HudsonNY

I have been shooting video (SD and HD) and film (16 and 35) forever. All of my film work up until now has been for telecine. I have always been completely happy with the out come of the 40 or so projects I've shot on film and transferred to video. I just got back from a telecine for a short film I shot and was thinking about all the things that I did to get the look I wanted and I got to wondering whether I would be as happy if the project if we had to strike a print instead of transfer. I do have a basic understanding of the timing process...I've seen the equipment. I know there are three timing lights, etc....but my question is how much can you play with the image as far as total brightness and color hue shift and still bet a believable/acceptable result? In other words, how DEAD ON do you have to be as a DP when shooting for a print? I know this is hard to characterize, but I appreciate any insight.....

Are you going to strike a print or is this strictly for video? If it is just for video (having been through the exact same thing with super 16) I would suggest doing a test where you get the look in transfer and NOT processing skip bleach. It is not as "exciting" as doing a lab technique, but you might actually be able to get the EXACT SAME LOOK with a good colorist on a good machine. This gives you a ton more control over the image and you will be able to make very precise decisions on the look without "throwing away" visual information which the bleach bypass does. If you do skip bleach: Also, if you do not like the look of the bleach bypass, know that some labs such as Fotokem will run the negative again through only the bleach and get you a normal processed negative again. I did this once after transferring from the skip-bleached neg and then had it run through the bleach and transferred it again (for a different look for a different scene). Also, I would strongly suggest underexposing for skip bleach. Especially if you have a scene where you are using up the latitude of the film (with strong highlights) you will really want to underexpose. There are some great explanations of why this is important in the archives.

Did anyone see it? In the first few minutes I really felt bothered by something and could not put my finger on it. I quickly realized that it was shot on HD....anybody know what type? I have seen very few 35mm prints that originated in HD, but this one seemed particularly bothersome. Some of the ultra-high contrast shots and highlights with no detail made me remember how beautifully film handles these characteristics.

I saw this film this week and all the hand held work made me a bit sick. It really made me feel uneasy throughout the entire film....there seemed to be no break from it. And it was further bothered by the fact that at times the handheld combined with the long lenses and an AC who either did not have a clear view of exactly what was being shot or was a bit late on racks... made for some soft shots. All these things "pulled me out of the film" and made me focus on things other than the story. About 90% of the time i liked the look (seemed like a bleach bypass) but a few times, again, the highlights were a bit too blown out to the point where they drew attention to themselves (something I am so afraid of when I use techniques like that).