Ultracons

[jeffrey venditti]

Am considering using an Ultracon (a light one like 1/2) to lift the shadows on a Super16 feature I am shooting which is primarily day exteriors. Just thought I might be able to use a little help since much of the backgrounds will be dark wooded areas. I have never used this filter but it seemed like it might be appropriate considering I'll have to work fast and may not always be able to get light into the dark backgrounds. Also - when I am running and gunning it might even help a little to dig into the dark areas of the face when appropriate fill may not be able to be applied due to long hand held shots.

 

Any opinions on this filter?

 

Ultimately the film will probably be color corrected on a Da Vinci system so if the blacks get a little "milky" I suspect I could always crush them right back.

[David Mullen ASC]

You might as well use a #1 or #2 UltraCon if this is for telecine anyway and you can adjust the black levels. A #1/2 UltraCon may be too subtle.

 

Also consider a lower-contrast stock like Fuji F-400T (the new version) or Kodak Expression 500T (again, the new version) in the darker wooded sections.

[Louis]

You might as well use a #1 or #2 UltraCon if this is for telecine anyway and you can adjust the black levels. A #1/2 UltraCon may be too subtle.

 

Also consider a lower-contrast stock like Fuji F-400T (the new version) or Kodak Expression 500T (again, the new version) in the darker wooded sections.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

David-

Have you shot with the new Fuji 400-T yet? If so, how does it's color rendition and sharpness compare to the older Fuji 400-T? I hope Fuji isn't trying to make its stocks exactly like Kodak's.

[David Mullen ASC]

The new F-400T is just an improved version of the old F-400T, slightly sharper and slightly less low-con than before, but also less grainy, especially in the highlights (from what I can gather looking at other people's tests.) Not a significant change over the old F-400T, compared to the old F-500T versus the new F-500T, which was a bigger change.

[jeffrey venditti]

You might as well use a #1 or #2 UltraCon if this is for telecine anyway and you can adjust the black levels. A #1/2 UltraCon may be too subtle.

 

Also consider a lower-contrast stock like Fuji F-400T (the new version) or Kodak Expression 500T (again, the new version) in the darker wooded sections.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm thinking of using the 7212 or 7217 (I never use Fuji) because I'd prefer finer grain and I don't like the Kodak daylight stock as I find them too contrasty.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think you'll find that 7205 (Vision-2 250D) is well-matched in contrast to 7212 and 7217. It's not as contrasty as 7246.

[Oli Soravia]

Any opinions on this filter?

 

I`d like to tell you another opinion: in using those filters, the picture gets a bit milky, although you're going to correct blacklevels on telecine, it will always be different to the rest of the shots, as long as they are shot without those filters. So you`ll probably end up in correcting a lot in post in order to mantain a consistent look. Todays emulsions do really have a wide range of latidude. I would keep it crisp, shoot without any filter (except NDs, maybe some Grads which can be rotated or removed in the shot) and go for an easier matching in telecine. If the contrast is that hard, that you really don`t see anything in the over or underexposed side of the curve, you need to decide for one way anyway - there`s no filter which really could help you that much...sure , that`s also a question of individual taste, I like to get a fat neg without any filtration, especially when it goes to telecine, which offers you a wide range of manipulative tools.

 

Good luck.

[Glenn Hanns]

Any opinions on this filter?

 

..Todays emulsions do really have a wide range of latidude. ...

Good luck.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I always thought that latitude was a reference to the image contrast within the particular stock. A High contrast image has little latitude to move within the acceptable exposure range of that particular film. While a low contrast image has a lot of latitude to move around within the exposure range. This is what Ive interpreted from Ansell Adams writings.

Just to say this has great 'latitude' is an obscure statement. Images have latitude, stocks have exposure ranges IMO.

 

Any opinions?

[Alvin Pingol]

The whole latitude/dynamic range thing was thoroughly discussed a little while ago, and I believe it concluded as so:

 

Latitude refers to how many stops one can either overexpose or underexpose the image such as that it can be recovered to "correct" and still look acceptable. E.g., a certain color neg stock might have a latitude of around 5 stops (3 stops under, 2 stops over), a certain video camera 3 stops (2 under, 1 over), etc.

 

Dynamic range, on the other hand, refers to how faithfully the contrast range within the frame is reproduced. It is true that a high contrast image has less dynamic range, as the highlights will become white, and the shadows black, "faster" than a low con image, where one would be able to discern details in both highlights and shadows.

[L K Keerthi Basu]

please forgive me, I dont think that Color negatives are possible to under expose 3 stops, are they same as that as the original scene when they corrected for normal print. I believe that the shadows will be reproduced as grainy and murky look . This is what I found with my exposure tests.

 

L.K.Keerthibasu

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, obviously what is "acceptable" is highly subjective and also dependent on the look you are trying to achieve. It also depends on how the negative is going to be posted and for what release purpose. For a TV show transferring off of the original 35mm negative and only for broadcast, 3-stops under may look more acceptable than something shot in Super-16 for blow-up to 35mm for theatrical release.

[Oli Soravia]

"please forgive me, I dont think that Color negatives are possible to under expose 3 stops, are they same as that as the original scene when they corrected for normal print. I believe that the shadows will be reproduced as grainy and murky look"

 

It`s quiet few the question, that the whole nominal exposure has to be underexposed by 3 stops, it is more that certain areas of the frame are about 3 or more stops underexposed and others 3 or more stops overexposed....