Joshua Makela

Thank you Stephen for your response! I appreciate your advice. I will definitely keep David's advice on the colored light, very helpful but I am also using tungsten lights.So that is what I was worried about in under exposing the face when using these lights. 

I finally did the only testing I could do right now with an Alexa Mini and getting as close as I could if I was shooting with film (wish I could have done it on film this round, but budget dictated that being a no go)

With the quality of light we liked on our faces, my readings were falling around a stop to almost 2 stops below key. This was with the hope of shooting with 200T at 1/3 of a stop over. I know I have some room in my shadows to stretch my exposure out, but to be safe should I be aiming to shoot with 5219 at a 2/3 compensation? I know  that Tyler mentioned that if I am trying to achieve deep blacks I should avoid this since this stock will catch a lot in the shadows. I would prefer to shoot with 200T but don't know if I am on the edge of not having a healthy negative with my ratios after this test. 

Thanks Jarin, yes I understood David’s response to the zone system! Appreciate all your help and insight into the stocks as well! That helps to hear the rating your deciding to do with that stock!

On 2/20/2020 at 11:27 AM, David Mullen ASC said:

You can tell they need to be under key exposure if you just take your reference frames there and turn them b&w and look at the tonality.  If a Caucasian face is in Zone 6 or 7 in white light, under a deep color, it's more like Zone 4 or 5.

Ahhh okay, that helps me to see that more clearly. So keep my rating on the stock the same  as mentioned above but just stop down into zone 4 or 5 on my lens? 

Thank you very much David for your insight. I would have never come to the conclusion of the deeper red and blue lights being metered to be underexposed. So very helpful, thank you!  

Thank you  very much for all your information Tyler! This is all very helpful. Would you recommend me, to still rate either stock lower to give myself more latitude?  

Hello to everyone! I’m looking to a music video for an artist on 16mm. This is our first venture together using this medium. I’ve shot stills with analog forever as well as super 8 so I do have film experience but I don’t have much hands on experience with motion / 16mm, only the countless hours of studying I’ve dedicated in preparing for the day I would beshooting 16mm. 
 

I attached a few screen grabs of what the director is wanting to accomplish in terms of lighting / tone. The lenses we have to work with open up to a  2.3. I was looking to shoot with 200T, thinking if I rate it a 1/3 of a stop lower  (compensating with my lighting as much as I‘m able to with the desired tone for the piece) to achieve tighter grain structure, is this foolish? Should I just be shooting with 500T and rate that at a 1/3 stop or even 1/2 stop lower to achieve the same effect? I’m just worried about what will happen to my blacks / shadows since there will be a lot of that with this set up. 
 

My question is given the low key lighting would 200T or 500T and rating it lower be my best option? 

On 2/6/2020 at 1:21 AM, Stephen Perera said:

I cant possibly think why anything adverse would happen other then the field of view issue.....which you know about.....unwanted artefacts on the negative? interested to hear if someone has experienced this......I could give you feedback by next week though....currently shooting some scenes with a 135mm Takumar lens on my Aaton standard 16mm format camera on Kodak Eastman Double X film......looks amazing through the viewfinder....we shall see what the negative gives me.....having 2K Arriscans done

Thank you for your response! I would love to hear back after your shoot and know what you were able to see! 

Hi! I saw that there was some discussion on a thread about this before, but just wanted to get some clarification. Has anyone had experience with using 35mm intended lenses on their super 16? I fully understand that a 50 is a 50 is a 50! My questions isn't regarding what the field of view would be in choosing the lenses but more so on what it would do to the negative with the larger cover area? I have read about it working but at the cost of possible light magnification onto the negative or spilling unwanted artifacts onto the final exposure? I'm still learning when it comes to this subject matter, so forgive me for any lack of proper communication in what I am asking!

I am looking to shoot with an SR3 or a 416 Plus, with the hopes of trying to make the cooke speed panchros!