Evan Andrew John Prosofsky

Nothin?

Hi All,

I have a shoot coming up shortly in which we'll be attempting to attain a glowy, silvery, spooky looking black and white image. I'd like this topic to focus on black and white and the differences between shooting color and then converting in the DI (ala Michael Haneke's White Ribbon), as opposed to shooting black and white from the start. I'm wondering if there may be any benefit to shooting true black and white as opposed to doing the color conversion.

Furthermore, having never shot black and white before, I have a couple questions which may seem uninformed, I apologize. First thing that comes to mind is, (besides lighting for separation, etc.) should I be treating the black and white neg any differently than I would color neg? Eg. I typically over-expose my color negative by 2/3rds of a stop, would I get the same effect if doing this with black and white?

Thanks again as always, I hope this topic can become a helpful forum for discussion about the pros and cons of todays black and white negative shooting and processing practices.

Evan Prosofsky

Hi Everybody!

As the description says, this is probably going to go down in history as the weirdest music video I will ever be asked to make. It was a tonn of fun, but very strange. Please tell me what you think, I'm mainly interested in a critique of my cinematography but all aspects are welcome for discussion :)

Details:

Arri 35 III

Zeiss Standard Primes

Cooke 20-100

Kodak 200T

LINK TO VIMEO

I too really love the colors. I hope to be shooting some 16mm soon for a documentary, and would love that kind of saturation. Am I to understand you exposed normally and did not employ any special processing, like pulling? The color saturation levels were adjusted in telecine?

 

Bets,

 

BR

Hey Brian,

I overexposed the film by about 1 stop fairly consistently (when I had enough light), and the brought the levels back down in the telecine and adjusted the saturation there.

Glad you like the colors,

Evan

Thanks for the kind words, everybody.

Well, I don't know what the point is, but it's pretty. I love what you've done with the colors. I would watch at least 5 minutes of it.

Thanks, John! I was able to do quite a bit with the color in the telecine. I had the negatives scanned at 2k 444 at cinelicious for anyone who is curious.

As far as the trailers go, they are intended to be 'teasers' and are actually relatively misleading about the film. At some point further along I'll be posting a 'real, theatrical' trailer for the film as well that depicts everything much more accurately. I'm really pleased the trailer got you interested and willing to give the film a chance, regardless of the ambiguity, because thats ultimately what I wanted it to do!

Evan

Hi All,

This is the first short film I've ever photographed. It takes place inside the West Edmonton Mall Waterpark and depicts an unnamed female protagonists exploration throughout it. It was shot on an ARRI SR3 mainly on 7201 with a Zeiss 11-110 zoom. Please tell me what you think about my work! Your comments, criticisms, and advice is always very valuable.

Thanks very much,

Evan

WATERPARK Trailer 1

WATERPARK Trailer 2

Anybody know what my problem might be? I hope I'm being clear enough.

It's pretty simple. Most Arri lll mags have a collapsible core but the ones that don't you just slide the core on. It has a key and you just turn the core until it falls in place. To keep the spindle from spinning just put your fingers on the back side of the mag where the knurled inching knob is and that should work. Place the core so the slot where the film goes is facing up. Fold the end of the film about two inches up and crease it, then slide the folded end into the slot so it is double thick into the slot. Now take the short piece that is sticking out and roll it around the core clockwise then make a few winds. This way you won't get a high spot as the film takes up. I know I explained that pretty poorly but it is just like you do a Mitchell mag or a Panavision mag. Also, once the camera starts the spindle turns and it will usually just click into place. Or even simpler, just put the core on in the light.

I think you're talking about the side that isn't the take up side. I have no problem rolling the film through and attaching it to the collapseable core. What i'm talking about is the take up side. 400ft rolls of film come already with a core, as you know, this core has a notch in it which is supposed to interconnect with the drive key on the take up side. This is what I'm having trouble with. I think perhaps there is something wrong with the drive key, because it can be depressed regardless of whether the notch interconnects with it or not. I hope this makes sense.

Hi John,

 

Thanks for the tip. That makes a lot of sense and i wish it worked like that but...the drive key goes down regardless of where the core is positioned in relation to the notch. This is really killing me!

Anybody have any tips...?

Hi John,

Thanks for the tip. That makes a lot of sense and i wish it worked like that but...the drive key goes down regardless of where the core is positioned in relation to the notch. This is really killing me!

Hi All,

Sorry for all the questions I've been posting in here lately. I hope I haven't been too much a nuisance. As always, your help is greatly appreciated.

The problem I'm having is when loading the 500ft mags for the 35-III. In the manual it says to take care that the "drive key of the feed shaft is seated in the notch in the plastic core". Doing this in the light is simple. But doing it in the bag is proving to be almost impossible!!! I have no idea how to go about doing this, being that feeling the notch with my hands as well as the drive key is almost impossible, and there seems to be no sort of assistance, like a click to let you know its in properly. Is this absolutely mandatory to do? How do you guys do it? I'm hoping there is some sort of tip or secret I'm missing, I'm in dear need of help!

Frustrated but hopeful,

Evan

Great advice, thanks everybody!

Correct me if I'm wrong then, but, is it proper procedure to only take off the lens (if not using a zoom) when checking the gate? Would it make more sense to take off the mag as well, as to spray some canned air through the camera (as you could with an SR3).

Thanks

Hi all,

I have a shoot coming up in Edmonton, Alberta in the dead of winter. It will probably be snowing heavily outside. I'm curious if there is a proper procedure for checking the gate when you are deep in the wilderness and far from a safe warm dry place to check? Is there even one?? ha.

Furthermore, for a newbie like me, if any of you could offer some nice tips on how you prefer to check the gate, just in general, that would be great. I typically just take off the lens and mag and scrape around with one of those skinny wooden stick things if I see anything in the gate. I've only ever worked with the SR3 before and this shoot will be with the 35-III. We're not cropping to 1.85 so I know its important to keep all those hairs out of the frame area. I'm a bit worried if I will have to be checking more or doing anything special.

Thanks very much and sorry for the rather ignorant question,

Evan

I've been shooting with the ARRI SR3 for almost a year now, and never taped around the mag. Mostly because I'd never been told to do so, but recently, when watching a behind the scenes of 'The Life Aquatic' I noticed all the panavision mags had been taped. Now, I've shot over 30,000 ft of film with this camera and never had any problem regarding light leaks. So that being said, I'm curious why this is done, if it NEEDS to be done, if there are various mags for instance that absolutely need to be taped, and so on.

Thanks very much!

Evan

Adam, you say there's a co-op in Toronto that rents 35mm MOS stuff for 50 bucks a day? I live in Edmonton and the only place is FAVA. Unfortunately, their 35 III is broken and doesn't do variable frame rates any more. Not especially helpful being that most MOS cameras are used for things like Music VIdeos which often employ variable frame rate stuff. Whats the name of this rental house? Cool! Thanks

the thing is, most interior lighting, tungsten or otherwise is not 3200K, which is the color temp for "tungsten" balance film. They are in fact warmer, around 3000 or 2500. So when you shoot with that sort of color temp and tungsten balanced film, the resulting image is warmer. Not always, but often when shooting with practicals and available light.

Fair enough, and a very valid point! Though I've often read of DP's having to put their practicals on dimmers and dim them down to get the desired decrease in color temperature. A lot more work and an increase in wattage and intensity of lighting used. Is it fairly common for DP's to shoot with tungsten film but keep the 85 in even during dark shoots to get desired color temperature that way? It seems all these different approaches have their advantages and disadvantages...

Hey Tom. Totally agree with what you're saying about Deakins that makes good sense. Thanks.

I understand how Tungsten film works. And thats why I've always found it rather absurd that people shoot it indoors. The fact that it renders tungsten light 'white' is exactly why i wouldn't want to use it indoors! Tungsten lights dont look white to me, they look warm, they look orange! They look 'godfather-esque' if anything. Whats the point of shooting tungsten if you just have to gel all the lights warmer? Am I missing something? Daylight film makes so much more sense to me. Daylight looks like...daylight. And tungsten lights look like... tungsten lights (warmish).

It is only my opinion, but what I meant was that as far as flexibility, reliably producing a great looking image, exposure latitude, very fine grain given its speed and so on..... it is my gold standard. Many people, Roger Deakins included, like the look of tungsten stock filtered in daylight over daylight balanced stocks. They produce perhaps a richer tonality and color. Daylight stocks can be cooler overall. Nothing wrong with any of them, one is better for one thing and another is better at something else. The 7217 is right in the middle and can do a great many things really well. It is just about everyone's go to stock for a lot of situations. You won't be disappointed. finer grain stocks aren't necessarily better just because they have fine grain. They look great but you need lots of light to expose them and are usually only usable outdoors. kodak's 7201 is not the sharpest, 7212 is which is a 100T. It has just been replaced by a 200T 7213.

Very interesting Chris thanks for your take on things. I understand Deakins often shoots Tungsten stocks unfiltered and then corrects during printing or the DI. I understand a main advantage would be the small amount of light gained from removing the 85, but, wouldnt he lose some color information by resorting to color manipulation? The "true" color of the scene isn't actually being captured. Can anyone think why Roger might do this so consistently? I understand doing it sparingly, eg. for a scene nearer nighttime when you want a 'bluer' colder look. But doing it for the whole film? Why?

Thanks for keeping the discussion going and helping me everybody

probably the best possible solution ya got there. 7217 is the gold standard of super 16 as far as I am concerned. the 13 will take over, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with 7217. Please post your results when your done.

Thanks. I definitely will. I'm interested though, you say 7217 is essentially the gold standard? This intrigues me. I've always assumed that 50D would be the sharpest, essentially "best" 16 stock. Anyone care to chime in on this? I often hear (read) Roger Deakins say that he prefers the look of tungsten stocks over daylight, but I've never understood this. I just don't see how a 200 speed stock could beat a 50. I'd love to know why you think 200T is the 'gold standard' and if anyone could care to explain Mr.Deakins views that would be wonderfully interesting for me.

Thanks for the info! Just called my supplier (certified film). No fuji available whatsoever. He does however have a good deal on Kodak 7217 200T. I'm hoping this would be a nice flexible stock for shooting. Put in the 85, shoot near magic hour, do a little CC in post. What do you think?

I know that this may seem like an obvious answer given the current economic climate, but why can't you afford a test? Will the lab that is handling your processing and transfer not do a test for free or almost free? Most I know will do that. four one hundred foot daylight spools is what you need, 250D and 50D, 160T and 500T. I don't know about one brand be generally more saturated than another, unless you are speaking of the Fuji Vivid stocks, which should be in your test. On a short I did, both the lab and the camera rental house did it for free, cause I was already spending money with them. I shot the test at the rental house.

 

Kodak stocks tend to be warmer and sharper, Fuji, softer and more realistic. if this is being finished on video as it is a music video, a lot can be done with the timing in post. 250D is probably going to be the most versatile with 50D or 64D being used for the beginning when you have more light.(you're only shooting at magic minute?) You could shoot with 250D and use a tungsten light to warm up the faces of the cast. Kodak's newest stocks are very sharp and may be too much for your project. fuji with zeiss super speeds renders an image that is plenty sharp, yet has a subtle softness that might be to your liking. Shooting unfiltered tungsten stock will give you an over all cool, very bluish look. Shoot daylight stock or use an 85(which many prefer to daylight stock).

Shooting reversal film is actually a good suggestion. I didn't think of that. Does anyone have/know of any examples shot on S16mm reversal? Specifically ones that might render a similar look that I'm going for? I understand reversal has a much less lenient exposure latitude, what can I expect compared to typical negative stocks?

As much as I'd love to shoot a test the budget is literally 1000 dollars including camera/lights, developing/telecine, film purchase, cast/crew, etc.

Evan

Hi there!

I'll be shooting a S16mm music video (Arri Sr3+Zeiss) this time next week in Edmonton, Alberta, during the dead of fall. The colors here are very muted and grey, but we have a wonderful (though short) golden hour (more like minute).

We're very interested in attaining a look similar to the intro to my own private idaho,I'm having trouble describing the look. It's saturated, slightly golden, the fleshtones seem really warm and saturated. The film looks sharp yet...soft? Pleasing to the eye. I understand attaining this look can be done partly through clothing and set design, but, would anybody be able to point me in the right direction in regards to film stock? I'm mostly interested in what film stock they might have used, and what you think I should use. But i'd also be curious to hear about any lens choice, filtration, etc. that you may think would be useful in attaining this look.

I understand fuji stocks are typically more saturated than kodak, maybe I should head in that direction? Would there be any benefit between tungsten or reversal, look wise? Should I shoot filtered or unfiltered? (maybe an 85 if i shoot tungsten, or something warmer??) I've only ever shot Kodak 50D and 250D so its difficult for me to make this decision all by myself without the aid of a test shoot, which we can't afford. Any info you can give me regarding my the differences between stocks and the process' i can use, (eg. maybe I should overexpose by a stop to tighten the grain and saturate the colors more?) would be very beneficial. Thankyou as always!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JsqDa_-M-c

Because you don't need to strike a print to see what you shot with the reversal..

Fair enough. But it seems to me there must be other (visual) differences between black and white negative versus reversal, above and beyond the time/monetary savings of shooting reversal.

I understand that in color photography, one of the main differences between negative and reversal stock (visually) is the increased saturation of color. This leads me to my next question, what are the fundamental differences between color reversal, and black and white reversal, being that black and white is...black and white. And going from there, why do we need a reversal alternative to kodaks 5222? If anybody happens to have any visual references between the two, be it films they've shot, frame grabs from movies, written examples, etc. please include them in discussion!

Thanks very much, interested to find this out.