16mm latitude

[Louis]

Here's another question from a relative newcomer to 16mm:

 

I know that with 35mm film (both still and motion picture), you can underexpose an area of your negative by 3 stops (or sometimes even a little more, depending on the film stock) and still see some detail. Does 16mm film have similar latitude? The reason I ask is that I just shot a movie and I lit a person's face with just one light, and the right side of his face read 2 stops under. That sounded fine, so I shot it, exposing for the bright side of his face, and when I got it back, there was no detail at all on one side of his face, even though it read only two stops darker than the other side of his face, which looked normal. Does this sound correct to anyone?

[Thomas Cousin]

hello,

how did you see your images ? on video after the telecinema or on a 35mm blown-up print?

if you only see a "telecined" version of your pictures, did you assist to the transfer? maybe the color timer added a little contrast to your images and/ or crushed the blacks a little too much for your taste. resulting in too deep shadows, and a contrast increased comparing to what you had on your original negative.

according to what i know, with normal processed negative and even in s16mm, you would be easily able to read details 2 stops under. dark details but still visible. kind of light textured shadows.

if you see the results on a print, maybe it's printed on a too contrasty print stock like vision premier 2393. or a special processed print stock maybe.

bye

 

thomas

[Louis]

I watched the shot on a projected work print, printed on 3383, which as far as I know (which is what the lab told me), is the only 16mm print film. If 16mm latitude and 35mm latitude are the same (as I thought was the case, especially with 7218, which is what I shot on), then why wouldn't I be able to see detail? The only explanation I can think of is that I metered incorrectly, and it was actually more than two stops under. Are there any other possibilites? Do I have some information wrong?

[David Mullen ASC]

In theory, using the same stock as in 16mm and 35mm, and the same print stock (Vision 2383 in this case) and the same exposures, you should get the same contrast. In practice, people don't expose consistently, a denser negative printed down will have more contrast, conversely an underexposed negative will have less shadow detail, and labs can vary in terms of processing which causes changes in contrast.

[Dominic Case]

The only explanation I can think of is that I metered incorrectly, and it was actually more than two stops under. Are there any other possibilites? Do I have some information wrong?

Do you know what printer light was used for the shot? And how that copmpares with the lab's standard?

[Louis]

Do you know what printer light was used for the shot? And how that copmpares with the lab's standard?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I really don't know what light was used, but it was the same light as was used on all the rest of my dailies, as I got one-light dailies. I think I'll check the negative one day to see if the detail is on the negative.