Evan Andrew John Prosofsky
-
Posts
163 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Evan Andrew John Prosofsky
-
-
I've always been a huge fan of doing true 2k on the scanity at cinelicious even if its for music videos. But, if its seriously affecting your budget, I'd suggest doing a telecine so you can spend more time on getting the color right. On the web, it can be VERY difficult to tell the difference. As much as I would love to tell myself otherwise...
2k scans:
HD Telecine on a Spirit:
(this was underexposed two stops on 5219 so will give you a great idea grain wise where you're at) -
Assuming you already have a proper lens case, I always "strap" the lenses and wrap them in bubble wrap before placing them in the case. "Strapping" the lens means sticking a strip of tape across the lens barrel to insure the lens travels with the focus set at infinity and the iris is wide open. That's very important to maintain the health of the lens when considering all of the forces it will be subject to such as vibration. If you follow this procedure, you should not have any issues with shipping your lenses however you choose.
G
That is exactly what I needed to hear, thanks Greg! And PS for what its worth I just watched American Hustle again and the focus issues weren't apparent to me at all, although you've done a good job of scaring me off k35s :)
Best,
-
Hi there,
Just gauging interest in my set of Hawk C series'. They are in excellent condition with no scratches, fungus, dust, etc. Focus and iris are very smooth and the lenses have recently been serviced by stuart at focus optics. Serious offers only. Feel free to contact me at evanprosofsky@gmail.com, thanks!
-
If you can't find the set for sale in time, please let me know and I can rent it to you :)
Norm
Will do! No chance you're selling yours is there?!
-
Most of my customers end up with a 100-125 ISO sensitivity for the 5222 after testing. This was also confirmed with cross-testing with Kodak Chalons where we exchanged sensitograms and processing. There are many things you have to know before you embark on a serious B&W project. Test before shooting and speak to knowledgeable people, it will save you a lot of grief.
Awesome Dirk thanks for that! I've read before the 5222 is slower than rated so thats good to know.
Does anybody know how the 5222 reacts to under/over exposure? I know color neg film likes a bit of over exposure, but I've heard with b+w its the opposite. And lastly, in comparison to color neg, what is roughly the dynamic range of this stock?
Thanks all
-
It's not low contrast if you are used to color negative, but it looks better in higher contrast light which compensates for its softer grainier look. If this is for video transfer I wouldn't bother with color filters indoors where lighting ratios will be the best and simplest way of controlling contrast. Color filters don't really change contrast they just cut color wavelengths so a red filter outdoors cancels blue, which becomes underexposed (darker) and thus shadows get darker because they have more blue light in them. And because faces have more red in them, they get lighter. So the contrast goes up outside in sunlight using red filters. But indoors you can control the tones of faces and clothing better with lighting and costume design.
Thanks for your wisdom as always david. Definitely agree about the lighting/costume design approach for indoors. I also doubt I'll have the stop for color filters indoors....
BUT....The whole project is supposed to feel "surreal", which is why I'd like to push things a little farther with color filters than I might normally be comfortable with color neg. In this case, I'll do so outdoors. In your opinion (and anyone elses that wants to chime in) do you think there is any particular place I should start? I'd imagine a yellow/orange would be more modest and red if I want to be really dramatic? What filter number should I be looking for? To be honest I'm kinda worried a rental house might not even have these things anymore...haha
Lastly... you mention that since faces have red in them they get lighter as skies get dark (when using a red filter). Do you think in this respect I'd be kicking myself in the foot using a filter since I'm shooting dark skinned actors and I want them to look.. welll.. "dark"? Maybe dark skin would look better against a "white" sky. Hmm..... (gah I wish I could test..)
Basically, I want really deep blacks and silvery higlights. My plan is to overexpose half a stop consistently, shoot with an 81 EF at all times, and when outdoors use an orange filter for deep dramatic skies. If anybody has any comments I would love to hear. eg. should I bleach bypass to get more silver in the neg? expose the neg differently? always shoot in backlight to get that silvery feel?
Thanks guys..
-
Shooting a moody black and white music video on 5222 very soon and have very little experience with the stock. Plan on using color filters to increase contrast (like ed lachman's use of the 81EF as a subtle yellow to consistently increase contrast) but am not sure how far to go. As always I don't have the budget to test (argh!!!!!!) so needless to say I'm a bit worried being that all three main characters skin color is black. Contrast is good but I do still need to see detail ;)
Anybody have any suggestions on where to start? What are the "classic" color filters and which do you feel would be best for both indoor and outdoor moody situations with black actors.
I have read lots about the 5222 and have come to understand it as a grainy low contrast stock. I'd like to combat the low con with these filters to achieve something more dramatic, and if possible, alter my exposures to achieve a more shimmering "silvery" image. If anybody has much experience with this stock, please let me know how you like to rate it and how I may achieve this vibe.
THANKYOU!!!
-
Would the same apply to the daylight stock 250? Shoot at 125? Or is it necessary to overexpose that stock by one full stop..
Are you over exposing to lower contrast or because you're scared of underexposing and thereby want a denser negative to "protect" yourself. If you're scared but don't want to build in a look, rate +1 and have no fear. If you actually want to build low contrast into your neg, overexpose more and pull the film. You could also look into savides' work on birth (and many others) where he uses underexposure and a slight pull to achieve low contrast and milky blacks.
-
To be honest I have to slightly disagree with everyone. +1 on 5219 is incredibly modest and not going to give a significantly different look. If you truly want low contrast and fine grain then a good place to begin would be +2 pull 1 stop, even +3 pull 2 (this will be more dramatic). I recently shot a music video +2 pull 1 and was disappointed with how subtle the result was. You will be happy to see highlights still handle excellently and even when "blown out" do not feel clippy and digital. Most importantly make sure to get a good scan and colorist, you'll be fine.
Obviously film isn't fool proof, but... it doesn't hurt once and awhile to tell yourself when you're getting nervous about an exposure "its film, be brave!". You're shooting film for a reason, make the most of it.
Have fun!
-
Cool thanks everybody!
-
You'll be absolutely fine :)
Remember, like Rob said, pushing film does far less to effect the shadow detail you "increase" and does much more to the overall contrast and grain. Push if you want high contrast and extra grain, not to actually increase the level of exposure you give the neg. If you underexposed anything less than 2 stops, I think you'll be blown away by how much shadow detail you still have to play with in the telecine/scan, and if you exposed normally (as your 7D indicated) you'll be absolutely great!
-
Hi!
Shooting a music video on super8 of all things this coming week with a canon 1014 xls. The video needs to be finished at 16x9 and it is very important to me that I'm able to compose my shots in that ratio as we're shooting. Other than "visualizing", is there a way to actually mark the viewfinder somehow? What does everyone usually do when transferring to widescreen?
Perplexed. Looking forward to hearing your responses, thankyou!!
Evan
-
Hi! Is this still for sale? Very interested.
-
Yikes guys. I felt my response was quite respectful. If you read.. In it I mention that he is asking a FAIR price, kudos to him for having the guts! And, geez, this isn't a marketplace, it IS a forum meant EXACTLY for this type of discussion! If you dont want to discuss price.. Put it in a shop window or something. And just like I might not know what prices reflect the marketplace in Europe (although I purchased my arri 435 and 416 there for far less than Lorenzo's price), Lorenzo may not know what prices reflect the marketplace in north America. I have the utmost compassion for people who invested 100k+ on their new arris only for them to slump in value almost immediately, but this is not a good deal and it is my right to (politely) let other forum members know they could do better. To say I have "bad manners" for doing so is.... Strange.
-
Well...
You have to remember that even if you download the h264 from Vimeo it is still just a h264 and not a pro-Res444 or DPX sequence so it is not exactly a reference but about the best easily showable version for the web.
Most quality scanners scan at a higher than output resolution and I have noted that this is scanned at about 3.2k for a 2K output. I feel the a 2K scan from about a 3K raster on the sensor is about what you can get from S-16mm but that is similar to what a Alexa is or an Arriscan or Scanity and just resolution is but only one aspect of a quality scan. I have used the Spirit and seen allot of film scanned on it and I personally always found it to be a bit too artificially sharpened and that the color fidelity from the original Spirit was lacking but that is just my opinion. I will be doing som more scan tests (with my own film) and posting them plus making Pro-Res444 files available. I am personally really happy with the quality of the scans I am getting from this machine and feel that they are far superior to a Spirit scan but I am also looking at the DPX 2K sequence on a calibrated monitor on the Resolve machine.
As far as a business decision Cinelab is a Film Lab and we need scanning so there was no question that we would be adding several high quality hi resolution scanning options to our list of services. These scanners (we are getting a Pin Reg Monochrome imager system, which is what these were scanned on, and a faster Servo based color imager system) are high quality, fully modualr and relatively low cost to own and maintain.
Film has been 'Dying" for thirty years yet it still shows up every day at the door and we still develop it and print it and scan it.... so i will believe that it is dead when it does not show up.
-Rob-
If you read...
I'm talking much less about how the film is presented (vimeo, compressed) and far more about the actual subject matter and technique behind the tests. I was unaware that you were simply displaying some film you had shot. I thought that this was legitimate "test footage" designed to show the capability of your scanner, which, as I'm sure you would agree with me, is not adequate!!! Does the footage look pretty? Absolutely! But it does nothing to show me the capability of your scanner, and if you think it looks any different than a scan of bolex s16mm footage I've gotten on an old spirit, I would be happy to show you footage that says otherwise.... sorry for being difficult :(
Definitely don't want to hijack the thread and begin a "is film dying or not" argument. But lets not kid ourselves, fuji doesn't even produce motion picture film anymore! And it is INCREDIBLY rare that labs invest in new scanners. Last time I spoke with Paul at Cinelicious I believe he said they were one of two in the states that owned the Scanity, most are still running spirits etc. Admittedly I am far from an expert on the matter but I think it is COMMON SENSE that if you care about film you would present tests that stagger the audience and leave their jaw dropping! 35mm 6k anamorphic scan?? Sounds great!!! If you have film whizzing in and out of cinelab like you say, then can you not ask a talented DP to utilize some of his footage to show off the scanner???
Again, I am sorry to be difficult! But this IS important! Film IS dying and we NEED every example of film to absolutely shine if we want it to stick around. Personally I am absolutely in love with film and I am sticking around for the long run, I don't need your tests to prove to me film is excellent. There are millions of established DP's who know film is excellent. They will stick around too. But we need the newer, younger, generation of DP's who are learning on 5d/RED/ALEXA to see what film can actually do to motivate them to try out a new format!! Being a young DP myself, I can confidently say that about 10% of my peers shoot film. This is not because they don't like film, but because they've been told its either expensive, difficult, or antiquated. They couldn't be happier with their RED images and don't see how film could be any better. If a lab like yours could politely offer them incredible test material and fair pricing....! It would be incredibly helpful :)
Thanks for reading my rant, all the best, and congrats on your scanner! Kudos for fighting the good fight!
-
I wanted to add to the discusiion on film speed and resolution. Film speed has a very minimal effect on the resolving power of the film. If you look strictly at the MTF graphs Kodak 7203 50D has the lowest depth of modulation at 20lp/mm , however it has the lowest granularity of all the camera film stocks and also the least response variance between colors. 500T 7219 has the highest response at 20lp/mm. At this detail frequency 7219 actually "rings" it has a blue response of above 100%. At a 50% threshold of depth of modulation all the stocks have similar performance 50D has a higher red resolution than other stocks but the lowest green and blue. In the end these numbers are lowered substantially by the MTF of the lens and Kodak color film stocks have basically the same resolving power when looking at it in a digital resolution(pixel count) perspective. Graininess is where they differ substantially, it is not the spatial resolving power but the uniformity of response.
Kudos for the info :), but I know what my eye sees, and on a big screen, 35mm scanned at 4k, 50D will always look sharper than 500T. Just my opinion
-
There's one for sale at visual products right now for 14k which they could probably be talked down on. All the respect for trying to get a fair price for you gear (I know it used to be worth much more than this) but sadly your price just doesn't even begin to reflect its actual value in todays market :(, if you want to sell I'd start a lot lower....
Good luck Lorenzo!
-
Cool, good luck, keep it alive!
-
Not to be rude but the test you've provided is more or less useless...
The footage looks no different than tests I've shot with an old crotchety bolex on 7219 and ran through a Spirit. This is because as I'm sure you know... S16mm scanned at 4k or even 2k can be pretty overkill (especially if you're shooting a faster lower resolution stock with an old lens wide open at night...), to see any of the real benefits of this new scanner we need to see something that actually benefits from a 4k scan. Showing us some Super 35mm shot with a more modern lens and a comparison between a slow 50D stock and a fast 500T stock would be much, MUCH more helpful!
This is because (from my own personal experiences with 5219) I can hardly even tell the difference between a 2k/4k scan on the "Scanity" machine during A/B projection; on kodak 5219 at 2k you're already bordering on maximum "visible resolution"! I'm sorry if I sound condescending but i feel VERY strongly about the nature of good tests, because lets face it, film is dying, and if you've invested in this amazing machine, you need to be showing results that prove why film should stay alive and why your machine is worth it. For me, this test does neither of those and is therefore actually a bad thing. Some more extensive tests that actually utilize the machines strength would be very interesting for me and many others that still love film! Thanks Robert!
-
You literally only need 100 ft? Thats less than a minute of film. I think you'd get a better response if you asked for an actual amount. Try Reel good film in LA, they had some last time I called :)
-
Hi is this still for sale?
Thanks
Tyrone
-
Hi everybody,
This coming week I've been hired to shoot some cutaways for a documentary on 65mm. Needless to say I'm ecstatic but I'm having trouble sourcing kit. Panavision woodland hills seems to be the only place and all their cameras are out right now :( does anyone know where I can find an arri 765 or similar? Thanks!!!
E
-
Why are you selling? Were you happy with its performance?
-
"under tungsten Lomo round-front flares are more blue, under HMIs they can go to orange"
Really?? Interesting. Any chance you 100% confirm or deny this? Obviously that would be strange as HMI's are bluer in color and Tungsten is warmer in color. Would be nice to know as this will effect what units I rent next week, but no pressure. (Man I wish I had time to do my own test)
Cool! Thats great you saw the video and liked it :), interesting to hear how things get around, still blows me away!
All the best
The flariest (is that a word?) anamorphics are ones with the anamorphic elements right up front, like Lomo square-fronts and other early anamorphic systems. They also tend to mump because as the anamorphic group is moved to change focus the squeeze factor alters, especially at close focus. Round-front Lomos have a fixed anamorphic group in the middle, in front of a spherical lens set near infinity, with a spherical focusing element at the very front, so not quite as easy to flare, no mumps and less breathing.
Of the anamorphics I've seen, square-front Lomos, Arri Ultrascopes, Cooke Xtal Express tend to flare white, Panavision, round-front Lomos, Bausch and Lomb Cinemascopes more to blue. The colour of the lighting can also have an effect, from memory under tungsten the Lomo round-front flares are more blue, under HMIs they can go to orange.
You'll get the least flare from modern lenses with highly efficient multicoatings like the Hawks, also far sharper edge to edge than Lomos. If you can afford them they fit your brief. I don't have any experience with the Optica Elites, but I've heard they're reasonably flare resistant. Judging from their other lens lines I'd expect the build quality to be better than Lomos, but well below Hawks.
Virtually every anamorphic zoom works by having an anamorphic adapter at the very back, so no horizontal flaring there either. Looks more like cropped spherical. On a budget, old Angenieux HRs and Cooke 18-100s work well, but you lose a few stops and sharpness (esp the HR) could be an issue.
Good luck with the job Evan, it's nice to hear of people still shooting 4-perf anamorphic. You shot a Grimes vid on 35mm if I recall? I've had quite a few people mention that one to me as a standout. Well done!
2k scan or HD telecine for 4-perf 5219?
in Post Production
Posted
Thanks Dylan!!
I shot wide open on master primes and my meter read between .35 and .7 for most of the night work. I had a small litepanels LED i used to add direction to the light but it really wasn't adding much exposure.