Edward Butt
-
Posts
15 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Edward Butt
-
-
Can anyone think of any places where I can find old Eastman 100T 5247 stock?
Alternatively, how can a similar look be created using modern film stock?
-
Thumb up.
Hahaha, That's a bit mean. I know there have been many recent threads across the Internet, debating whether digital is as good as/better than film, but the purpose of my thread wasn't to pit digital and film against each other, but rather to discuss the ways in which digital technology is changing to emulate that filmic look we all love.
-
What probably creates the distinctive look is the type of camera rather than the recording medium. The cameras were likely 2/3" 3 CCD studio cameras with no recording device fed into a video switcher for a live switch (and ISO or isolated record decks where each camera's feed was recorded separately to allow for mistakes in the live switch). The cameras used on a talk show like Jerry Springer were similar to the ones used for the evening news and situation comedies that were not shot on film and also soap operas. You would have a hard time telling the difference between an analog and digital recording of the signal from those CCD cameras.
Thanks Luke.
Do you recall which cameras were most popular for such programmes between 95 and 2000?
-
What was the common method for filming talk shows in the 90s? I came across some old 90s talk show clips on Youtube and realised they have a pretty distinctive look.
Here's an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1IsZPyLWMI
I think this episode of The Jerry Springer Show was filmed in 1997. Isn't that when they started introducing digital and doing away with tape cameras?
-
As part of our student film, we'd like to have a long steadicam shot which employs a varying dutch angle.
If we add the tilting with After Effects, would the result be the same as if we had done it physically?
Ed
-
In theory, couldn't one achieve a classic film look by converting a a raw digital image to 35mm negative roll? That way you can shoot without the hassle of film (and the expense of wastage), while being able to take advantage of the subtle nuances which make film so stunning. After all, isn't a CMOS sensor just taking in pure images from the lens, whereas film passes its qualities on to the image?
-
A 3 CCD prism block digital camera with sensors that are 35mm in size, rather then 2/3", would be rather bulky though.
Sure, but couldn't that be avoided by using a colour wheel as opposed to a beam splitter?
-
Of course, there are many who claim that our love of the 'filmic look' is purely based on the fact that we're used to it, and in a few years time, a digital image will seem more organic to us.
I personally hope that this isn't true.
On a side note, would a digital camera designed to work like a sort of inverted DLP projector produce a good image?
By this I mean that an RGB colour wheel would separate each frame into the three colours (like the 3-colour Technicolor process). Just a thought.
-
As I understand it, most big-budget feature movies record on film as opposed to digital; the common claim being that film provides a much more cinematic image, etc.
Does anyone think that we'll come to a point when digital cameras are able to produce an image, indistinguishable from film - and that cinematographers will choose digital over film due to artistic choices instead of being led by financial considerations?
- 1
-
Thank you everyone for your wonderful suggestions.
I'll probably shoot with 200T and then push process it, as David suggested.
Best,
Ed
-
You wouldn't want to light for 50T stock even if you had it...
I think 200T pushed one-stop (but don't compensate completely for the push, rate it 250 ASA for example, and then correct it in timing) would get you close to the grain and contrast of 5251.
Real 5251 would be too old to be usable and modern ECN2 processing wouldn't work right with it anyway.
Don't get too hung up on using an old camera and old stock, what's important is that you break down the look into its components and address them -- grain, sharpness, flare, contrast, lighting, etc.
Ok, this is starting to make sense now. Thanks for putting it into perspective for me.
When you say that I shouldn't compensate for the push, I presume you mean that I shouldn't underexpose the film too much. Is that right? What would be the standard ASA rate for an indoor scene using 200T?
Apologies for my lack of knowledge on the subject. I have a lot of reading up to do.
-
You can get this contrasty saturated look by how you digitally color-correct the telecine transfer of the film negative. But if this has to be done photochemically, you should use something like Fuji Vivid stocks and print onto Kodak Premier print stock, assuming you can find any of those things anymore since Fuji has stopped making motion picture film. An alternative would be to push-process Kodak 200T, for example, for more contrast. I'm assuming you are shooting in 35mm.
I think we've been asked to do color-correction digitally. Would the result be significantly better if we took the traditional approach of chemical coloring? If so, I could ask if we'd be permitted to take a different route.
Is anyone selling 5351 anymore?
Best,
Ed
-
Do you think finding an old Zeiss lens would help achieve the 'look'?
Best,
Ed
-
Hi,
I'm a film student based in London.
As part of a project, we've been asked to shoot a 5 minute movie using traditional methods (i.e. film - no digital).
I've never shot anything using film before so this should be quite an experience; if not a little daunting.
I'd like to try to emulate the style and quality of films from the 1960s. This is what I have in mind:
Does anyone know which cameras and stock were likely used in this filming?
I'm sure finding a camera from that era shouldn't be too difficult, but I have no idea where to find the stock. Are there sellers of old Kodachrome stock?
Many Thanks,
Ed
Buying Eastman 100T 5247
in Film Stocks & Processing
Posted
I'd love to see your footage if you can manage to find it.
Ed