shootng without an 85 filter?

[ishan vernallis]

beginner question.

 

i'm hoping to do a camera test in a few days.

shooting kodak vision2 200t.

the film is balanced for 3200k

and needs an 85 filter for daylight.

just a shortend thrown in on deal.

we're shooting outside.

 

i dont know if i'll get a filter by thursday

with the holidays and such

 

if i go filterless.

how off will the color be?

can i easily color correct in post/fcp.

as i will be editing this footage digitally anyway?

 

would it be any different than tweeking with hue parameters

for digital film to compensate for off whitebalanced video?

 

you would think there would be some sort of plugin for fcp's colorbalance

called "filter 85"? (1/2 joking)

 

 

thanks

[Charles MacDonald]

if i go filterless.

how off will the color be?

can i easily color correct in post/fcp.

as i will be editing this footage digitally anyway?

you would think there would be some sort of plugin for fcp's colorbalance

called "filter 85"? (1/2 joking)

 

It is done all the time, BUT it means you are exposing the BLUE layer more than the others, and so your latitude will not be as good as if you were matching the light to the film. try to get your exposure "Exactly" right as if the blue goes too farthe colours will get "Crossed up" and you will not be able to get good colour results.

 

What are you testing? The results will not be reflective of 200T with the right filter.

[ishan vernallis]

What are you testing? The results will not be reflective of 200T with the right filter.

 

thanks for the input charles-

 

basically testing a bunch of stuff i've not used yet.

an acl 400' mag that i've never run film through,

and i'm curious to see what i'll get out of a few lenses

that i've only looked through at this point.

 

but it seems like it might be worth the while to wait until a filter comes

in the mail and to shoot some other stock,

(i had ordered a filter, but the seller didn't get to the post before early holiday hours closing today)

 

might just shoot video instead this week.

it would be a shame to loose what could be nice color

just for a lack of a bit of orange...

 

 

happy new year!

[Chris Keth]

The color can turn out just fine without the filter. Sometimes skintones can be a bit lacking if you go that way, but even that isn't awful.

[David Mullen ASC]

A bigger problem than the missing 85 filter (which is not a big deal to correct for) is not having an ND filters if you plan on shooting 200T outside in sunshine.

 

In direct sunlight on a clear day, it's an f/16 on 50 ASA film at 24 fps (with a 180 degree shutter), so f/32 on 200 ASA film. So you need some ND's or a Pola, otherwise, shoot in the shade, under overcast skies, at sunset, etc. when it gets darker.

[Steve Zimmerman]

Here is our short: "He Can Hear It", we shot it without the 85 filter. I was the DP.

 

Super 16mm 200asa Vision2. Camera was ARRI SRIII with telephoto 35mm format super speed Zeiss lenses.

 

The director wanted a Lance Acord, naturalistic, soft light, no shadows look. I usually light more contrasty so it was a nice change.

 

I underexposed one stop at all times indoors (rated at 400asa). Since the character was blind, the lighting motivation was that he rarely had any lights on, so most of the lighting came from 2 575 HMI's through the windows. I used a Kino Flo for back and kicker lights at times. We never used a matte box, so there's some cool flares and hazing of the image at times.

 

Outdoors, I metered for the sunlit areas, letting the shadows go darker. This was from a best-light transfer, so you can see where the one scene with tungsten light was over-corrected orange. Overall, I was very happy with the look and it came out just the way I wanted it to.

 

Here's the link: click on "He Can Hear It"

http://www.twelvebosses.com/

[ishan vernallis]

much thanks david and chris for the insight.

 

yes, the nd filter factor. thanks for saving me from possible over exposure.

 

it is all a bit of new world to me.

my experience so far is using the ND filter on my dvx100

which i understand in a functional way. but the science of it?

 

if i might pose another rookie question (or two)-

 

i'm shooting various lenses on an acl

all with different diameter front glass

so there is no way ($) i'm going to buy filters for each lens.

 

at this point i'm also working without a matte box/ filter frame.

but

the acl does have this gel filter slot, which while maybe not being as precise/desirable

as putting glass on the end of the lens it is what i'm hoping to make do with for now

as i can swap out lenses and keep the same piece of gel set.

 

as far as gel nd filters (wratten?) which would you suggest having?

if i wanted to budget for only two. a .3 and a.6 as d. underdahl recommends in his book?

he writes that a .3 cuts 1 stop. and a .6 cuts 2 stops and that you can layer them together to cut 3stops.

 

what all this filter talk makes me realize (did you just hear the gulp as i swallowed my pride?)

is just how unclear i am about the notion of what actually comprises a whole "stop".

(laughter, do i hear laughter?)

 

it seems like going from f32 to f16 is a jump of two stops.

why?

 

i understand the basics of how to use a light meter.

film speed in relation to aperture, shutter angle and such.

but if i were to try to tell you how many stops are between f 5.6 and f 11 i'd be at a loss.

is there a simple description/formula that will clarify this concept for me so that when i am using an ND filter i get the correct exposure?

 

slowly slowly

piece by piece

 

i think i'll go to the woodshed now

and practice some scales.

 

thanks.

[David Mullen ASC]

Behind the lens Wratten gels have to be spotless, without any flaws, so check them regularly before using them behind the lens. They need to be replaced regularly. A speck of dust on them will be photographed into the image as a big fuzzy dark spot.

 

Don't stack them either because you can get even more artifacts and maybe even start to throw the back focus off.

 

I find the ND.3 to be the least used because generally you can adjust the f-stop for a one-stop change; you'll use the ND.6 and ND.9 a lot more often (ND.9 is three stops.)

 

You can also get 85/ND combo Wratten gels.

 

Always put a small piece of tape on the side of the camera labelling the filter you have behind the lens, because you don't want to forget that you have an ND.9 in there, let's say, when you start shooting some interiors or night scenes.

[Chris Walters]

much thanks david and chris for the insight.

 

yes, the nd filter factor. thanks for saving me from possible over exposure.

 

it is all a bit of new world to me.

my experience so far is using the ND filter on my dvx100

which i understand in a functional way. but the science of it?

 

if i might pose another rookie question (or two)-

 

i'm shooting various lenses on an acl

all with different diameter front glass

so there is no way ($) i'm going to buy filters for each lens.

 

at this point i'm also working without a matte box/ filter frame.

but

the acl does have this gel filter slot, which while maybe not being as precise/desirable

as putting glass on the end of the lens it is what i'm hoping to make do with for now

as i can swap out lenses and keep the same piece of gel set.

 

as far as gel nd filters (wratten?) which would you suggest having?

if i wanted to budget for only two. a .3 and a.6 as d. underdahl recommends in his book?

he writes that a .3 cuts 1 stop. and a .6 cuts 2 stops and that you can layer them together to cut 3stops.

 

what all this filter talk makes me realize (did you just hear the gulp as i swallowed my pride?)

is just how unclear i am about the notion of what actually comprises a whole "stop".

(laughter, do i hear laughter?)

 

it seems like going from f32 to f16 is a jump of two stops.

why?

 

i understand the basics of how to use a light meter.

film speed in relation to aperture, shutter angle and such.

but if i were to try to tell you how many stops are between f 5.6 and f 11 i'd be at a loss.

is there a simple description/formula that will clarify this concept for me so that when i am using an ND filter i get the correct exposure?

 

slowly slowly

piece by piece

 

i think i'll go to the woodshed now

and practice some scales.

 

thanks.

 

In regards to your question about the fstops don't feel bad for not knowing... everyone has to learn at somepoint in their careers and trust me everyone is still learning even Mr. Mullen would gladly admit he is still learning. Thats what makes this craft so great its a never ending search for answers. Mr. Mullen knows a lot more than me and I hope he understands I used him as an example because he is so well versed in cinematography. Back to your question. The Fstop scale can be calculated but you have to know at least two numbers to find out the rest. More or less it just needs to be memorized and you will remember it the more times you go over it.

 

Here it is

 

1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 45

 

If you notice every other number doubles from the previous. Thats because twice as much or half as much light is reaching the film or sensor depending which direction you go on the scale. In between these numbers are what are called 1/3 of a stop but you don't really need to memorize those at first. But 1/3 stops are the smallest increments that make a significant difference in exposure that the normal eye can tell. However, there are some DPs who can see down to the tenth of a stop difference and they are truly seasoned in their craft, but it is not necessary at this point. Best thing to do is keep going over these numbers and you'll remember them in no time... or just remember two consecutive numbers and you can double or half them to find the others

 

Good luck and never stop searching for answers

[ishan vernallis]

wow!

you guys are really amazing!

i can't thank you all enough.

 

i'm looking forward to seeing your piece steve.

thanks for sharing it, and giving me a chance to see what 200t

looks like w/o 85 filter.

 

this post was a great start to the new years learning curve.

cheers!

[Steve Zimmerman]

i'm looking forward to seeing your piece steve.

thanks for sharing it, and giving me a chance to see what 200t

looks like w/o 85 filter.

 

No Problem. :) Keep in mind it is a best light transfer. We did not have time to go to the out of town lab for a supervised transfer, and unfortunately, we did not give any transfer notes to the colorist.

 

Luckily, the colorist had good taste and graded the negative basically the way I wanted it, by reducing some of blue of the daylight HMI's and Kino's, desaturating the skin tones, leaving a little of the blue in there. It gives a nice color unity to the image.

 

You could always ask the lab to filter out all the blue, or leave it all in, etc.

 

Steve Z.

Edited January 2, 2008 by Steve Zimmerman