mattharding

David....do you think I would still be okay shooting CU's at around 80mm? or tighter? Also, did you have something specific in mind when you said "careful lighting"? Looking out for too hot a highlight? Proper exposure? I really appreciate all the feedback.

Francisco....45 to 18 is a huge jump. Can you get away with ASA 200? The '17 would be great--I've found it recently to have very tight grain. I think the 74 would match the look of the 45 much better than 18 would. The 18 has lower contrast and is a little creamy...but it is very sharp--probably as sharp as the 74. John....as far as I know the 45 short ends were in good shape. The EXR and Vision stocks just feel so different to me. The 46 seemed so much more pastel, dug into the shadows so much more, and the green for some reason in the 46 has such a distinctive look. It pops in way that really screams 46 to me when I see it on a screen. When cut together, different scenes shot with the two different stocks cut together fine. But I think the dramatic difference was when I set up a shot, shot exteriors, changed stock and then saw the same scene side by side in transfer. In a split screen, for example, all the different characteristics are so much clearer.

Thanks first of all for all the interest. I am open to any option but I must say I have never really been completely happy with digital diffusion but am open to higher-end options that I've never tried before. The other problem, as many DPs have, is that once I drive away from the set I may not have any control or say on what is done to the image. I may not even be invited to the telecine much less the edit session. So that 's why I would love to get at least some diffusion on the negative. It sounds like from what David said that if I go with the lightest diffusion, there is just about no way I can have too much. Sound right? At least there will be some softening. The other option that I've been somewhat happy with in the past is finding a transfer suite that is open to putting and optical filter into the transfer machine. Maybe another option.

I shot a bunch of daytime exteriors with the '45 and ran out and briefly switched to some '46 short ends. I was shocked at the difference....totally different characteristic. Also, I shot a bunch of '45--some of which was in shadow. Even though I had plenty of stop, I did not like what the '45 did when I was forced to shoot it in complete shadow. The contrast seemed very high and did not dig into the shadow as much as I was used to from the Vision stocks. The high contrast and duller color reproduction might be the look you are going for from the stock. The colors really pop when the '45 is shot in daylight. The '46 would be more versatile in the shadows.

I have heard some people become very concerned with doing a Chroma Key effect off of a super 16 negative. I have had great luck with the Vision stocks. I would imagine that shooting with the Vision 2 7217 would be even better. First of all, should there be any worries of pulling a good key on super 16 with a good Spirit transfer? Then, what if I tried some very minor diffusion on close-up shots that end up being key shots? Is that really gonna screw up the edges? Sounds from the other post on the topic that I would use something very sublte like a soft fx.

That is a good idea....but for the close-ups I plan on keying with something like a 5K, pre-diffused then through a 6x6 bleached muslin and 1/4 cto to warm up the skin tone slightly. Probably does not get any softer than that and I will have control over the modeling. I think the face is going to need just a bit of help in front of the lens to take the unattractive edges off. Thoughts?

Thank you, David. That's very helpful....I hope I am able to find that exact level of diffusion that will take care of the facial inperfections yet not appear obviously fake. I wish I could test!

I have a shoot coming up (super 16) where I am shooting a man in his late 40's who the director is trying to make appear a little younger. He has a very youthful appearance, but in close-ups I've noticed on previous projects, some subtle wrinkles under his eyes and forehead really kill the youthful image. I have always stayed away from much filtration on 16mm (this is finishing on video only), but what I'd like to consider for this project is some light diffusion for the close up work and not for the wide shots. I'd want it to be subtle enough so that the use of the filter is not even identified as such, yet it would just slightly take the edge off the wrinkles on the close ups. So my question is, due to the fact that I have to time or money for test shots, what might be a safe filter when shooting close-ups in the 80 to 120mm range? I would rather have no perceptible diffusion at all then to have too much. I was thinking a 1/4 black pro mist? Even if there are some spicy highlights in the frame...will I still be okay without obvious cheesy halos? Or any other thoughts? I want to be able to intercut the close-ups with wider shots that would have no diffusion.

I know this question must have been asked before, but I searched the archives and could not find it. Maybe I'm doing something wrong. When shooting chroma key/green screen strictly for transfer to video, what is the best exposure for the screen on a reflective reading (so that a digital artist can pull a good/clean key)? I figure about one stop hotter than 18% grey? So let's say that I set my key such that I want to expose at an f4, I want to light the green screen so that the reflective meter tells me f5.6--right?

You have got to love the internet. Where else can a 16 year-old and a member of the ASC have a long free-flowing conversation? Pretty cool.

I am a bit new to the world of HD. I have shot only a dozen or so projects on the F900 and Varicam. The new development of cameras, such as the Dalsa Camera on the homepage prompt me to ask some questions: 1) First, it seems that the cameras like the Viper and Dalsa are going in a completely different direction from the Sony/Panasonic world with the optical viewfinder, larger CCD for 35mm depth of field, etc. Why are Sony and Panasonic not quicker to embrace these film-style characteristics? 2) Why did Panavision settle on a sort of "middle of the road" with the Genesis? There is one large 35mm size CCD but there is no optical viewfinder and the recording device on the camera cannot record nearly all the resolution the CCD is putting out? 3) And finally, what is the mainstream high-end motion picture HD camera system going to most look like in the future? Not too long ago Lucas and his camp were talking like they had arrived with the F900 and now its specs look almost laughable compared to the new stuff out. I have a personal theory that the HD world might split into two eventually. The ENG/HD world with an electronic viewfinder, 2/3" chips (because a shallow DOF and bigger lenses would be bothersome when shooting a home-improvement show, for example) and a recording devise onboard where compression is acceptable and welcome because it brings with it ease of use and quick work-flow. And then the high-end cinema HD with optical viewfinder, large CCD, no recording devise on board for the massive amount of data required to store an image that approaches film resolution, and a more complex work flow that will make it harder to deal with the huge high-res data files. Sound right? I do believe that some day, this high end digital technology will win over the hearts of even the most discerning eye. That seems to be quite a way in the future. But what is so funny is watching companies like Dalsa and Viper BENDING OVER BACKWARDS, going to through the greatest lengths to try to be competitive with the current film technology. And after tons and tons of R & D that Dalsa went through, the best they can try to shoot for at their side by side comparison in Canada is to be "as good as" the newest Vision stocks out there. It is just funny to see people so passionately pursuing a new technology that can only hope to produce results as good as the current technology leader. Think of how far we are from reaping the benefits of using the Dalsa, fore example, over film. New untested work flowlow, different post production, unproven and uncertain results.....I guess you have to start somewhere......

The aspect ratio looked like super16 and not 1.85

Thanks --just out of curiosity, is the flairing or haloing caused by one grain being so impacted by the reaction to light that it starts to impact the grain that is next to it? Also, there were a few times where large portions of blue sky filled the frame (shooting 16mm). This was a portion of the sky without the sun in it, yet shooting toward the part of the sky that would not be as impacted by the use of a pola filter. I noticed in the sky a larger amount of graininess. Can anyone explain why?

Ok thank you John. So at how many stops over the 18% grey reading does the danger of "flaring" begin? 5 stops? 6 stops? Does anyone have any stories, experience, or advise when shooting white limbo practically on a set?

Wow...sorry for dumbing this down so much....but I want to be completely sure I understand what you are saying. Let's say I expose at an f2.8 in order to keep my subject's key light where I want it to be. Then when I take a REFLECTIVE meter reading off the background, my meter should say something like f16? That is a total of 5 stops. 2.5 stops to get me from 18% grey to pure/perfect white and then another 2.5 stops to make it a super brilliant white? Wow, that sounds like a lot. I remember I did something similar before and the white was so overexposed that it got very noisy and grainy. Can the stock handle that? Does all this sound right?

Hi, I have a shoot in a few weeks where the director wants to shoot on white limbo. We are shooting super 16 mm with 7217 new film stock. I have used that film stock on a few other shoots and it has been amazing. I spoke with the director and he would like the most brilliant white possible in the background. I would normally take a reflected meter reading and over expose about 2 to 2.5 stops over 18% grey. What is your opinion on how much over 18% grey I should go? At what point will I start seeing noise in the white because of too much over exposure? Is 3 stops too much? What is the perfect number to shoot for? Thanks for your help.