using still film

Michael Baltazar · March 1, 2005

Just to get acquainted with shooting 35mm while saving money, I've been testing out shooting rolls of still film through my arri 2c. I pick up a 36 exposure role which gives me about 60 frames or about 2.5 secs at 24fps.

My question is - what kind of quality should I expect from this? I purchase a photocd along with the developing for an extra $5-$10 or so, and it comes back at decent res, over 1k per frame. Then I go in and stabliize the images in a compositing program. But the quality looks dismal - the colors look flat and there's visible grain/noise.

How much is this from the camera, negative, or scanning of the film.

And I guess the main question is what is the main difference in terms of quality between still film and motion picture film...

Dominic Case · March 1, 2005

If the digital frames are at about 1K resolution, then you won't be looking at film grain. It doesn't even resolve at 2K.

One thing that this process isn't going to tell you much about is whether your exposures are correct: if for any reason you have a noticeably underexposed negative then you would expect flat and possibly grainy image.

Have you had good results using the same type of stock in a conventional 35mm still camera? Developing and transfer to a photoCD would be the same regardless of the camera, and there is no reason why following a standard path for stills should give you bad results (unless the photolab doesn't know what it's doing).

Any difference between still and motion picture film isn't relevant to your problem at this stage.

John Pytlak RIP · March 1, 2005

The still films are usually perforated long pitch KS-1870, so don't expect good registration/steadiness, especially if you intend to contact print the images. And they were not optimized for transport in a motion-picture camera (e.g., frictional characteristics). On a per-foot basis, motion picture negative will cost you less, especially if you use recans or short-ends for your tests.

Phil Rhodes · March 1, 2005

Hi,

> If the digital frames are at about 1K resolution, then you won't be looking at film

> grain. It doesn't even resolve at 2K.

Um.. yes, it does?

Phil

Michael Baltazar · March 1, 2005

Aha - didn't think about the transport and registration issues.

Still film seemed much more accessible in terms of developing and transferring, but you're right, I've shot so many of these things now that it probably would've been cheaper to just shoot a 200' roll or something.

When you say i wouldn't get an idea of exposure - is that because the transfer effectively compensates for a potentially bad exposure?

In that case - is the only way to truly judge exposure is by projecting a postive print?

John Pytlak RIP · March 2, 2005

You can judge exposure by comparing how your negative prints relative to the lab's "normal" printing lights. For example, if the lab printer TAPE lights are normally 25-25-25, and your negative prints near 18-18-18, you are about 1-stop underexposed compared to "normal".

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/....4.11.8.6&lc=en

You can also tell by LOOKING at the negative itself. A well-exposed negative has a visible image formed in the very darkest areas of the scene that you still want to hold detail in. If the negative is underexposed such that there is no image on the negative, you will not have an image on the print or transfer.

Here is a link to the Kodak Cinematographers Field Guide:

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...nical/832H2.pdf

Mark Sasahara · March 2, 2005

You really ought to shoot cine film, as John pointed out the pitch difference, but also you want to see that particular emulsion and run it through the whole processing and printing chain so you can accurately see what the result will be. As several people pointed out, you can also check your exposure.

Select a couple of emulsions you want and get 100 or 200 foot loads, try them out, get them transferred and maybe see a projected print. Play around a bit and see what they can do.

K Borowski · March 2, 2005

Lending experience from the still photography sector, I'd just like to say that Photo CDs are poop. If you're using 1-hour photo, sometimes they don't even get up to 1K. You get something like a 2 MP scan, which isn't adequate at all for even 4x6s IMHO. Also, wouldn't a 1 hour photo scan 2 frames worth of MP per frame on the CD as their scanner is set up for 8 perf? However, if you have a decent film scanner of your own, you should be able to see results much more clearly. I also second that you should just buy some short ends. You can get ECN-2 for as low as 15c a foot if you look hard enough.

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

Dominic Case · March 3, 2005

When you say i wouldn't get an idea of exposure

You complained that your images were flat and grainy, and asked if the process (ie still film in a motion picture camera, processed transferred to CD) was to blame. I suggested that your camera exposure might also be the problem. As John says, you can look at the negative if you know what to look for.

Are you close to a motion picture lab? The best way to get an idea of how well exposed the neg is, would be to have them put it on their colour analyser and tell you the printer lights. Alternatively, take the negative back to the lab that you used, and ask for a frame to be printed, uncorrected.

> grain. It doesn't even resolve at 2K.
Um.. yes, it does?

No it doesn't.

I've got tests that show the same negative scanned at 2k and at 4k. The 4K one shows the grain structure, the 2K one shows pixels, but not grain.

K Borowski · March 3, 2005

Dominic and Phil: you both seem to be generalizing "facts" that aren't really "facts" because of all of the variables involved. The issue as to whether or not grain will show up on a 1K scan depends on the scanner, the software, the film's speed, emulsion, processing, & compatibility with the scanner as well as the type of file it is converted too and the compression algorhthms used. I put a film pushed 2 stops (Vision 800T that's been sitting in the glovecompartment of my California based Ferrarri for 2 years) in Kyle Kodalux's one hour photo Gretag (pronounced piece-of-poop) scanner, and I'll get a far different result than my buddy Quentin's 5245 processed under controlled conditions at a state-of-the-art lab running constant densitometry and scanned in a high-quality scanner. Remember that there are about six different factors at work here. However, under normal conditions (decent scanner, modern-day 200 speed film stock, regular processing & storage conditions, decent compression and scanning software) a 4 perf frame of 35mm film probably won't show much if any grain in a 2K scan, let along a 1K scan.

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

John Pytlak RIP · March 3, 2005

There are scanners and there are professional scanners. You get what you pay for. The scanner used at your local one-hour photo shop is usually not in the same league with the scanners used by professional photo labs or motion picture labs.