Rating an ASA lower

[Eugene Lehnert]

Is rating a filmstock at a lower ASA the same as overexposing it?

 

I read American Cinematographer and I keep seeing people say that so I just wanted to check it out.

 

Thanks!

[Stephen Williams]

Is rating a filmstock at a lower ASA the same as overexposing it? 

 

I read American Cinematographer and I keep seeing people say that so I just wanted to check it out.

 

Thanks!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi,

 

Yes.

 

Stephen

[John Pytlak RIP]

Here's an example:

 

Kodak VISION2 500T Color Negative Film 5218 is rated EI 500 Tungsten.

 

If you "rate" the film at EI 250, and calculate your T-Stop based on that rating, you will effectively INCREASE exposure by one stop.

 

Here's an exposure table:

 

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h2/ilit.shtml

[Chris Keth]

Yeah, it's just a way of saying how they exposed their film. Rating it at X ASA is an easy way since you can just set your meters accordingly and eliminate any mental figuring that might cause mistakes.

 

 

A lot of people do this to overexpose nominally and get a denser negative that will cause an apparent grain reduction. Or you could do the opposite if you want to underexpose and push the film.

[Rolfe Klement]

I have always been a fan of overexposing by one or more stops - but I must say I am drifting away from it recently. I have been nailing T Stops down to like a 10th of a stop and the neg looks great. Especially with the new vision2 stocks and new Fuji daylight stuff.

 

And I recently underexposed by 2 stops and got the neg pushed and the high contrast look was great.

 

Having said that all these decisions should be based on the required look and testing - just cause Robert Richardson and Co rate 500 at 400 - doesn't mean it will be best suited for your project

 

thanks

 

Rolfe

[Adam Frisch FSF]

There are a couple of DP's I've heard about in commercials that consistently underexposes so the creatives/directors can't brighten it up enough and ruin it. Underexposere = looks good? I'm almost inclined to agree....

[Brad Grimmett]

I did a whole feature at the beginning of the year that was intentionally underexposed by 2 stops. So we were shooting 5218 and rating at 2000ASA. Myself, the other operator, and our assistants could never figure out why we shot like this considering the film is getting a D.I., and the fact that we often needed the extra 2 stops. Dailies were sooo dark and grainy, and not the most flattering to a couple of the actors. I love the high contrast look, but at what cost? I don't think the producers even knew that he was underexposing like this. I'm very interested to see the final product and find out how much a D.I. can bring back.

[Rolfe Klement]

rating 5218 at 2000ASA is a bit too far - I once rated at 1600 and it was a bit tight. I think the whole thing swings in roundabouts (overexpose - underexpose, gritty handheld - solid smooth, etc)

 

But as I said I am coming back to the school of thought that an exactly nailed exposure with minimum filtration on good lenses is the best thing.

 

thanks

 

Rolfe