Christian Tanner

thanx filip! that was exactly what i was after. (and yeah - please send me the pictures you where talking about - very much apprechiated...) anyway: does anyone have a suggestion on what filters to use and/or how to alter the picture in post, to achieve that on film? and what exactly IS halftone printing? cheers!

thanx. but what do you think about the skin color. would you suggest to leaf that to make up? plus - i felt that this "look" also included the overall "texture" of the image. one could argue that this is just due to the paper/surface the picture was printed on - but if a director comes over to me and asks me to recreate a particular look according to a picture (which they often do i experienced), they seem not to be bothered about those things... or in other words: they're only interested in the "general appearance" - almost like a "feeling". (which i thought is appropriate for a director to express him/herself).

hey guys! i got another question about recreating a certain look. this time, it's just out of curiosity though... i was wondering how you guys would approach recreating the look of the attached picture. (i find the process of translating the directors visual ideas (and references) into a "technical concept" most interesting). hence: - what stock would you use? - what filters? - (what lighting?) - how much would you do in post/in camera? and what would you exactly alter in post? thanx guys!

the knowledge i have of reversal stock is that it is/has: in terms of color, more saturated (as in richer colors) less contrast is that true at all? ...allways the case? and more importantly - i was wondering of its reasons. ('cause - funny enough - in my understanding on what happens with silver halides in the processing stage of color film, i think it would make more sense that a reversal film, in terms of color, is LESS saturated...). this is of course pure curiosity. thanx for the help guys! p.s.: also - i red the term "true speed" in releation to the kodak ektachrome 7285 (100d) never heard this term to be honest.

jason, craig - thanx guys! that helped a lot. i'm off to work then... i let you know how it turned out. cary

zooming - of course!... <_< (thanx leo) filip and tim - is it just me or is there the possibility that you guys actually think along the same lines? i mean - thats a tricky one anyways - since we're not talking technical here. but as i see it, we agree on the fact that we ought to try to achieve as good of a picture as possible. how one defines "good", is the confusing bit i think here are my thoughts on that... i was always concerned with what i like to call "the cinematic look". the kind of picture quality i'm used to se on the big screen. (Funny enough - i still strugle even with its deffinition - so i just skip that one and hope you might know what i'm talking about anyway...) it always felt for me that this was (and is) something i have to be able to achieve, before i develop personal preferences as a dp. anyways - i believe that this kind of picture quality doesn't necessarily need high contrast - nor does it need sharpness (in terms of grain). so, criteria that i intend to use to create a look that implyes another era - call it a storytelling device. hope that made any sense. color - as ryan suggested - i'll try to figure out in colaboration with the production designer. back to the "film stocks and processing" bit then: what stocks would you guys suggest?

hi guys! the visual reference i got from my director for the next short i'm doing camera on is "70's cheap suspence-horror-scifi" movies. (because the story is going to play with stereotypes of that kind). also - the director refered to the 70's era as a one of strong colors. (but we're not talking technicolor here). it's going to be super16 - straight to telecine/beta (with little chance to end up as a print). when i heard that - first thing that popped into my head was: "reversal" and "promist-filter". (i'm a fan of doing as much as i can in camera. having said that, i'm reasonable enough not to do major stunts). does anyone have any experience in recreating that or an even earlier look? what stock to use? what camerafilters? what's to be left (concidering the above statement) to post? thanx in advance!

The lab grades (for our school's rushes) just role by role. It seemes to me that they exposed for my grayscales (as they supposed to do - according to our camera sheets). The greyscales are correctly exposed. As for the skintones that follow - they are 2/3 of a stop to 1 stop under. According to the lab - and I agree. In other words, it's most likely that I fu**ed up, not the lab. Again: The whole "problem" started with me, not willing to accept that I handled the light meter incorrectly. The same goes for exposing the grayscale wronlgy. So I started to look for other explanations. The fact that I shot in very low light levels (around 1.4 2/3) was promissing. Especially! because one of my teachers made a comment that this might have brought my exposure into the toe area of the film! It's because that didn't make sense to me (still doesn't), I suspected the problem in me, not getting the idea of the sensitometric curve. So - there you are... (@ stephen: still trying to get hold of my paul wheeler book to get the referance. sorry for that.)

That's interesting. Are you famillar with Paul Wheeler's "Practical Cinematography"? Because he describes this process of "overrating" low-key scenes in his book. Maybe I missinterpreted the paragraph - but it sounded to me that big shadow areas are allways a problem because they "live" in the toe area of the sensitometric curve (where black's get compressed). Also, I heard from three different DP's that overrating low key scenes supposed to be common practice. Don't get me wrong. I'm not taking the piss. I just think it's intersting that you seem to have a totaly different oppinion on that topic.

I tried to formulate this in an itelligent way and I failed. So: How can that be John? Don't the shadows ALWAYS live in the toe area of the sensitometric curve?

let me clarify as good as I can: - I used an incident meter. (the seconic zoommaster. I prefer the dome rather than the flat disc to measure gray scales by the way, since I usualy use two "micers" with heavy difussion at a 45° angle, right and left the grayscale, to get an even exposure). - Unfortunately there is very little information in terms of printer lights. First the lab missplaced the lab sheets, then they gave me the ones for the next role. And even IF they're gonna find them eventualy, they only provide one set of printer lights because they only grade role by role. I agree with David. The printer lights could clear out all these questions quite easily. Since these informations seem to be lost, I think I just have to live with it. The main reason why I asked the question of "underlighting" in the first place was because of the discussions that followed. For instance - and that's in fact a new question - there was the topic of overrating a lowkey scene as the DP's common practice: I heard AND red about the technique of overexposing a low-key scene. A low-key scene with all its shadows can become very grainy (often refered as dirty blacks). To prevent that, DP's overexpose it (by just overrate their ASA on their light meter) by 1 to 2 stops. This brings the shadows, sitting in the toe area of the film, into the straight line of the curve. The lab ought to print that down again. The result ought to be a low key scene with "richer" shadows without nasty grain. And here's the question: If the lab prints the scene down again, doesn't the interpos have a curve as well - and doesn't the shadow areas end up in the same area (the toe) as they started with in the first place? Hopefully, that didn't add to the confussion...

@david: thanx

@ david: I came up with this question during a discussion I had with some collegues. I was pretty sure the answer had to be "no" (as in: no, there is no difference) - so I just wanted to clarify. The discussion started because of the question in which light level to shoot idealy (I heard a cuple of times the rumor that the ideal stop to shoot with in studio ought to be 4). The discussion made a cuple of turns as usual and ended with the strange idea that strong "stopped down" light might have a different quality we don't know about (as oposed to "weak, slightly stopped light"... By the way: does anyone have experience with shooting in very low light levels? What kind of problems did you experience?

Hipotheticaly: I shoot a scene with, let's say, 1000 footcandles illumination. I close my apperture down so that only 500 footcandles reach the film. I shoot the same scene with 500 footcandles illumination. This time I leave the apperture wide open to let 500 footcandles reach my film. Question: Does the 500 footcandles from the first example (stopped down by the apperture) have a different quallity than the 500 footcandles from the second example? (this is not about depth of field).

thanx guys for your help. obviously I have too many questions running. (and in the wrong topic as well...). I'll try to organize myself and open a new threat.

@ stephen: unfortunately I don't know. The Lab gave me a wrong labreport first - and missplaced the right one... I was able to see the actual rushes - not just a telecine. @SamWells: Yes - you're right. But as I understood: If one overexposes ones low-key scene (to bring the blacks into the straight line of the curve and make it actually grey) and let the lab print it down again (by overlight the grayscale as well), the blacks suppose to turn out "richer" then the normal way (exposing correctly from the start).

it seems that we all agree on the same thoughts. but I'm still unsure wheter I got the idea of "the films sensitometry" or not. Here's another - hopefully better - example. It is common knowledge to overrate (overexpose) a low-key scene to bring the blacks into the straight line of the curve. If printed down (on the interpos.) the blacks will look "richer" this way. I get the first bit: Since my scene is a low-key scenario, (little highlights, lots of shadows), I overexpose to bring these shadows out the toe area. BUT: When printed down again - that particular filmstock will have a toe area as well - and by printing it down again my blacks will be at the exact same spot as in the beginning? ...

sorry about the confusion: the post just above this one is actualy mine ...school's computer...

I exposed most of my shots at "2" and "1.4 2/3" - correctly for the keylight. (No under or overlighting). So that my skintone is correctly exposed. I lit and exposed my grayscale for a 4. According to my teacher, this caused the problem. (Unfortunately, no explanation could be given at this point). All the scenes where underexposed. Unfortunately, I can't give any indication on footcandles. Does that answer your question?

Hi guys! This is a tricky one - so please forgive me if the following sounds a little ...odd. First, a statement: "Wheter I use a lot of light and close down the apperture, or use little light and open it up, influences my depth of field and just my depth of field. Because either way the same amount of light reaches the film and sets the scenes brightness (assuming the shot is correctly exposed) into the straight area of the sensitometric curve". So, here's the question: What's wrong with this statement? (I shot the first two rolls of my last 35mm film at 1.4 and two thirds - but lit my grayscale at around 4. I'm 120% sure that I exposed both correctly, but ended up with an underexposed film - about 2/3 of a stop). Help! Please. Cary