Daylight on Tungsten film

[Garland Greene]

Hello all! To jump right in for my film I want a high f-stop throughout, to achieve somewhat of a spaghetti western depth of field, and also I like lots of setups/cuts during action scenes and not have to move lights. To get that effect I would think the set should have to look ridiculously bright in person to achieve a high stop?. I'm thinking of shooting my film on Kodak Vision3 200T stock (to get the color I want and small grain) with a 85b filter on the lens the whole shoot (I hate daylight film). So I won't have to gel all the windows for interiors to correct for tungsten, using a 85b filter I can just use all the natural sunlight already there. Since I will be shooting daylight basically, I'm going make a softboxes to hang overhead using 400w metal halide bulbs I have to distribute a nice even light over the sets, and have 65w fluorescent spiral bulbs used as practicals peppering the sets. Do you guys think with this lighting set up mixed with the sunlight, I will be able to achieve a deep DOF and at the same time have sufficient lighting so actors can move freely and I can get all my inserts/cuts?

 

Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, and I hope you're all having a great day

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't think you can light to a deep stop with those lights and 200T stock with an 85 filter (making it 125 ASA) -- your only hope is that the amount of natural daylight is so high that you get a deep stop, if that's what you want. If you are shooting in 16mm/Super-16, you'll also get more depth of field so you may be fine if you can only get to an f/4 or so.

 

Leone really had to blast his sets with bright lights to deal with the 50 ASA stock of his time, and he wasn't always able to get a deep stop indoors, just outdoors.

 

I don't see why there is such a difference between 200T and 250D stock that you'd love one and hate the other. Most people have a hard time telling them apart even when projected side-by-side.

 

A close-up like this in "Once Upon A Time in the West" shows average depth of field, probably was shot at f/4 if this was a zoom lens of the period:

 

But I think of true deep focus photography as having to start around an f/8 at least so that near to far is in sharp focus, at least in 35mm.

[Garland Greene]

David - Yea you're right I'd be better off going with the 250D stock and say to hell with the 85. Hate is a strong word, I should have said dislike. Before when I would study stocks in movies or online videos, I always thought daylight looked much more grainy to my eye than tungsten. Possibly because I'm such a newbie to cinematography I don't pay as much attention as I should. It could also have to do with DI and any number of other things. I just watched the Kodak promo reel for 250D on YouTube and I see your point 100%. I think with the natural light streaming through the windows (I will be shooting in abandoned Victorian houses in Indianapolis, huge windows) and with the fluorescents/softboxes I should be ok I think with 250 stock. Maybe I will just have to forget the deep stop and go with what's there. A man can dream though!

 

All in all, this was a very newbie question of me to ask, but that's what this site is for I suppose. to help everyone (young men like myself mostly) understand the art of cinematography. I appreciate your answer very much. Thank you!