THE "Film look" - what IS it?

[Sam Wells]

Whether you're shooting film or video, you get used to "seeing" what your format of choice will record.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is really true - you learn how to interpret what your eye sees, and not to be fooled by things; brightness adaptations, brightness constancy.

 

-Sam

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

 

Depends if you can get workprints made for less than the cost of telecine.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Phil,

 

Try shooting reversal! Kodak still makes Kodachrome 7270, Ektachrome 7285 and 4 B+W films 7265,7266,7276,7278.

 

A big advantage of film is a choice of film stock, this helps depending on what 'look' you want.

 

Stephen

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

You're talking out of your a---

 

The extra depth of field of a smaller target area compared to 35mm doesn't mean that the smaller format is more sensitive, only that it has more depth of field.  You're heading down a slippery slope of being a sloppy thinker if you're going to confuse two separate issues like that.  Don't go there.  You might as well be arguing that 16mm is more sensitive to light than 35mm, even when you use the same film stock, since it also has more depth of field!

 

However, I would argue that in really low light levels, gain-boosted digital tends to see more into shadows than push-processed film because pushing increases contrast, whereas gain-boosting doesn't.  Plus with video cameras, you have the option of turning off the shutter and gaining more exposure.  But that's not the same thing as base sensitivity.  Don't mix up concepts so freely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No it's not more sensetive technically, but since as you can use super fast lenses to try and bring the DOF down, you will increase the levels of light. Indoors or even outdoors in lowlight, with film you always need a good f5.6 of even higher. With video you only need 1.8, or even lower if you can. So that's why I have always said, in theory.

 

So, no, not quite talking out of my a--, David.

[Stephen Williams]

with film you always need a good f5.6 of even higher. With video you only need 1.8, or even lower if you can.

 

So, no, not quite talking out of my a--, David.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

IMHO I must agree with David! I often shoot at T2 with Cooke S4's. They are fantastic wide open. The most I have ever stopped them down to is 2.8 ! I like limited DOF, thats one big reason to shoot film for now until big sensors are common.

 

Stephen

[Sam Wells]

No it's not more sensetive technically, but since as you can use super fast lenses to try and bring the DOF down, you will increase the levels of light. Indoors or even outdoors in lowlight, with film you always need a good f5.6 of even higher. With video you only need 1.8, or even lower if you can. So that's why I have always said, in theory.

 

So, no, not quite talking out of my a--, David.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But it has NO validity as a theory !

 

By this "logic" Super 8 is more sensitive than 35mm; trouble is 7218 in S8 and 5218 in 35 are *the same freakin* thing - they have the same carbohydrate count per surface area, Dr. Atkins.

 

-Sam

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

By this "logic" Super 8 is more sensitive than 35mm; trouble is 7218 in S8 and 5218 in 35 are *the same freakin* thing - they have the same carbohydrate count per surface area, Dr. Atkins.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes but your talking technical wise.

 

You try doing indoor shots, where you want deep focus, with film. The only possible way is to over light the set and then under expose on the camera. Digital on the other hand, will do it, 1.8 all the way.

 

Obviously we all like a bit of shallow focus, in that case use faster lenses. Use a super fast lens on a digital, obtain DOF (or near) charactersitics of 35mm and have a good amount of light. No over lighting the scene or any messing about.

 

 

Does anyone here ACTUALLY see my point? Is anyone going to use original thinking or are you all conforming to David's comments?

[David Mullen ASC]

Of course I understand what you're saying, the problem with your argument is just logic.

 

You can't make the argument: (1) video needs less light to achieve the same depth of field as 35mm, therefore (2) video is more sensitive to light.

 

Because Super-8 and 16mm also need less light to achieve the same depth of field, but no one says that 16mm or Super-8 is more sensitive to light than 35mm.

 

If you simply stopped saying "video is MORE SENSITIVE sensitive to light than film" and went no further than "video needs LESS LIGHT to achieve the same depth of field as 35mm" you'd be right (assuming you aren't talking about the new HD cameras with 35mm-sized sensors.) It's that last step in your argument that falls apart because you aren't using logic. I just object to you using the term "sensitivity" inaccurately.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Of course I understand what you're saying, the problem with your argument is just logic.

 

You can't make the argument: (1) video needs less light to achieve the same depth of field as 35mm, therefore (2) video is more sensitive to light. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But that's why I meant it as theoretically speaking, and not technically.

 

My point is that if you can get hold of a lens fast enough to produce 35mm DOF chacateristics on HD cameras, then you can use the small CCD size to your advantage to gain more light.

 

So, in a way you can get more light in using video.

Edited March 4, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[David Mullen ASC]

But that's why I meant it as theoretically speaking, and not technically.

 

My point is that if you can get hold of a lens fast enough to produce 35mm DOF chacateristics on HD cameras, then you can use the small CCD size to your advantage to gain more light.

 

So, in a way you can get more light in using video.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're gaining more exposure because your lens is faster not because the video camera is more sensitive to light.

 

All I'm asking is that you think this stuff through more clearly and accurately and not throw terms around so willy-nilly because it's a bad habit that will hurt you later in life (and in many aspects of life...) Communicating with others using precise and accurate language is an important skill in filmmaking.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

You're gaining more exposure because your lens is faster not because the video camera is more sensitive to light.

 

All I'm asking is that you think this stuff through more clearly and accurately and not throw terms around so willy-nilly because it's a bad habit that will hurt you later in life (and in many aspects of life...)  Communicating with others using precise and accurate language is an important skill in filmmaking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes but you have to appreciate that I said theoretically and gave reason why. Everyone here pounced on me like I said "Video is more sensitive" straight, which of course I didn?t.

[Landon D. Parks]

Daniel, I have to say I'm sure david knows what he is talking about. Lets not forget that we are 16 years old. Have you ever shoot 35mm Daniel? or 16mm or 8mm? Have you David? Get my point Daniel? David is more experianced than us, and he has shot enough video and film to know more of what he is talking about I'm sure. You should take the every once of advice David gives you, because he is trying to help the younger crowd and those less experianced than him in on some of the secrets. Lets not forget, this is the man that brought us Northfork!

 

David has shoot a lot more film and video than you have I'm sure. Same with me.

 

Not trying to take sides here, but I think David is right. I can also understand what your saying, but I think its best in this topic anyway to speak in technical terms, not just opinion. I'm sure shooting video wide open has its disadvantages, just like shooting film wide open or everybody would do it. Although I know VERY LITTLE about the subject so I'm gonna quit while Im ahead.

 

So If I seem mean, but its just my take on it. I have nothing personal against you Daniel. Your a good man! BUT JUST LIKE ME, you have a big head :), You seen what kind of trouble my big head got me into on here before! Take a leaf from my book. :blink: God knows I have enough to go around!

Edited March 4, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Jonathan Spear]

"Daniel, I have to say I'm sure david knows what he is talking about. Lets not forget that we are 16 years old. Have you ever shoot 35mm Daniel? or 16mm or 8mm? Have you David? Get my point Daniel? David is more experianced than us, and he has shot enough video and film to know more of what he is talking about I'm sure. You should take the every once of advice David gives you, because he is trying to help the younger crowd and those less experianced than him in on some of the secrets. Lets not forget, this is the man that brought us Northfork!

 

David has shoot a lot more film and video than you have I'm sure. Same with me.

 

Not trying to take sides here, but I think David is right. I can also understand what your saying, but I think its best in this topic anyway to speak in technical terms, not just opinion. I'm sure shooting video wide open has its disadvantages, just like shooting film wide open or everybody would do it. Although I know VERY LITTLE about the subject so I'm gonna quit while Im ahead.

 

So If I seem mean, but its just my take on it. I have nothing personal against you Daniel. Your a good man! BUT JUST LIKE ME, you have a big head , You seen what kind of trouble my big head got me into on here before! Take a leaf from my book. God knows I have enough to go around!"

 

====================================================

 

I think Dan's got ballz - which is good.

And David handled it like a pro - which is a good example of how to act like one for Daniel and the rest of us yungins.

Since I assume Daniel respects David, he probably opened his eyes to the truth and actually learned a few very valuable lessons today.

 

<Dan, this is GOOD advice -- take it all in: "All I'm asking is that you think this stuff through more clearly and accurately and not throw terms around so willy-nilly because it's a bad habit that will hurt you later in life (and in many aspects of life...) Communicating with others using precise and accurate language is an important skill in filmmaking.">

 

I'm sitting here typing away enjoying a ciggarette, some gummy worms and a beer.

 

Argue away -- I'm learning a lot from all of this.

 

<burrrrp!>

Edited March 4, 2005 by TSM

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

The point here is not what anyone knows or doesn't know, it's that it's important to be precise with terminology or certain things which should make sense end up being very confusing.

 

Phil

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Hate to say it, but come on I wrote a whole paragraph explaining why I consider video to be more light sensitive in one way. And a whole load more saying that video isn't more sensitive technically.

 

Did anyone see this line or am I going mad and seeing things "But that's why I meant it as theoretically speaking, and not technically."

 

I never actually said directly that "video is more sensitive".

 

I'd really love to just admit to being wrong, just to get this d-mn debate over and done with, but at the end of the day people have to skipped forward right to the end and picked out on the "Theoretically, video is more sensitive" part.

 

 

Anyway, from now on I'll make these kinds of statements ultra-clear, possibly in bold, just to avoid these kinds of debates. (That don't really mean anything, they just occur and annoy the hell out of me)

[David Mullen ASC]

>I never actually said directly that "video is more sensitive".

 

No, you just said "So, theoretically video is more sensitive."

 

Putting "theoretically" doesn't make the statement any more true! Look, we're just talking about bad writing skills here, not whether you know what you're talking about. "Theoretically" is the wrong word to use. You're not talking about theory, you're talking about practical working conditions, which is the OPPOSITE of theory.

 

What you meant to say is more like "From a practical standpoint, it's as if video is more sensitive to light even though theoretically it isn't."

 

But even that is a clumsy argument to make when you really should be saying "Practically speaking, you can use less light with video to achieve similar results, regarding depth of field, to 35mm." Just drop the "more sensitive" argument because sensitivity is not the issue, ability to use faster lenses yet maintain a reasonable depth of field is.

 

I'm just amazed you keep wanting to defend yourself rather than simply saying "sorry, you're right, I misphrased that" and move on.

[John Sprung]

Of course David's right about sensitivity.

 

As for DOF, remember that three chip cameras have a brick wall limit at f/1.45 because of the room needed for the prism block between the lens and the chips. Getting the same DOF with less light only works up to that point.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

>I never actually said directly that "video is more sensitive".

 

No, you just said "So, theoretically video is more sensitive."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But generally you don't need as much light for video because of the huge amount of DOF. i.e. I can set my video camera to the lowest aperture and still obtain a descent amount of DOF. With video you can use ultra-fast lenses that may give you the DOF characteristics of 35mm, and at the same time you will have massive amounts of light to play around with.

So this explanation meant nothing? Reading the last line alone without reading the first paragraph, no wonder.

 

I'm just amazed you keep wanting to defend yourself rather than simply saying "sorry, you're right, I misphrased that" and move on.

 

Ok. I put an explanation down, and then a basic theory to sum it all up. I put down an explanation, you picked out on the punch line. The punch line means nothing, without an explanation. But with the explanation, it would make sense.

 

So no, I'm not going to accept anything because people missed out lines or mis-understood the entire post. Sorry to say this David, but just because you're David Mullen doesn't mean I will go along with absolutely everything you say, unlike what most other people seem to do. If I'm wrong I'll admit I'm wrong, but in this instance there's just been a huge mis-understanding. (More to the point, people not reading my entire posts, just extracting parts of them and making it seem asthough those tiny extracts were my whole arguement)

 

 

Anyway this is getting to a ridiculous point now.

 

 

Bottom Line stands as: no video is not technically anymore sensitive as film. Although due to the small CCD size, if you wanted the same amount of DOF as 35mm you could open up the iris and use faster lenses, giving you much more light, although limiting your DOF.

 

Just forget anything I have already said and leave it at that. It would make peoples lives a lot easier.

Edited March 4, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[David Mullen ASC]

Ok. I put an explanation down, and then a basic theory to sum it all up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Except that your summation was incorrect.

 

Look, if you don't want to learn anything from me, fine, I just figured I was doing you a service from later repeating this faulty logic and making a fool of yourself in the future. I could have saved myself a lot of time by not correcting you and let you go about your merry way repeating your inaccuracies.

 

I will restrain myself in the future from bothering to teach you anything because clearly you don't want to learn and I don't want to waste my time. I'm in the middle of a feature shoot right now, I've got the biggest day of the shoot tomorrow, and I'm wasting my time trying to teach people on the internet...

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Except that your summation was incorrect.

 

Look, if you don't want to learn anything from me, fine, I just figured I was doing you a service from later repeating this faulty logic and making a fool of yourself in the future.  I could have saved myself a lot of time by not correcting you and let you go about your merry way repeating your inaccuracies.

 

I will restrain myself in the future from bothering to teach you anything because clearly you don't want to learn and I don't want to waste my time.  I'm in the middle of a feature shoot right now, I've got the biggest day of the shoot tomorrow, and I'm wasting my time trying to teach people on the internet...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Summation was inccorect on it's OWN. But WITH the explanation it makes sense. That's what I'm saying, it seems as though people have just skipped forward to the last line and forgot the rest.

 

To be honest I can't believe it's gone this far. It's a pathetic arguement, I'll drop it if you will.

[Stephen Williams]

.......... if you wanted the same amount of DOF as 35mm you could open up the iris and use faster lenses, giving you much more light, although limiting your DOF.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Daniel,

 

I own a set of Zeiss super speeds on an Ultracam 35. They open to T1.3.

There is no possibility to match the depth of field at T1.3 on any 2/3 inch chip camera or smaller. Using Digiprimes wide open on a F900 is approximately equal to T2.8 on 35mm film.

 

Stephen

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Using Digiprimes wide open on a F900 is approximately equal to T2.8 on 35mm film.

 

Oh my how unutterably terrible I'll never shoot video again.

 

Gah.

 

Phil

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

 

> Using Digiprimes wide open on a F900 is approximately equal to T2.8 on 35mm film.

 

Oh my how unutterably terrible I'll never shoot video again.

 

Gah.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Phil,

 

Remember John Alcott used O.7 lenses for Barry Lyndon some 4 stops faster than 2.8. Don't get me wrong, I have shot over 1500 days on Video, starting with tube cameras in 1986. I've earned more money shooting video than film, but I prefer the look of film, and when possible I get my clients to shoot film.

 

Stephen Williams

Lighting Cameraman

 

www.stephenw.com

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Daniel,

 

I own a set of Zeiss super speeds on an Ultracam 35. They open to T1.3.

There is no possibility to match the depth of field at T1.3 on any 2/3 inch chip camera or smaller. Using Digiprimes wide open on a F900 is approximately  equal to T2.8 on 35mm film.

 

Stephen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Near enough" 35mm equivalent. T2.8 is low enough anyway.

Edited March 5, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Stephen Williams]

T2.8 is low enough anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Daniel,

 

Not for Stanley Kubrick he wanted 4 stops faster! so he could film with just candlelight. Not Overlit. That was over 30 years ago.

 

If T2.8 was enough why have Zeiss just brought out Master Primes at T1.3 the Ultra Primes were T1.9. Cooke S4 are a T2.

If lenses just had to go to T2.8 they would be lighter and cheaper but there are many occasions when DP's shoot wide open on 35mm

 

Stephen Williams

Cameraman

 

www.stephenw.com

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

If T2.8 was enough why have Zeiss just brought out Master Primes at T1.3 the Ultra Primes were T1.9. Cooke S4 are a T2.

If lenses just had to go to T2.8 they would be lighter and cheaper but there are many occasions when DP's shoot wide open on 35mm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And what kind of a DOF would you get on 35mm with a T1.3? Good for special effects maybe, but on digital you can use the T1.3 to bring the DOF to a 2.4 (or whatever the equiv is) and have a lot more light.

 

You don't have a choice but to use T2.8 (in 35mm equiv) on video, either way 2.8 will still give a nice shallow focus and it will gain you more light. If you used a 2.8 lens, yes it would be cheaper/lighter e.t.c. but you'd only a wide DOF.

 

Not for Stanley Kubrick he wanted 4 stops faster! so he could film with just candlelight. Not Overlit. That was over 30 years ago.

With video you can film with just candlelit situations and still get a descent amount of DOF. On 35mm your limiting your DOF to such a tiny amount, personally I'd never go that far.

Edited March 5, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith