What are your suggestions ?

[Dominic Case]

so another question would be, if that black and white stock is so contrasty, i guess it only has a very small exposure latitude and i have to be very carefull with my lighting ?

Correct logic. But in fact it is because it is reversal stock that you have the extra contrast, not because it's black and white.

 

Negative is very very low contrast, (because it can afford to be, you pump the contrast up in the print). So it has a wide latitude or useful exposure range. If you project the negative, it looks very flat (as well as negative).

 

Reversal film actually has to look right on the screen. So it needs a gamma in excess of 1. (1.0 in simple theory, but for various reasons it works better at 1.5 or even more). If you look at the curve for - for example - 7265, then the exposure range between the toe and the shoulder of the curve is about 1.7logE, which is less than 5 stops. That's a necessary outcome of the film density range (d-max is around 3) and the gamma, which determines how quickly the film goes from dmax to dmin. More gamma, less exposure range.

 

The new Kodak reversal stocks have a much longer straight line, whereas the older versions have a more pronounces S shape, giving very high contrast in the mid tones and much flatter response in shadows and highlights. Better overall reproduction with the new stocks, but correct exposure placement is even more critical.

[Dominik Muench]

David: i usually get a best light transfer, they use a sony vialta. i then sit down with the color timer and we go through scene by scene and i tell him the look i try to get. after the session he transfers the whole lot onto dvcam. i will print out those example shots from the post and take them with me as reference.

 

Dominic: thank you for the info, i had no knowledge what so ever about reversal film since i onlyshot negative before. i am deff going to take extra care of my exposure, guess its going to be a bit difficult since i plan on doing quite a bit outdoors, landscape shots and so on. but im sure in any way, gary will take good care of my stock :)

[Tim J Durham]

There are too many post combinations to list. You could do all of your color-correction at the time of initial transfer from the camera rolls, you could do most of it, edit it, and do a tape-to-tape correction later, you could transfer to a cheaper format at lesser quality, edit, create an EDL, re-transfer selects on a better format/system, online the selects to create an edited master, do a tape-to-tape color-correction... or do that but cut the neg, answer print, create a color-timed IP, transfer that to tape on a high-end system, etc.

 

If your footage is short enough, it's probably worth it doing a supervised shot-by-shot color-correction at the time of the original transfer from the camera rolls.  Otherwise, if you plan on using the transfer as the basis for the video master, at least spend the money on transferring it on a good system at a flat one-light or best-light and then do a tape-to-tape color-correction session later from the edit master.

 

The other option, like I said, is to transfer fast, dirty, and cheap on whatever you can get a deal on, cut the project, create an EDL, and then either re-transfer selects on a high-end system, online/conform the selects into an edited master, do a tape-to-tape correction, etc. OR cut the neg, answer print, make a color-timed IP, etc. like I said before...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, that sounds like a breeze, it's a wonder everyone's not doing it. Thanks again.

 

Cheers.