Rik Andino Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 You should definitely stay away from using the internal lightmeter... Because they aren't always as precise as other lightmeters. From the footage it's clear you shot tungsten balanced film in daylight... I find that one of the best example to show people of what happens When one shoots tungsten film in daylight. You also overexposed by at least three to four stop...maybe more. Personally I like some of the footage it's got a funky S8 effect I find interesting. I dunno if this was the effect you were looking for however. If you do attempt a reshoot like other's mention place an 85 filter on the lens... It'll cut away the blue look...and give you a corrected image. Also try to use a lightmeter (other than the internal camera lightmeter) To get precise reading. Eitherways Good Luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 (edited) I think Russia does not use ASA speeds on their cameras, certainly my zenit camera is like that. Here is a chart for GOST to ASA conversion: http://www.kataan.org/techref/gost-asa.html I'm not sure if the K3 uses GOST or not, tho, perhaps someone else here knows. The speeds look quite similar to ASA mind you, so probably wouldn't make that big a difference when shooting on negative film. The telecine (film transfer to video) doesn't look too awesome. It might account partly for the 8mm look you describe but I guess it's not so important for a camera test. These people do cheap transfers, so perhaps when you are happier with the results you are getting, you can get your more important stuff transfered here. I assume you can't afford fancy spirit transfers and the like! ;) http://www.tfgtransfer.com/ love Freya Edited May 19, 2005 by Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Laurent Andrieux Posted May 20, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted May 20, 2005 Didn't know about this gost scale, but it's less than a third of a stop of difference... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Vansteenwegen Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Sometimes the spinning mirror under low-light or heavily ND'd situations makes it hard for the operator to see critical focus while the camera is rolling. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's probably something really simple, but I've never understood why an image (as seen by the operator in the viewfinder) is darker when ND's are added of when filming in low-light situations. The thing is (I think), if you're shooting on ie. 200 asa, you have to expose your film for 200 asa, so the amount of light going through any filters and the aperture should be the about the same whatever you're shooting, in order to get a correctly exposed film. Right? Or am I completely missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted June 10, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted June 10, 2005 Hi, Theoretically it'd be the same when the film speed is constant, yeah - but other things screw you up. Clearly, the faster the film stock, the less of an image you'll see, but when you're in any situation with a lot of ND, the greater the difference is between the real world and the viewfinder image. When your eyes are adjusted for reality, and you then go and look through three stops of ND, you're not going to see much. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Vansteenwegen Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Hi, Theoretically it'd be the same when the film speed is constant, yeah - but other things screw you up. Clearly, the faster the film stock, the less of an image you'll see, but when you're in any situation with a lot of ND, the greater the difference is between the real world and the viewfinder image. When your eyes are adjusted for reality, and you then go and look through three stops of ND, you're not going to see much. Phil <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That figures, thanks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregor Mac Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Super 16 or 16mm provide great quality - and are easier to work with than 35mm (not to mention the cost) - but consider this - I have just viewed the sweetest film that I got back from Foma which I put through my my Quarz DS8-1 and which I shot on the wide angle and telephoto lenses. I cannot believe the quality with this camera and you can carry it around by yourself without any helpers. You should also consider smaller formats if you want to make small productions, not just 16mm Your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted June 18, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted June 18, 2005 Super 16 or 16mm provide great quality - and are easier to work with than 35mm Your thoughts? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi, Why do you say 16mm is easier to work with than 35? Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Salzmann Posted June 18, 2005 Share Posted June 18, 2005 Oddly enough I find 16mm more difficult than 35mm. I'm always fiddling with it not to look like video-too much DOF. For me video is the most difficult of all to make look good because I have much more experience with film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted June 18, 2005 Share Posted June 18, 2005 Am I the only person here who - in some cases - likes deep focus ? -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted June 18, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted June 18, 2005 Oddly enough I find 16mm more difficult than 35mm. I'm always fiddling with it not to look like video-too much DOF.For me video is the most difficult of all to make look good because I have much more experience with film. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Dan, I totally agree Stephen Williams DP www.stephenw.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted June 18, 2005 Share Posted June 18, 2005 Am I the only person here who - in some cases - likes deep focus ? -Sam <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I love deep focus. But then again, I love smaller stocks, 16mm and Super8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cohen Phillips Posted June 18, 2005 Share Posted June 18, 2005 I like Deep Focus as well. You can really get it on 16mm if you got a DP knowing what he is doing. It is neat to look at and see all the detail way in the background ect. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Salzmann Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 For me deep focus or shallow focus are decisions that are made based on the content and psycho-emotional requirements of the project at hand. Sometimes (quite often actually) the budget seems to play a very important part in the aesthetics of a film. For example, if a key scene(s) take place in a seedy hotel room and budget says NO set construction. Then a real hotel room gets found that often looks great as is. But no tie-in or genny is possible (again for budget reasons). What this will mean is probably faster film, wider lenses (deeper focus) and probably handheld camerawork. Whereas if the budget permitted, there might have been slower filmstock, longer lenses and grip gear. These constraints can sometimes be hidden blessings because maybe without them the film would have been slicker but less "cutting edge" whatever the f*** that means. 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