Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Grain'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Cinematography Forums
    • General Discussion
    • Cine Marketplace
    • Cameras Systems and Formats
    • Lighting for Film & Video
    • Camera Operating & Gear
    • Camera Assistant / DIT & Gear
    • Grip & Rigging
    • Visual Effects Cinematography
    • Post Production
    • Students, New Filmmakers, Film Schools and Programs
    • Lenses & Lens Accessories
    • Film Stocks & Processing
    • Books for the Cinematographer
    • Cinematographers
    • Directors and Directing
    • In Production / Behind the Scenes
    • On Screen / Reviews & Observations
    • Business Practices & Producing
    • Camera & Lighting Equipment Resources
    • Jobs, Resumes, and Reels
    • Please Critique My Work
    • Cinematography News
    • Sound
    • Off Topic
    • Accessories (Deprecated SubForum)
    • Regional Cinematography Groups

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





My Gear


Found 11 results

  1. Hello everyone, I am currently shooting a feature on both S16 and S35mm stock. When shooting on S35 (5207) my blacks are black and look really nice, I keep them around 4-5 stops under and they look great. But when it comes to 7207/7219 if I do the same they look super grainy a bit too much. How can I reduce the grain in the shadows? 1. Is it better if I rate my 7207 at 200ASA or even 160ASA? 2. Should I rate my 7207 at 125ASA and then pull down one stop? 3. Should I try and keep the darkest part on the frame 3.5 / 4 stops under and try and maintain that with my spot meter instead of letting it go lower and then later crush it in post to get rich blacks? A bit lost here on what would be the best approach for this. Thanks
  2. I'm a student who is about to shoot a 5min 35mm short. The final look we are going for is one with very minimal grain and no noise. This 5207 test video shot by Kodak is a good example of what we are looking for.    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCxr7YeD0C4   The key thing here is minimal grain and noise. I've been looking into various post houses and the equipment they have and came up with this list:    Fotokem - Spirit  Metro Post - Director Gamma Ray Digital - ScanStation Cinelab - Xena Nolo Digital - Arriscan FilmVideoSolutions - Spirit    I'm not too sure where to go from here. Whats the typical workflow in order to achieve a noise free and (almost) grain free result? Will data scanning instead of telecine help? Is there any post house that is recommended for this sort of thing? And do any of these post houses offer grain management/reduction that can help us achieve the look of that kodak test video?   The scans I've seen from Fotokem seem quite nice in terms of grain and noise but I haven't seen too many examples from others.   https://vimeo.com/174719862   I plan on overexposing by at least a stop to tighten grain but is there any 3rd party software that can help with grain and noise management/reduction after scanning?    Any help is appreciated! 
  3. Hi! This is one of my first postings in this forum, but I just saw a music video and I'm really interested in how this project was realised. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tm-50u4qLe8 - How did they manage to shoot in the blazing sun but still being overall perfectly exposed? Do you think that there's much grading involved? - The grain is fantastic! Is this real grain or an overlay? - What lenses / camera / rig do you think was used? The camera seems to be floating like a drone? Or maybe afterwards stabilisation? Many thanks in advance, I'm really curious!
  4. Hello, I was wondering, how close the Vision 3 films are to each other? Of course the sensitivity and grain differ, but are there much if any differences in terms of colour, contrast and perhaps sharpness too? After all they are being advertised as being intercuttable. If the obvious things like grain are not taken into consideration, would it be impossible to distinguish the different Vision 3 stocks from each other? To a slighty other thing, if the Vision 3 films are very similar, does it make a lot of sense to have 4 stocks that practically look the same? It shouldn't be a big thing to add an extra stop of ND or an 85 filter. Kind regards, Valter
  5. Dear Cinematographers I just shot a roll of Fuji 1600 Natura film and was exceedingly pleased with the texture and color-contrast. The muted colors were prominently mute and the bright colors prominently bright; and on account of this and the high granularity the photographs almost resembled watercolor pictures. And so my question is - is there any way to replicate this effect on modern motion-picture stock, especially 16mm stock? Sincerely Grateful, Kurt Cassidy-Gabhart
  6. If anyone recognizes these problems, I’d be curious to hear. I bought this film second hand so it’s impossible to know how it was stored before I owned it. It’s the first time I’ve run across problems that looked like this, however, and I’m trying to determine what the problem was/is. I’m tempted to say it got large doses of x-rays going through airport security, bit one roll seems to have come out fine. All were Vision2 and 3 500T in 100’ loads in a Bolex super 16. A combo I’ve used many times with no problems. Any ideas? Thanks! https://vimeo.com/157816781 Password: superprob
  7. Hi, I could see lot of grains in the background of the church scene in Moby Dick. Is it the outcome of less lighting or film stock?
  8. Hi all, I am frustrated. I am a proud owner of the new DVX 200. I also own the AJPX-270 and previously owned the HVX-100. I've been shooting almost exclusively with DSLR for the past three years. A year ago I decided to buy an ENG camera and bought the 270. Although it was like I could breathe again by using a real video camera rather than a cobbled together and difficult to use DSLR, I was SHOCKED at the amount of grain that was present in the 270. I did side by side comparisons in a variety of locations and the 5D out performed the 270 in every way (in terms of image clarity and grain). I shot film-rec, spent weeks researching and experimenting with scene file customizations... literally tried everything I could, and the 5D was cleaner across the board. After extensive research and finding a lot of people complaining about the 270's grain, I decided to jump onto the HVX 200 and sell the 270. Today I did many side by side comparisons with the 200 and the 270 and I have to say that the 200 is MUCH cleaner than the 270... in some locations the difference is startling with the 200 being the clear winner. THAT SAID, the 200's image is still really grainy compared to the 5D. Especially in mid tones or where there is a shadow line. The 5D is sharp as hell and the 200 looks like sand. So I have to ask... WHY is the image from a mid-level DSLR so much better (in terms of grain) than a dedicated video camera? I guess my next option is to start the exhaustive research to try to find the right recipe in the 200 to minimize the grain... but shouldn't the default setting right from the camera already give us a solid general-use image? I'm really confused as to why a DSLR has so much less grain.... help?
  9. Hey everyone, Recently I shot a student film with 16mm Kodak 200t 7213 stock. It recently came back from telecine and it looks much more grainy than the footage I've seen previously online of 7213 or even 7219. A Spirit Data cine was used for the transfer and I got the footage as HD pro res 4:2:2. We rated the film at 200 and underexposed -1 stop. My question is, is this the noise from the telecine or is it just 16mm grain? I attached some screenshots below. Thanks in advance Best Regards Yunus
  10. Hello every one. I shot this film in a Nikon r10 . The camera hasn’t been used in 32 years so… as a result of these tests, I will get it checked as far as the lens and the mechanism goes. The thing is, I did expected to see some grain, but this is excessive right? The B&W is a reversal 200 ASA, and the color one is a Negative 250 daylight. I did use the auto exposure meter built in, in the camera. I shot it at 24fps and 59 fps (the b&w). Got it transferred at pro8mm and color corrected scene – to –scene. So, if any one can share his or her ideas, pls do. I want to know what I did wrong not to repeat it again. Thanks every one. this is the link to the video of the film
  11. Hi, I have a couple of questions for our next (student) short we will be shooting in the first half of April. At first we wanted to go 16mm (anamorphic), but it's quiet expensive for us. And wide angle anamorphic is a problem with 16mm. We're still thinking about it though. But it's probably going to be the digital way. Now the short is about half and half daylight and nighttime. Probably a bit more at daylight. We're thinking about renting a Red-epic since it's a lot cheaper (than an Alexa). But I'm a bit "scared" for the nighttime shots with the epic. We will be passing neon street lights, in car shots which can get pretty dark, etc. What do you think? Will it be ok? Second question is about post production. We love the (16mm) celluloid organic look, and specially for this film. We were wondering how this is professionally emulated/achieved. Are there a couple of ways? I add professionally since we were thinking about festivals etc. (I read somewhere that adding a random grainy look is okay for youtube videos but not for more serious stuff.) Thanks ahead,
  • Create New...