Digital camera instead of Polaroid on set

[Doug Emmett]

I'm curious if any DP's have switched from using Polaroid cameras to using digital cameras on set in order to get a good idea of the contrast of their scene. I own a Nikon D70 and would prefer to use this on set to gauge the contrast of my scene instead of going out and buying an expensive Polaroid camera. Has anyone compared digital stills taken on set to actual kodak vision stocks in terms of latitude and contrast???

[John Pytlak RIP]

I'm curious if any DP's have switched from using Polaroid cameras to using digital cameras on set in order to get a good idea of the contrast of their scene. I own a Nikon D70 and would prefer to use this on set to gauge the contrast of my scene instead of going out and buying an expensive Polaroid camera. Has anyone compared digital stills taken on set to actual kodak vision stocks in terms of latitude and contrast???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Contact your Kodak technical rep and test drive the Kodak Look Manager System:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...=0.1.4.16&lc=en

[Doug Emmett]

Contact your Kodak technical rep and test drive the Kodak Look Manager System:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...=0.1.4.16&lc=en

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thank you Mr. Pytlak for your response. I'm familiar with what the Look Manager system offers and it does offer many practical pre & post solutions, but the real need is on set. Specifically, I'm interested in the Nikon D70's ability to replicate or approximate an image very close to what the Vision stocks produce in terms of latitude/contrast. I'm afraid that without the software and the laptop on location, I won't be able to use the Look Manager system and i'll be right back where I started. Is the polaroid B&W image still a closer approximation, or does it rival the D70 and other high-end digital SLRs? Additionally, I've found the D70 to similar in its latitude characteristics to portra 400 VC 35mm negative prints, with exceptions. It has more detail in the shadows but it's also quicker to lose detail in over exposed hot spots. Has anyone compared digital stills to actual Kodak vision stock prints or tellecined transfers?

[Michael Nash]

Get to know the gamma and dynamic range of your digital camera, and you can learn how to translate that image into that of any given film stock. Shoot some exposure tests and put the images into photoshop where you can measure the luminence of a grayscale.

 

I've got a cheap little Sony I bought for on-set snapshots, but I've ended up using it for things like checking color temp and ocassionally contrast. I know that my camera captures about 4 stops under to four stops over, plus quite a bit jammed into the toe and shoulder. From there I can interpret what it may look like in telecine or print.

 

The critical bit of info though is to set up the camera's LCD screen properly. Don't take it for granted that it's showing you an accurate picture of what you've captured. Take the time to set up the contrast, brightness, and backlight controls to reflect what you see on a properly calibrated computer monitor (where you're judging your camera's gamma).

[Valeriu Campan]

I'm curious if any DP's have switched from using Polaroid cameras to using digital cameras on set ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Russell Boyd

[Laurent Andrieux]

I think I can remember David Mullen saying he uses digital cameras on set. He says that if the image looks good on a digital still, it can't be bad on film, since digital image has less latitude than film.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Funny - I was just about to post in a new thread about how bad didgital can be when I found this one.

 

Check out this nighttime scene shot with a very expensive Nikon D1H:

 

Digital look

 

Check out the horrible clipping and loss of all info in the highlights of the fire and the firemens scotch brite reflex material. And this from a top-of-the-line model!

 

I wonder, with all the high end software and algorithms in digital cameras today, when will they ever be able to adress the one thing that really needs some attention?

 

I'm appaled - I had somehow bought into the hype that the new digital cameras were as good as still SLR's for most applications. See how wrong I was.

[David Mullen ASC]

You sort of picked a worse-case scenario... but if you wanted more detail in the fire, you could have underexposed the digital photo by another stop and the photo would have turned out fine -- there's no reason for the firefighters to be exposed as fully as they are. As for the scothlite burning out to white, what do you expect happens when you fire an on-camera flash at the stuff? It would be burned-out on film too.

 

You're basically seeing a photo that was exposed incorrectly, unless the photographer wanted that look.

 

Film's advantage is mainly its overexposure forgiveness, whereas digital photos require that you expose them correctly or underexpose them slightly because there's no latitude for overexposure.

 

After going to the ASC photo exhibit and seeing some large prints of digital photos shot by Owen Roizman, I'm no longer that concerned about the quality of digital still photography. In fact, there's a lot I like about that hyper-clean look. But if you're talking about exposure latitude, of course film negative is superior. But my next camera is going to be a digital SLR...

[Adam Frisch FSF]

You sort of picked a worse-case scenario... but if you wanted more detail in the fire, you could have underexposed the digital photo by another stop and the photo would have turned out fine -- there's no reason for the firefighters to be exposed as fully as they are.  As for the scothlite burning out to white, what do you expect happens when you fire an on-camera flash at the stuff?  It would be burned-out on film too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, but look at how quick the boundaries between detail and no detail goes. It's like someone went in afterwards and decided to paint certain areas of the frame with white paint and a brush... Of course the scotch brite is going to go bright, but on film you'd still see that slight grey shimmer the eye picks up when watching that material.

 

Look at this photo:

 

Another one

 

This one is also overexposed for an effect. And the detail in the shadow is all fine and dandy, but look at the hightlights once again. Total clipping even long before you've reached all the way around into the hot spots - it's either there or not, no midtones. That looks mighty artificial to me. Granted, this is a cheaper camera, but anyway.....

Edited February 19, 2005 by AdamFrisch

[Robert Edge]

Hmmm

 

I use a 4"x5" film camera, a 35mm film camera and a 35mm digital single lens reflex and I have made prints up to 20"x24" with each. I have not used a medium format camera with a digital back, but my experience is that prints made from a digital 35mm SLR are really pushing it at 11"x14" and are very problematic when further enlarged.

 

On the original question, I use Polaroids to test composition and contrast for 4x5 photographs and I'll probably use Polaroids as part of the testing process for the film project that I'm planning. I think that tests can be done with a DSLR, but personally I wouldn't go this route unless the camera was connected to a properly calibrated computer monitor. Failing that, I'll take a 4x5 Polaroid over a tiny DSLR display anytime.

 

Doug, I have a D70 myself. You suggested in your original question that cameras that can expose Polaroids are expensive. You might look into that. They really aren't.

Edited February 19, 2005 by R. Edge

[Brent J. Craig]

Check out the horrible clipping and loss of all info in the highlights of the fire and the firemens scotch brite reflex material. And this from a top-of-the-line model!

 

Scotchlite [tm] is a very special engineered material that is made up of thouands of tiny lenses designed to reflect back the maximum amount of light possible. Shooting the same scene on film (with a light source mounted close to the optical axis, as in this case) would produce the same results.

 

I have worked with front projection using a Scotchlite screen, and I can tell you that you can light up the Scotchlite screen as bright as daylight from across the studio by placing an LED flashlight close to your eye (your optical axis).

 

Does digital have the same latittude as film? No. Neither does TV. Judging it by looking at a test image with Scotchlite in the frame is pretty useless.

[Michael Nash]

I think you're being a little bit hard on digital as a format, Adam. It's true that many digital cameras have a different gamma curve than many film stocks, but I don't think it's as bad as you fear. Even with my cheap little Sony camera I've been able to pull out a staggering amount of information packed into the toe and shoulder in Photoshop.

 

Besides, for the purpose of using a still camera on set instead of a Polaroid you're mostly looking at relative contrast around the frame, more than examining the exact point at which a highlight starts to clip. The initial gamma of my camera is a little contrasty, but the info is there in the file, similar to the way it would be on a negative. I find that contrasty look a good reference for a film print -- but to be precise you have to compare the camera you're using to the negative and print stock you'll be using.

 

So no, digital is not the same as film, but it can still be useful.

[Sam Wells]

No, but look at how quick the boundaries between detail and no detail goes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hot specular reflectiions are pretty much the torture test of "overexposurablity", but Scotchlite like Craig says is probably beyond the pale.

 

But Adam makes a good point here.

 

Anyway it did seem to me that's what the photographer wanted.

 

I don't know that this disqualifies a DSLR as a previz tool.

 

-Sam

[Valeriu Campan]

Check out this nighttime scene shot with a very expensive Nikon D1H:

....... And this from a top-of-the-line model!

 

This model is far from being top of the line (and thanks god is discontinued) It's picture quality hardly compares with the current crop of DSLRs.

Edited February 21, 2005 by Valeriu Campan

[David Mullen ASC]

I think I can remember David Mullen saying he uses digital cameras on set. He says that if the image looks good on a digital still, it can't be bad on film, since digital image has less latitude than film.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I was more referring to the video tap image, in that if something looks balanced exposure-wise there (like a reflection gag or a TV set in the scene) it's definitely balanced on film because if the crappy video tap can handle it, certainly the film can.

 

But yes, you could take a digital still on the set to double-check something roughly.

[Nate Downes]

This model is far from being top of the line (and thanks god is discontinued) It's picture quality hardly compares with the current crop of DSLRs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually I've used the D2H, the model that directly replaced this one, and the results are identical for lattitude and range. But it is much improved with the areas critical to digital photographers, namely speed, resolution, and capability.

[Saul Pincus]

Actually I've used the D2H, the model that directly replaced this one, and the results are identical for lattitude and range.  But it is much improved with the areas critical to digital photographers, namely speed, resolution, and capability.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You'll find the Canon Digital Rebel and the Canon EOS 20D to be far, far superior to the Nikon D70 and D100.

 

Saul Pincus.

[Sam Wells]

You'll find the Canon Digital Rebel and the Canon EOS 20D to be far, far superior to the Nikon D70 and D100.

 

Saul Pincus.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

OK, Why ?

 

 

-Sam

[Saul Pincus]

OK, Why ?

-Sam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Imaging, color quality, chip sensistivity, accuracy, resolution...you name it. I would have expected the Nikons to win hands down, but they just don't. At this point, they're significantly older techonology (by a year or more) to Canon's Digital Rebel (a new 8.3 megapixel model was announced just yesterday, in fact) and EOS 20D. Digital cameras have a lot in common with computer technology that way, and Moore's law definitely applies.

 

In the last few months, I've done quite a bit of research into the Canons (the Rebel, EOS 10D and EOS 20D) and Nikons (D70 and D100) and shot a lot of stills. It's not just my opinion. Do a google search for yourself and check out sources on the web.

 

Saul.

[Sam Wells]

When I looked at DSLR's this summer, I did begin by comparing the D70 to the Digital Rebel simply because the local store had both and I could wander around, take them outside etc; and did find I liked the "look" ('CMOS look' ?) of the Canon. But "far far" superior ? I don't see/hear a consensus.

 

After looking at a few others, decided to wait: buying a digital camera is like making a lifetime purchase of film stock; I'm equally interested long term on results from RAW files etc - not something casual comparison shopping can do.

 

Mamiya 645 ZD with 22mp chip looks promising :)

 

-Sam

[John Pytlak RIP]

My daughter is getting married in November, so when she was home from Boston this week, we interviewed wedding photographers. Many had converted to high end digital cameras, only to return to using film. B) Weddings often present a challenge to the photographer, with uncontrolled available light situations, contrasty outdoor lighting, and white lace wedding gowns and flowers where holding highlight detail is so important.

 

Here is the photographer we finally chose, who prefers working with 120 format color negative film (Kodak, of course :) ):

 

http://www.thombell.com

[quinn]

i think i had heard Harris Savides had used a digital camera to do quick tests for The Yards, and then ran them through photoshop later. I THINK these were then sent to the lab so they knew what he was going for.

[Valeriu Campan]

I would like to apologise and make a corection to a previous post stating that Russell Boyd was using a DSLR on set. I was reading 2 different articles in the same ACS magazine a while ago.

 

The DoP I wanted to mention is Doanld McAlpine and you can find info about his method here:

http://millimeter.com/digital_intermediate...etty_peter_pan/