Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Tests'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Cinematography Forums
    • General Discussion
    • Cinematography News
    • Lighting
    • Camera Operating
    • AC's & DIT's
    • Grip & Rigging
    • Visual Effects Cinematography
    • Grading, DI and Telecine
    • Students and New Filmmakers
    • Cameras Systems and Formats
    • Lenses & Lens Accessories
    • Camera Accessories & Tools
    • Film Stocks & Processing
    • Books for the Cinematographer
    • Cinematographers
    • In Production / Behind the Scenes
    • On Screen / Reviews & Observations
    • Cine Marketplace
    • Business Practices
    • Jobs, Resumes, and Reels
    • Please Critique My Work
    • Regional Cinematography Groups
  • Not Cinematography
    • Producing
    • Directing
    • Sound
    • Editing
    • Off-Topic
    • Forum Support

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Occupation


Location


My Gear


Specialties

Found 4 results

  1. The late cinematographer Robby Müller was a big advocate of testing. I remember watching an interview of him talking about doing extensive tests of various filters for an upcoming BW film. From what I recall, he said he ran film tests for a couple of weeks with filters. And in the end, he decided filters were not up to the job for his film. Müller was an advocate of letting the camera stay in the background and not having camera work be the main thing. Internet Photo: Fair Use Robby Müller, Inventive Cinematographer, Is Dead at 78 - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Bringing it home to our own forum, I read countless questions here that can't be solved by words, they have to be solved by tests. In the digital age you can't get things any easier to test than digital. And with film, testing is even more important. So, I can't understand why people have such a block to testing things. Can you tell me why? Recently I joined a forum that deals with various still scanning methods and post work. As specialized forum for scanning, I thought it would be a given that members would have test results comparing a flatbed scanner against a camera scanning setup, as they had sections for both of them. My interest in camera scanning is my archival work. Some archival work, especially some cine' film, is not conducive to flatbed scanning. So, I would like to know how methods compare before throwing some money at it. As well as knowing what direction to throw the money in. You would have thought I was from outer space asking the forum that question. I got nothing useful from the forum except a lot of replies criticizing me and my request. Not looking for pen pals, nor having time to waste, I left the forum. I will have to throw some money at it and do my own testing. I was just trying to economize on testing to find direction. Sometimes it is nice if you can build and refine on the testing that has gone before you. But to really get at the truth, you need to test things yourself sometimes. Breastfeeding won't yield much if the tit is dry. <><><><> Example of Newton rings from scanning film directly on glass - DDTJRAC
  2. I've acquired a fine looking Scoopic MS and a couple rolls of fresh Kodak Vision 50 ASA film. Before I shoot any projects, I'd like to shoot a test roll to check everything out. Some issues will be obvious without any special testing protocol - light leaks, image flicker film gate problems. But with respect to sharpness, I've heard some folks report the Canon lens is soft wide open and others report the lens should be sharp at f/2.5 if everything is correct with the internals of the camera. To test sharpness, is there a standard way to shoot a lens star chart. Zoomed in all the way, wide open I would presume? For exposure, the internal meter seems to work and seems ballpark correct but I don't know the precise accuracy. I have a old Minolta digital meter with cine mode, but it seems to be way off compared to my DSLR cameras so that is useless. I got an app for my iphone and it seems to agree with my still cameras. I'm thinking I should stick to one exposure tool and check exposure with it but I'm not sure how to tell if my exposure is 100% accurate. If I shoot a gray card, when I get the film processed and scanned, would the histogram in Adobe Premiere be the way to check exposure?? Thanks for any ideas. Geoffrey www.chandlervideo.com
  3. Dear Cinematographers, Was intending to shoot film and lens tests with a super 16 Krasnogorsk-3, in preparation for a project done on an Aaton XTR PROD. Now is there any way that I might use the M42 mount lenses for the Krasnogorsk (namely, Zenitar 16/2.8; Pentax Super-Takumar 50/1.4; &c.), later on for the Aaton? Do they have M42 to Aaton adapters? Someone else posed this question awhile ago, but they never received any clear answers. Sincerely Grateful, Kurt Cassidy-Gabhart
  4. Hi All, We recently conducted some (rough) tests on some expired (2008) Fuji Reala 500D. It had been in cold storage for 8 years and in a kit cupboard in an unheated studio for 6 months. Had it clip tested with Idaillies (now Kodak) who recommend rating the stock at 125 ASA (2 stops over). Here are the test results (500 ASA stock, rated at 125 ASA with global 2 stop pull): pass = test What we were trying to test: - Latitude of the film when rated at 125 ASA - Performance in daylight dusk situations. - Characteristics of different lenses wide open (or near) - Whether shooting Anamorphic helped negate some of increased graininess from pulling expired sensitive stock. Things to bear in mind: - Only had small tungsten fixtures inside (rebalanced after transfer) - Had to move lights at points rather than opening up - Using old anamorphic glass (Cineovisions) for interior/exterior tests. We're going to load it up in Resolve in January and see what's there in a DPX. But I'm curious as to whether any one has any suggestions for why T 2.8 @ 3.5+ stops looks better than T 1.6 @ 3.0 stops .We're wondering whether it's blooming from the lenses or a higher reflective quality from the skin due to increased proximity to the light? It's not 'blowing out' but it's certainly on the edge of usable. Also - we're wondering whether we're better rating the stock at 125 ASA and pulling it chemically OR rating it 500 and pulling it digitally? And whether each of those processes would have their own merit for different situations (day vs. dusk). Thanks in advance! Josh
×
×
  • Create New...