Wikipedia today does have some mention of the effect of the yellow filter not being engaged when film is exposed from the back. If that explanation is correct you would be only using 2 of the three (or more) layers on the film, as most exposure of the blue layer would be stopped by the yellow filter layer. Depending on the stock, their may be a silver hanti-halo layer back there also which would do a number on exposure by acting as a strong ND filter. Movie stock would have to have the REM-JET removed to be exposed from the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Lackey Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I've got 200ft of Fuji F500 rolled emulsion out which I'm going to shoot this weekend just for fun. It should be processed Monday and I'll post some results for anyone wondering what this might look like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 A "technique?" That my friend is an accident that someone named to save their ass! I did it once when I was just starting out shooting large format stills.:D Ditto on what Chris said. . . This is a mistake that someone who had a minor in marketing at film school came up with a catchy name for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Tuohy Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 I've got 200ft of Fuji F500 rolled emulsion out which I'm going to shoot this weekend just for fun. It should be processed Monday and I'll post some results for anyone wondering what this might look like. Surely you will get just blank film because very little light will get through the rem jet backing (fronting!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chris Keth Posted August 2, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted August 2, 2009 I've got 200ft of Fuji F500 rolled emulsion out which I'm going to shoot this weekend just for fun. It should be processed Monday and I'll post some results for anyone wondering what this might look like. If you do this, I would give it quite a bit of extra light. I would guess that 3 stops might be enough, giving you a rated speed of 64. I don't know how you're going to get anything in focus, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 I'd recommend plus SIX T-STOPS! There were some pretty definitive tests done here, I think a year to a year and a half ago where someone did the testing and said it was at least six. YOu always want to err on the side of overexposure, not under. If you are reading on the internet about stills photographers recommending only plus three, keep in mind that, with the exception of the now defunct Kodachrome line, all stills film did NOT have the REm-jet backing, they have anti-halo dyes instead. So, remjet is much more impermeable to light than regular film base. Expose accordingly to punch through. . . Good luck! P.S. Don't have time myself today, but I'd recomend you try to find that thread on here about the guy that tested this technique. It was quite well done when he posted his results. Sorry to not remember more about the parties involved, when or in what forum it was in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant mcphee Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Anthony Dod Mantle used this technique for some battle scenes on Eagle of the Ninth. Maybe he was inspired by this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominic Case Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Surely you will get just blank film because very little light will get through the rem jet backing (fronting!). Fine theory, but in practice quite a lot of light does get through. As otheres have said, the image is several stops under-exposed, and very red, because the remjet layer is in fact a very dark red (hold a bit of rawstock up to a very strong light and see.) The version of Wikipedia today does have some mention of the effect of the yellow filter not being engaged when film is exposed from the back That's correct. The construction of colour negative film (from the top) is* blue-sensitive layer (forms yellow dye in the processed negative) yellow filter layer (to stop blue light getting any further blue and green sensitive layer (fomrs magenta dye) blue and red sensitive layer (forms cyan dye) film support (the base) anti-halation layer (insoluble remjet carbon) (*simplified - in fact most stocks have at least two layers for each colour, and there are other lubricating layers etc) The reason the red and green sensitive layers are also blue-sensitive is that all emulsions are fundamentally blue-sensitive: the other colours are picked up by some clever trickery with dyes. It's possible to supress the blue sensitivity, but it comes at the cost of quite a lot of speed. SO it's much easier to capture the blue light on the top layer then filter it out. When light comes through the back of the film first, it is filtered quite heavily, and mostly red light gets through. It exposes the red-sensitive layer first, then that's about it. Any traces of green and blue light that get through the remjet will expose the next layer. Red, and the race of green will get through the yellow filter, but as the top layer only sees blue light, it won't get any exposure atall. So you get a very dark red image. Red highlights, black midtones and shadows. Out of focus, and mirror-reversed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Spitzenhuber Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 hello everybody! I just shot a short using this technique and did a couple of tests before. It works, but the look it produces is quite exotic, so be sure you want it. I did some test and chose vision3 500T, cause it still shows some colors between the deep warm tones. I overexposed 6Stops. Using Arri235 and 435 the images were sharp without changing the flange focal distance. I don't know why. I used lenses down to 25mm. The remjet back is not even at all, that gives you dark spots rushing over the image. Kind of an antique look. Enjoy, jonas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted February 17, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted February 17, 2011 Got some footage of it to share? I'd be interested to see how it looked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Who said six :-) Did anyone find the LAST samples posted of this process? Probably six years old at this point, but I'm sure there was a very detailed thread on here. I still need to figure out the best way to search on here. I need to start a new thread. . . Jonas good for you for availing yourself of the search function, and from the looks of it using it very effectively. I'm curious what other stocks you tested. Any Fuji stock, daylight varieties of either? That is interesting that remjet isn't even. I wonder if there are any brand differences, Kodak and Fuji between that "look" as well. I bet this is a phenomenon that can even vary batch to batch. I doubt this is a component that has much quality control restrictions, other than that it stays at a certain overall thickness. Please post a sample though. Motion would be better. I think the thread from '05 - '06 was only still grabs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Rapak Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 Once while shooting fireworks on double 8, I forgot to flip the reel around and ended up re-exposing the same side of the roll through the base. It gave a really odd effect. The fireworks would shoot up, then turn red-orange and suck back in at the top of the frame. Neat effect, but I wouldn't do it on purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Spitzenhuber Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 dear friends, I just uploaded a short piece to You can clearly see the effect on color, the unavoidable sratches and the rushing shadows i described. I tested Kodak 200T, 250D and 500T and some old 125T i think. I remeber 250 to be rather yellow than orange. 500t is defenitly the one that still shows most colors, other materials tend to look like orange tinted black and white film. anyways, you need a lot of light to overexpose 6 stops. my advice is to shoot a plain white plate with this technique and than add the grain, scratches, shadows all that via compositing to your regular shot 35mm material that you should treat in color correction .. so yes, i think its easier to produce the effect in post, than to light 6 stops. enjoy, jonas 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