K Borowski

Andrew, it's not that hard to get the phone numbers of big-name DPs. At the same time, having their telephone numbers and having them actually carry on a conversation and take you seriously are two completely separate issues.

The really low-contrast stocks are/were Kodak 5229 Vision2 Expression 500T (discontinued), and Fuji 400T, think they're on the Eterna line now, used to be F400. Anyway, I digress, the gamma (contrast) of most stocks is around 0.55 (meaning 16-17 points / 6 or 7 0.025 ∂LogE Bell and Howell printer points) per stop. With the Expression/400T stocks, that contrast is significantly lower, with an average gamma of about 0.45 (just 5 B&H points per stop / 12.5 points). Actually, 5229 (discontinued so it's academic anyway) may have had a gamma higher than 0.45. Essentially, if you were shooting Eterna 400 or F-400, you'd get gamma (contrast) like regular film with a one-ish stop pull. Now as to Eterna 250D 8563 versus Vivid 160 or Vivid 500 (sorry, 250D is too new for me to have data for it), the first has gamma of ~0.53, the second ~0.57, and the third at ~0.59 (almost 0.6, making the 500T the most contrasty, at least for Fuji). Overexposing, pushing, or both can raise gamma up to almost 0.8 with Kodak stocks ( http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/education/Film_Basics.pdf p. 60 ). I'm sure you could get something quite comparable with Fuji as well. Keep in mind that the numbers I gave you are based on averages conducted by FujiFilm and its worldwide processing surveys amongst major motion picture laboratories. Depending on the activity of the developer at your lab. These numbers could be lower, they could be higher. Only way to know for certain is to shoot grey cards at half-F/stop intervals, process, and hit them with a densitometer. Both gamma and average gradient (which takes into account the non-linear portions of a film's characteristic curve) are simple to plot, like in grade school algebra. The change in density over change in exposure (1/2 stop is 0.15 Log units in all three colors) will stay at a constant value on the straight-line portion of the characteristic curve, and will start to change in both the toe and shoulder of the curve (you'll get less density per stop's increase exposure than you should, or you'll run into the film's base fog and not get any clearer, less-dense areas). EDIT: typo

Just want to politely remind fellow forum professionals that they should know better than trusting a number stamped on a can by the Eastman Kodak company to be in any way indicative of the characteristics of the product inside. Or would anyone care to compare the characteristic curve of 2383 that is currently in use to that of the product when it was introduced in the '90s? I guarantee the two are not the same. There've probably been at least two upgrades since then. If Kodak itself doesn't have any obligation to treat product numbers as "sacred," why should its consumers? Whenever EK puts out a notice about its control strip values changing, that's a clue that something is afoot. Not that it will be a huge change, but it wasn't that long ago that Kodak was constantly improving its "500T" stock, think this was in the days of "EXR 500T." Just the name EXR 500T didn't correspond to a specific emulsion number (I don't mean the emulsion batch, the emulsion coat, I mean the number of the general emulsion of that speed and brand of film.) To put it more bluntly: Every frame of film is slightly different, depending on position on the master roll, emulsion batch used to coat the master roll, storage, processor turbulation, time, temperature, and agitation. Every variable is going to cause your tests to deviate, perhaps significantly from Eastman Kodak's or FujiFilm's ideals. As far as the difference between "5230" and "5219," it wouldn't surprise me if '30 were just the very edges of a master roll, or old '18 they didn't sell. Compare the cost of printing a label as opposed to the cost of throwing out 228,000 usable linear feet of 35mm. . .

Was the film paid for in full? If not it may be history. . . The reason why the Pilot Episode of "Star Trek" was almost lost was due to a mixup at the lab (not an unpaid bill, I don't think, but rather an unlabelled can on a rack in amongst 1,000 other cans). Even if it DID somehow miraculously escape from destruction, if it takes more than 10 minutes to find consider it to be probably gone for good. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, and for saying this bluntly. This is the reason for the part of the processing disclaimer that says "NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR NEGATIVES, PRINTS, INTERMEDIATES LEFT OVER XXX DAYS," or something along those lines. Look on the bright side, though. analog tape copies, upressed to HD, and STREEEEEETCHED look *great* on a sixty-inch plasma set ;) In seriousness, though, you do see an awful lot of "film" transferred to HD this way, and I think it may be more than style points, rather similar predicaments to the one you're in. In any case, best of luck to you Brian. . .

I missed the first page's comments. I see now that you were referring to VI; see my 2nd post. Left out of my edit about the one guy throwing down his ciggie. Funny (and sad I guess) how some of the most beautiful things we create are, in actuality, a lot of pain and ugliness. That's the real photographic irony I was never taught in school. I agree wholeheartedly about complementing the two. I think 4K scanning beats generation loss, optical printers, contact printers, and contrast buildup hands-down. What gets me vehemently anti-digital are all the grandiose, devoid-of-fact, Computer Scientist blurbs about how great digi SFX this and software that have freed them from the "tyranny of 'celluloid', models" superior this, pixel that and I want to punch someone in the face. If such things were TRUE, that'd be one thing, but what percentage of this industry is, honestly, working with vision that is sub 20/20? I'd say things, honestly, *still* aren't quite there. Building a model is like building an actual ship, structure. While we are, predominantly, creators of fantasy, I don't think the stories we're telling should be totally detached from the events, wholly or partly from fact, that inspired them.

Just thought I'd post: My comments regarding how a lot of "Big 3" theatres have SCRAPPED their 15/70 IMAX's since Dark Knight I were PROMPTLY deleted from Cinemark's forum. Shows the secretive corporate B@$%&*!s don't want that fact made public. Here are two sites that will help all of you avoid the flat-out, outright, brazen ripoff of paying essentially a premium to see bluray quality "hold-up" on an IMAXsized screen: http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/arthouse/2009/05/the-variable-imax-experience.php INTERNATIONAL LOCATIONS: http://www.lfexaminer.com/theaintl.htm UNITED STATES LOCATIONS: http://www.lfexaminer.com/theaUSA.htm Most "Dome" IMAX/OMNIMAX won't be playing the film, there's a second column indicating FLAT or DOME style screens. DO NOT WASTE MONEY SEEING DIGITAL IMAX. IT'S WORSE THAN 4K PROJECITON or 35mm. . .

EDIT: DIdn't realize this was page 1 of 2. Since you WORKED with these guys, you're entitled to criticize it, then. I'd say, since the only movie that got space almost 100% right was "2001" that no matter HOW they bank, it is wrong. Objects don't bank in space, or come to a stop when they run out of fuel. Also, you SEE engine exhaust, not just engines with lights, or without lights. I've read one ILM guy griping how he could see some sort of painting artifact on the Hero model of Enterprise-E's Hull, think it was in "First Contact," so models certainly aren't perfect (not that anyone else could see this). Anyway, not that "2010" got it right, or that this was why, but neither of Clarke's works were shot with blue screen. I wonder if half of the technology even exists anymore to do modelwork.

@Phil: I'm glad I am not the only one who has seen "Moon;" we need to start a club! :-D @George: Are you talking about IV or VI? There's certainly a rough element to the SFX in IV(not that you can see them on anything but old VHS and obscure film and DVD copies), but if you're talking aobut VI, honestly, it's perfection. That may be the greatest space battle EVER done with models. They composited 100 pieces of film together to do it; you'll never see that level of craftsmanship ever again.

I agree with the value this camera would have for documentary shooting, Brian, but I did say "cinematic" as in dramatic filmmaking, Shooting a herd of antelope by the light of the moon in the African Savannah I'm sure could benefit from high ISOs. Then again, I doubt this camera is the type whose price range is going to fit that sort of production, even for rentals. You don't see many Panavisions out in the jungle for years on end, either. :-) As for "1500" is that more along the lines of 1250 or 1600? As this may be the first high-speed digital device to ever get the high-ISO numbers RIGHT, you shouldn't jinx it by making up your own ISOs (see Canon's 204,800 thugliness). :P If you own a DSLR, I give you a pass. I know their prime audience is a bunch of computer nerds who love odd base-2 numberings, but for those of us who actually seek income, give us a break!

Problem is John: People don't want grain in their high-speed films. The only true-speed 3200 film was made, and discontinued almost 30 years ago now! In fairness, digital beat the pants off of film a long time ago in terms of "speed limit." Real neg. speed topped out at about 640-800ASA in the stocks we saw. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if '19 is as fast as V800 was ( # '289 ). There's really no NEED, frankly, to go faster than 1000 for any practical application in shooting, that I can think of. If you're a "speed freak," you can brag about 100s of thousands with almost any digital movie camera that will be coming out within the next year or two. Personally, I have a hard enough time getting OPEN enough shooting outdoors with 50 film. I know "100,000" is a cool number, but it's so sensitive as to be impractical for almost any lens and application. Most digital sensors have to have built-in ND filters already to bring them down to an equivalent of 50 for outdoors daylight, right? As an aside, John, I know Kodak stabbed you in the back discontinued your favorite stock (they did this to me as well a couple years ago), but if you haven't shot their stock in decades, as you claim, how can you honestly assess what it's like to shoot Kodak? I tend to shoot more EK than Fuji, but, at the same time, I couldn't honestly bad-mouth any of Fuji's stocks either. Even its different pallatte is easily tamed with a twist of a timing knob. I'd say the only honest gripe you could give Kodak is its color stability, but that isn't the cinematographer's problem anyway, is it?

I like that Adrian. I think a play is too general though, for it to be really catchy. The whole world is in 3D except for human imagery. I'd have to think about it, and I have work to do. But, for starters, if I were seeing a hard-boiled detective movie, I'd say something like: "I'd rather go see 'Brooklyn's Finest,' or if I wanted 3D I'd go to a real cocaine bust. :-) " It almost has to be tailored to the genre of movie being discussed. :-D Back to "Dark Knight and MI-3" I plan on journeying out of the state to see the latter in real IMAX. I wonder if I will have that option when "Dark Knight," or if they will have scrapped all the 15/70 installs by then :-(

Speaking practically, I can't think of a single cinematic use of 20,000 that 6400 wouldn't handle save for exposing by the light of the moon. 6400 was good enough for the FBI, and they don't have lights to point at suspects (at least in the visible spectrum). I can't think of any situation I'd need to light with a requirement for more than ISO 1000, unless we want to shoot "Citizen Kane" style with a stopped-down zoom.

Yeah, Steve, I was just pulling your leg. There are people that still come on here that think movie film doesn't need to be processed, though. In my case, the transfer house was smart enough to figure that a taped, original can, rather than a reel, wasn't the normal way to receive film for telecine, so they sent it back. . . Mistakes get made when notes aren't clear. It's good practice to always use BLACK tape around the edges of a can of exposed film, and colored tape, or white tape for unexposed film. Usually, processed film ends up on untaped cans, with reels. I'm not sure if there is a standard tape color? I almost opened a can just a couple days ago that someone had sent to me untaped. Fortunately, there was a black bag inside. At that point I saw the faint pencil note on the back. . . I WAS TAUGHT "PROCESS AND PREP. FOR TELECINE , PROCESS AND PRINT, PROCESS ONLY, PROCESS PREP. AND TELECINE" the last being if it is all done under one roof. The first is if someone else is handling telecine. Unfortunately I don't get to write down "process and print" much anymore. . .

I feel stupid, but I didn't notice that this thead is 2+years old. I'm sure Luhuna made a film already :blink:

Steve, I know everyone is in a hurry these days to transfer everything to video, but shouldn't he write to PROCESS the film before the transfer ;-) I'm kidding here, but I did have a scare once, in my early days of filmmaking, of a roll of reversal film being sent for telecine before it was processed! :ph34r: Fortunately the telecine house had their sh&* together more than the person who put the film in the wrong drop box!

Peter: I think Luhuna is talking about color, not B&W reversal for this project. I can tell you, Luhuna, that reversal is significantly more expensive than ECN-2, at over a dollar per foot ($3.25/meter). I think it's now up to $1.20 or 1.30. Add to this the fact that telecines are often not set up for reversal scanning (though, due to lack of base mask and higher contrast, it's easier to produce good dynamic range on a scanner), and the aforementioned issues with latitude, and it will definitely add some challenges to your project. I'd only allow for a total of FIVE stops of latitude with E100VS film, as opposed to NINE+ with Eastman Color Negative process films. Buy a roll of E100VS slide film and you can shoot stills to see how it compares to neg. film. . . C-41 professional films are close enough for comparison purposes, unless there is someone in Europe processing ECN-2 still lengths. Anyway with only a Euro 12 000 budget, I don't know if the cost of stock more than doubling (processing is probably 4-5 times higher too) is doable. Sorry to be a realist here, maybe with a budget 10x that much you might have a shot at working with this material. Good luck. . .

Don't want to interrupt a UK get-together from the other side of the pond, but I think someone who needs a film-related question answered via chat as opposed to a msg. board doesn't have the attention-span required for this field :-)

Brian: Care to elaborate on what this has to do with anything? Or are you saying that "Knowing's" success is due entirely to an actor's acting? I still confess, I don't understand hero worship from people that work in the industry and know how things are actually done on a film set. . .

Aren't you worried it might be eccentric akin to "Public Enemies," David? I think of that and "Aviator," when I hear of this combination. I'm all for choices, but this sounds like making a film noir in the '40s in a high key style on a Technicolor camera, with no rain and shadows on the wall, to boot! To be honest, just hearing what they're shooting has given me nightmarish images of the latest "Alice in Wonderland" remake style applied to Great Gatsby.

Does anyone else think that shooting 3D digital for a movie set in the TWENTIES is F*&%ing idiotic? That's just a double poor choice. I can't imagine what possible audience he's going for. The thing has a (US?) $127 or 137 million budget too. It's not like they couldn't afford to shoot scope. . . Not that Joe 6-Pack isn't going to go because of this (I probably won't be at the local multiplex catching this, even with a free ticket. . .), but I bet your average viewer will even complain about it "looking funny" and maybe leave with a headache too (one in ten chance, right?)

I agree. . . I'd pay money to see Phil make an audience cry. :D

Since you're using the inverse in lp/mm, it's not simple multiplication, either, at least with working with resolving power of the system at a given contrast. I'm not as familiar with modulation transfer functions. . . You're right that it's better to use 50% contrast. I think a B&W gradient chart is 90%? The real world averages out to be more of the former. The only place that the high contrast situations show up in real life are edge effects. Is this the same as 1.6:1 as opposed to 1,000:1 contrast? Those are the numbers I'm used to seeing when talking about test charts.

Two things, Dom: The film doesn't "outresolve" a lens, nor does a sensor. You take the number of line pairs per mm inverted (say 1/250 for the center of the chart in your example) then multiply it by one over the resolving power of the film. Then, by putting the two together you get the SYSTEM resolution. It's not the smaller of the two numbers, it's a combination of the two. It's not an arithmetic progression (adding, subtracting), I think this is, what, geometric? Sorry, been a long time since higher-level math. As for line pairs, it should be two pixels (assuming monochrome, I don't even want to waste my breath going into all the silly different systems of stacking pixels, different colored pixels, different distributions, etc. etc. One thing from this type of lens equation math, the film is a HUGE part of the equation, the size of it far outweighs the sharpness of the glass. Then all things being equal the lens becomes important. A larger film format, for instance, will have a far greater impact than the sharpness of the glass (or a 1"x1-1/2" sensor as opposed to a 2/3" chip or APS-C chip on a DSLR). One final thing, I know that I saw some article saying a 35mm VV lens (8-perf., it was a still photography test but same difference) tops out at I think it was 22MP, or the equivalent in LP/mm. You'll never go above 22MP with film digital microfilm, anything going through that lens. So a lot of these silly discussions are totally moot unless you're contact-printing gratings onto film or chips without a lens. Same thing if you're shooting wide open or at T 22. Assuming your 7D is using that lens that can resolve 250lp/mm at the center: 1/72lp/mm (7D dividing by two to get PAIRS) + 1/250lp/mm = 1/56lp/mm Your system is only getting 4032 by 2688 (less when you consider that only the center of this lens can resolve 250 lp/mm So 10.8MP at the center probably translates to only 6 or 8 MP of actual resolution of a test chart going edge to edge, stopped down 2-1/2 stops from wide open. Another thing to consider: These tests are at 1000:1 contrast. In the real world, things aren't black and white lines, they're far lower in contrast and therefore will resolve far fewer line pairs per millimeter, maybe 60% of these numbers I've given you here.

Freya, I was responding to the same thing you were with Mei, not anything you'd said.

I'm sorry but this doesn't make sense. . . If you are seeing projected film, how else is he going to get it to your theatre but burn it back onto film? The problem with resolution in the theatre has almost nothing to do with film, nor does film play any part (past the original camera negative) in getting a digital file onto a digital screen. You're dealing with an inadequate 2K file used as a master for a film negative that then goes through 3 more generations. A 4K file would arguably render comparable quality as a traditionally finished cut negative film. The reason why you go through 4 generations is historic and economic. The current film workflow was never really designed for a system that throws out almost half of the resolution for the master film element. It's designed for copying the original element, not a lossy facsimile. No one wants to spend money on 4K scans, in general. Also, no one wants to spend extra money doing film-outs to multiple internegative copies from which to strike release prints.