J Costantini

Nobody doubts that this is the right thing to do. The problem is when you don't have the "few bucks".

Hi. I'm working on a project and will shoot regular 16mm using 7217 for night interior and 7246 (old 250D) for day exterior. I'm planning to push the 17 1 stop (underexposing 1 stop during shoot and overdeveloping 1 stop). What should I expect from doing this to this stock? Despite the additional stop i'll gain I'd like to have it more contrasty with deep blacks and to saturate it a little more. Are these the effects I may expect when doing this to this film? What about the grain? Will it increase a lot? This stock seems to have an excellent small grain. I've seen it bleach processed and looked great. But never pushed it. How will the latitude be affected by the pushing? Should I take care with my highlights? Or work normally as if I was using a 400 stock? Last thing is. I may shoot an interior scene (lit with tungsten) with late afternoon light (late magic our) coming in... I'd like it to be very blue. Will the push of this film increase the saturation of this blue light coming in? I will shoot uncorrected - straight tungsten and light tungsten inside. But the windows and open door will be uncorrected. Now about the use of the 7246. What should I expect when exposing this stock normally? I have used the new 7205 but never shot with this stock. I've seen tests I know it looks more saturated and contrasty than the new version (vision2 line). Any suggestions to get an unusual look with it? I'll be shooting in the woods a very dreamy and surrealistic story - natural light. The look could be warmer. What filters could I use shooting day/ext? THANKS!

Hi I'm about to shoot a S16mm shortfilm and I'd like to have part of the material with the skip-bleach look. The thing is that this film will probably be transfered to 35mm using an optical process. my question is how could this material react when transferred? The bleach-by-pass parts I mean... As far as i'm concerned the grain on the S16mm negative would be bigger on the 35mm negative so I believe that these parts could look too grainy and dirty on the 35mm print. I COULD develop it normally and bleach-by-pass develop the internegative... i've seen some tests they look nice. The issue is: we are not sure if this film will ever be blown-up to 35... it could finish on video and I would like the material to have the skipbleach look. What should I do? Should I skipbleach on the s16 original negative? How possibly would this picture look when optically transfered to 35? Just to let you know: I will be underexposing the negative 2 stops during shooting. Thanks!

The idea was to push it 1 full stop to 1000 ASA and use T2.0. (I mean use T2.0 and overdevelop 1 stop - just for the aerial shot) Could it look too grainy?? It's the 7218 and going for telecine... anyway, it's a music video and this part will definately have an "acid, bleach by pass look", so I believe that some grain wouldn't hurt.

Hi, I'm shooting a music video, basically night exterior and interior. One "set" is a bridge. a real one, like the golden gate bridge. we'll shoot at night and they will set up a small stage for the band. it doesn't matter that the bridge will be all dark (in fact, it will not, because the cars will be passing by and the bridge has its own lights...)... but the stage needs to be lit and the director wants lights that come from below... like they were put on the floor by the musicians themselves... sort of an improvised show... there won't be an audience, they will be playing by them selves... at some point, the beginning of the music video actually, there will be an aerial shot with a helicopter that will show both the city lights, the bridge and the stage lights will turn on. the stage will not have a ceiling and we'll see the band directly and the lights. questions: 1) what kind of light could I use taking into consideration that we will see them from the aerial shot and that he wants them to be on the ground of the stage? I thought about kinos, but they may look professional and industrial... 2) at ISO500 and T2.0 how do city lights behave in general??... I know there's a difference between shooting Las Vegas at night from above and Mexico city... but let's think about an avarage city at night, not too high... should I push the film 1 stop to ISO1000 and still use T2.0? 3) any suggestions for lighting this situation when I go for the regular shots, close-ups, etc... I thought that maybe I could throw some backlight and make it look like it's coming from the bridge lights... it will be a simple lighting coming mostly from below them. Thank you

Thanks everybody who posted, you've been very helpful. So I believe it won't be a problem shooting 400ASA at T2.8... the flames will behave well I think, still redish not too white. The only thing I can antecipate is that the light (from only 1 flame in the frame) won't project too much light on the actress' face...even if she's next to it. what do you recommend to create such effect with an artificial light source? to increase the light level on her face pretending to be the candle... what gels or combination of gels? Also, what do you mean by a 1-wick candle or 3??? the thickness of the candle?? Thanks

Hi. I'm using a 500 ASA stock, kodak's 18, rating it 400 ASA to shoot a scene with real candles in it. How should I photograph the scene in order to have information on the flames... they could go a little white, but I still want them to be a little reddish, to see the fire. What is the recommended t-stop? What happens if I use T2.8 ? plus what is the avarage temperature for a candle flame? Do they make a caucasian skin look too redish? Could I use my fill light a little higher (in terms of kelvin temp) to make the skin a little less redish if I want to? Thanks

Hi. I'd like to know if you've worked with these two sets of 35mm lenses: Zeiss Standard T2.1 and Zeiss Superspeed T1.3 the previous series, not the new master prime ones. How could we compare these two sets of lenses in terms of color rendition, sharpness, etc. Can I use these PL mount lenses on a bayonet mount BL camera by using a mount converter? How should I proceed? Thanks

yes, i am shooting 16mm but it will go straight to 16mm copy, and all optically. Is overexposing a good thing to do? maybe just 1/3 of stop not to make it too contrasty at the end (this is part of my approach for the photography...) but to have a dense neg? another question that concerns sharpness, but is a little off-topic: does it make a big difference to shoot all my night interiors (90% of the film) using T4.0 instead of T2.8 or T2.0? one last thing: how could I make my pictures look a little grainy without making them constrasty? i thought of pushing, which would increase contrast... if I used bleach by bass (50%) on negative, exposing eterna at ISO400, developing normal, could I print my copy with a lower contrast? thanks

Hi. I'd like to hear from you about these two stocks. I've seen some tests of both but never really heard someone comparing these two 500T stocks in terms of sharpness, contrast, color rendition, latitude. Have you tested or used these two stocks? What differences can you tell? With all this talk about Eterna 500 showing redish skintones and shades and the labs being calibrated to Kodak film stocks I'm a bit concerned about using Eterna 500 on a future project as I was planing to. Thanks

Has anybody tested the new ETERNA 400T? Is it out in the US already?

thanks everybody who posted. at this time, IF we go for a transfer, I will probably transfer with the 1.78 hard mattes and expect people to crop it correctly upon projection. The reason I'd like to have these mattes there is because we sometimes let the boom mic in a little bit or a fresnel hanging, inside the 1.78 margin (expecting to cover it in post)... in fact, we will, but you never know where your film will be projected and if they will throw the right mask or not... in this case i'd rather transfer with the mattes and make sure these things will be covered from the begining. i will try to make tests asap.

yes, I'm talking about a video material shot 4x3 and still waiting to be transfered one day! not about a telecined material... I agree, the best option must be to transfer it with 16x9 hard mattes instead of 1.85 to make sure they won't be visible on the screen... if I used 1.85 hard mattes they could end up showing in case they put the mask a little out of place. is that correct? Now, what do you think the quality will be like? in terms of sharpness, grain, noise? I shot everything with the dvx100 using gamma cinelike, detail -4, master ped around -5, detail THIN, matrix normal. I know it's hard to answer these questions, but what should someone expect when transfering this kind of dv material to 35? any advice for post? what is a good stock to have it transfered to? most of the movie will be outdoors, in the streets, probably tropical sun (this part is not shot yet...)... want to have the best transfer at the end... in terms of camera setup and exposure i think i'm safe, but what else can I do? Thanks

if I transfer my video material 4x3 but with 1.85 widescreen margins (using final cut's widescreen effect, for example) to 35mm 1.37, I know that the image will show two black margins up and down on the negative. BUT what happens if they use the 1.85 mask at the projection? will the mask cover these black parts? This could be interesting to make sure that only the parts I want to be visible will be... avoid showing the boom mic for example in case they put the mask in a wrong place. Does it work? second thing is: do you have experience with dvx100 transfers? I shot most of my material at 1/48 shutter using 1/60 sometimes because of fluorescents. I used gamma cinelike, matrix normal, detail -4. Thanks

Hi. I'm using a dvx100 to shoot a short-film and I have a few doubts about framing and shutter speed. 1) what's the effect that a change in the shutter speed (from 1/48 to 1/500, for example) may create when I transfer the material to film? Is it better to use higher shutter speeds when you plan to transfer 24P video to film? 2) about composition... when I transfer the material to film, what area of the frame will be seen on a 35mm copy? what about a 16mm copy? where will it crop? I don't have an anamorphic adapter and will be shooting 4x3. How should I compose? Thanks a lot

Hi I'm looking for places that transfer video to 16mm. I've heard about some very cheap places in New York. Can you help? Thanks

hi i've bought an original minidv cleaning cassete from panasonic (AY-DVMCL). It's a "dry type". Do you guys know how to use it with the dvx100? Thanks

Thanks. The discussion was much better and much more important than what I expected. Hey See the American Cinematographer issue of this August. It brings an interview with the Brazilian DP Affonso Beato, ASC ABC about "Dark Water" among others.

wow a dp may get 15K/week while a star (who is lit by him) may get up to 15 million per projetc... the dp's salary is good, I can say... perfect for a very nice lifestyle, specially because the dollar is very worthful... but is it fair? are the DPs considered to be "under the line" ?

Hi. I'm just curious... I have no clue about that and would like to ask you... Do you have an idea of how much does a DP get to shoot a feature film in Hollywood?? Let's say suppose he or she is from ASC and the budget is between 20 and 60 million dollars. Thanks

Ahhh Ok. So you're saying that I CAN shoot super-35 full frame and reduce it digitally to a 1.85:1 ratio for the copy?? This sounds like an interesting option in terms of graininess... reducing instead of making something bigger... Am I right? How does this reduction work? Thanks everybody who posted.

But my doubt is What the larger neg area of the S35mm will be used for if my final ratio is 1.85? I believe this extra area is going to be cropped, isn't it?

Lighting suggestion: don´t be afraid of the dark... If its B&W, I would suggest "the man who wasn´t there" as a reference (amongst the new age film)

If I want to do a DI and have a final 35mm 1.85 ratio print, does it make a difference to shoot S35mm full frame instead of regular 35mm with a 1.85 ratio on camera, in terms of picture definition and grain? Keep in mind that the end product will not me anamorphic.

Do you think the finer grain found on ETERNA could be interesting for a super-16mm blow up? Or could the pastel qualities of it affect my final sharpness on a 35mm copy?