Film Test

[David Rakoczy]

1. I would overexpose 2/3s to one full Stop even with Color Neg.

 

2. I would not bother to adjust the Stop just because you zoom in... if you see a fluctuation (after) your next test... then yes.. but I would presume the Lens will be fine zoomed out and in.

 

3. Be sure your Colorist does NOT adjust anything after the Gray Scales on your next test.

[K Borowski]

Well Folks,

 

Not that you're waiting for my response, but I've sent my camera to a tech (Bernie) to be looked at. I HAVE to start from the bottom up, to keep the variables at a minimum. I figure two more of these tests (film, processing, and scan or transfer) and I'm close to a repair bill.

 

So what I've learned from this post is:

 

* Make sure film is fresh (and shiny with a hint of lavender)

* Overexpose up to ONE full stop when shooting black and white

* Make sure the light meter is accurate.

* Use a gray card at the beginning of each reel

* Overexpose a bit more when zoomed in (at least during a test)

* Conduct an eye focus test (as outlined by David)

* If I'm still having problems, I move to the Karl test

 

If I've missed anything or misinterpreted anything let me know. Again, all of your advice is priceless.

 

Kind Regards,

Tom

 

Lol. I am flattered you have named it after me, but I'd recommen doing the "Karl test" *first*, at least the base for part (just one of three). That way, you save having to do all of the other stuff. . .

 

And why did you send the camera back? I highly doubt that is the problem, fog is irregular, and shows up only partially on the frames, especially with motion picture cameras.

 

Even if your camera does have a light leak, you can fix it with a simple application of electrical tape covered by gaffer's tape.

 

 

If you want to further narrow down variables, get a higher-res. scan to email to one of us, and we can probably knock off at least five variables from that list.

 

So, say your camera does have some sort of fogging, and you shoot with another camera, and you STILL HAVE FOGGED FILM? You have to test the film. Everything else is secondary.

 

1. "Karl" test.

 

2. Focus

 

3. Fog

 

Then worry about all the rest.

 

 

Hope this helps. In the mean time, get some old photography texts out from the library (you know, the thing you had to go to before search engines). Find some that actually talk about film, the stuff they had before digital cameras, and immerse yourself in the understanding of what fiml is and how it works.

 

It is only by testing, and the systematic ability to eliminate variables and interpret results that you will be able to move forward as a cinematographer working with any form of media, using it's unique characteristics creatively.

 

For now though, you need to master the basics and just learn to use the medium, defensively, correctly, and then, only then once you have mastered a medium can you deviate from "correctness" and really begin to use it creatively.

 

Hope this helps, wish you would've consulted before sending your camera back as I am pretty sure that is not it. You can't blame a film camera for all your problems, like you can a digital one ;)

 

Take care and best of luck in all of your endeavours!

[K Borowski]

One more thing. I have a densitometer. If you can get the lab to process it for me (yes I could do it, but really don't want to), I will read and interpret densitometer readings *for you* *for free*.

 

We film shooters need to help one another out these days with the digital hoardes out there knocking at the door B)

 

 

~Karl

[Francis Kuhn]

Hi Tom,

 

The images from the Eclair don't look all that underexposed to me, at least from looking at the highlights. The "white" value of the slate held by the kids sitting in the chair is a little down, but not too bad. I'd be afraid if there was much more exposure and you'd start losing highlight detail. The outdoor shots are too contrasty, though. I noticed you had marked "ND 0.6, K-2 + Y1" on the slate. Are K-2 and Y-1 filters? Maybe 85-series or red and yellow filters?

 

If you shoot outdoors in hard light with B&W films, I'd be careful with red or yellow filtration because it will cause shadows to darken in relation to areas of the image lit by direct sun. Shadows are illuminated by the sky, which is blue light. Yellow and red filters will block this color light and make your shadows disproportionately dark, often resulting in underexposure of the shadow areas and more noticeable grain there.

 

BTW a yellow number 12 filter in soft light (say, a rainy day) looks amazing with B&W.

 

-Fran

[Tom Hepburn]

Thanks for the responses gentleman.

 

Karl, I sent the camera to be looked at because I bought it off of Ebay and wanted to make sure everything is working as designed. I'm not sure when it was successfully used last. Another reason is the motor has been hesitating @ 50 fps, (I don't want to water down this post here, making a list of the little things that I wanted checked). I can however add a link to an HD still which I'll do tomorrow. It seemed like there wasn't a obvious clear cut reason, and not just here.

 

I have sent two of the film strips to Kodak so they can analyze it. They have been a HUGE help as well. One was from the Cine 100 and the other the Eclair.

 

I didn't notice a ton of "fog," my main concern was the "blotching" grain which I thought really detracted from the focus and sharpness that I was hoping would be there. I did load it in the dark and it did have black tape around the seams.

 

In a week or so, I hope to be able to post definitive results. Yes, Karl I agree with your outlook. I look at it like, at least at this point, the camera is a tool. I need to learn how to use the tool like it's a hammer or saw, before trying to build a house. I have a lot of post experience so at least I won't be starting from scratch there:)

 

I'm happy to own "user error," but I want to be sure.

 

" one more thing. I have a densitometer. If you can get the lab to process it for me (yes I could do it, but really don't want to), I will read and interpret densitometer readings *for you* *for free*."

 

That's really nice of you Karl, you deserve a test named after you. Let me see what I learn in the next week or so.

 

Thanks,

Tom

[Tom Hepburn]

HD still Edited August 13, 2008 by Tom Hepburn

[Tom Hepburn]

As Fran noticed, I thought I should also point out (if you didn't recognize on the slate) that most of these are using either a yellow #1, G (also Yellow), or K-2 (yellow) filter. So I thought I should post one more with NO yellow filter, only an ND.

 

still_no_yellow_filter

[Francis Kuhn]

As Fran noticed, I thought I should also point out (if you didn't recognize on the slate) that most of these are using either a yellow #1, G (also Yellow), or K-2 (yellow) filter. So I thought I should post one more with NO yellow filter, only an ND.

 

still_no_yellow_filter

 

 

Thanks, Tom. I think this one looks a little better--not as blocked-up on the shadow side of the face. Also, take a look at the values of the slate and the sky in both the HD frame you posted earlier and this new, non-yellow-filtered frame. Even though the slate appears"brighter" in the frame with yellow filtration, the sky value is "darker" than in the non-filtered frame because it's blue light is blocked by the yellow filtration.

 

Also, take a look at the car parked in the background on the right side. It's also "darker" in the yellow-filtered frame. I'd guess it's color is either some tone of blue or it's silver (and therefore reflecting a lot of blue light from the sky). And even though the non-filtered frame looks overall a little down on exposure compared to the one with the yellow filters, I noticed the value of the white strip on the edge of the building on the left side actually appears brighter in the frame without the yellow filter. Okay, enough about yellow filters.

 

A long time ago I was told by John Sexton, Ansel Adams' former assistant, that it's important to check your camera system (camera/lens/film/light meter/processing) to see what the actual rated speed should be with your favorite films. Not to get into too much boring tech info, but the simple explanation is to do a bracketed exposure of an 18-percent gray card (shoot a "normal" exposure based on the film's rated speed, followed by a bracket of two stops over and then 2 stops under, in 1/2 stop increments), have the film processed normally at your lab, then have the results read by a densitometer. The densitometer reading will tell you which exposure actually is 18-percent gray. Now, let's say, for example, the frames with the proper density turn out to be the bracket that's one stop "overexposed" from the mfgr's rating, then you know to simply rate that film at 1/2 the recommended ASA with that particular camera/lens/meter/development combination. (ie, instead of 200 ASA, rate it at 100 ASA).

 

I found that most of my still camera and lens combinations required me to rate the film "slower" than the mfgrs' rating, ie: Kodak Tri-X was almost perfect with my camera and lenses when rated at ASA 200 instead of Kodak's recommended 320.

 

Maybe take Karl up on that offer of a free densitometer reading!

 

-Fran

filter.tiff

no_filter.tiff

[Saul Rodgar]

Filter or no filter the stills still look off. There is too much grain even in the whitest areas, which doesn't makes sense to me even for this type of (older) negative.

 

A bracketed 18% card exposure test to be read with a densitometer would work, but you would have to shoot a test with every lens and film stock you are planning to use. But that would be one of the best ways of knowing what you are up against, if not the best.

 

In my experience negative stock is very forgiving of exposure up to 1.5 stops (or more) in each direction -meaning that it can be corrected in post without too many artifacts being introduced to the image, which we know as latitude- unless there is something wrong with the film to begin with.

 

I still think Tom should use other types of (negative) stock to compare the results.

[Francis Kuhn]

Filter or no filter the stills still look off. There is too much grain even in the whitest areas, which doesn't makes sense to me even for this type of (older) negative.

. . .

 

I still think Tom should use other types of (negative) stock to compare the results.

 

Hi Saul,

 

I have to agree, all the frames look very grainy. I remember shooting that 7222 with an Arriflex S/B a long time ago and my memory may be off, but I seem to recall the grain looking exactly like the film frames Tom has posted here. I was shocked by how much grain there was! Maybe that's just what 7222 looks like?

You're right--a test with other films would be a great idea. Too bad that Ilford FP4 isn't around anymore.

 

-Fran

[Saul Rodgar]

Hi Saul,

 

I have to agree, all the frames look very grainy. I remember shooting that 7222 with an Arriflex S/B a long time ago and my memory may be off, but I seem to recall the grain looking exactly like the film frames Tom has posted here. I was shocked by how much grain there was! Maybe that's just what 7222 looks like?

You're right--a test with other films would be a great idea. Too bad that Ilford FP4 isn't around anymore.

 

-Fran

 

Yeah Fran, those stocks are somewhat to notoriously grainy in 35mm format, maybe they even look THAT grainy to begin with when shot in 16mm. I have not shot them, being that I LOVE reversal B/W stocks, cross processed they look great. However I have seen old and newer 35mm movies shot with them and I don't recall thinking of them as grainy. Maybe the grain really explodes on 16 mm and smaller formats.

[David Rakoczy]

No... Plus X and Double X are beautiful Stocks... 35 or 16mm.. something else was going on. No one will know until the next set of 'proper' tests are completed.

[Tom Hepburn]

Just wanted to write a quick update. Since my camera was off being serviced, I decided to send my processed film out to be telecined again. This time I chose a different company and different format (SD as opposed to HD). The results were the same so I can rule out that it has anything to do with film transferring/scanning.

I did talk with Bernie and the camera and lenses were in need of adjustments in terms of image capturing.

 

So, when I get the camera back, I will test and post the results. Unfortunately my next shooting project revolves around the Chicago marathon in early October and the preparation involved in running such a race. I'm going to either take a chance that all is well and shoot 1,200 feet or scrap the project. Expensive if there is something wrong, other than user error (right ;) ) but subject and scheduled event, won't be available again. You gotta love it.

 

Tom

Edited September 5, 2008 by Tom Hepburn

[Hampus Bystrom]

Yeah Fran, those stocks are somewhat to notoriously grainy in 35mm format, maybe they even look THAT grainy to begin with when shot in 16mm. I have not shot them, being that I LOVE reversal B/W stocks, cross processed they look great. However I have seen old and newer 35mm movies shot with them and I don't recall thinking of them as grainy. Maybe the grain really explodes on 16 mm and smaller formats.

 

Sorry to go of on a tangent from the threads original question, but I'm thinking of shooting a s16mm short with Tri-X.

So Saul, what's the benefit of cross-processing reversal B/W stocks?

If I would try that, is there anything that I need to know?

 

Cheers

[Sean McHenry]

Hey all. Someone handed me a ton of 7222 (4 x 400' cans) which I have bee re-spooling onto daylight reels for a while now at 2am in my basement office on rewinds. Anyway, my experience with 7222 is about the same. Now granted my batch is probably a few years old now but kept cold all the time. In fact, I know Google Video is no way to see film quality but you'll see, evn in the compressed footage, it's super grainy.

 

Link: Short 7222 test

 

I'll try to dig up the stills. These were shot a few months ago with my H16 and a Pan Cinor 17-85 zoom on the beaches in Maine. Metered at 250 ASA straight. Transferred by Justin Lovell on a MovieStuff system, Sniper I think.

 

Even the good quality video transfer reminds me a whole lot of some of the old scary movies from the early 1970s or late 60s.

 

S.

[Sean McHenry]

Forgot to add, I have had more normal success shooting Vision 250D stock and simply pulling the color out in editing. Now my stuff is just fooling around but if you want to see another video I did with that process, see this link for something I shot for the NIN thing they are doing on YouTube. OLD Vision 250D, Bolex, one 150W light.

 

NIN Ghosts I:I

 

It isn't perfect but at this point I'm just a hobbyist.

 

Sean

[Ira Ratner]

Sean, I REALLY liked that!!!

 

But when you get too deep, it's hard to understand everything:

 

Was the color footage HER when she was a child? Because I first thought it was her dead DAUGHTER.

 

But very, VERY well done! Loved it, and every frame kept me interested.

 

Except I was also confused about why she was using a kerosene lamp.

[Sean McHenry]

Sean, I REALLY liked that!!!

 

But when you get too deep, it's hard to understand everything:

 

Was the color footage HER when she was a child? Because I first thought it was her dead DAUGHTER.

 

But very, VERY well done! Loved it, and every frame kept me interested.

 

Except I was also confused about why she was using a kerosene lamp.

 

Hello Ira,

Don't want to drag this too far off topic but, I got the idea from what I have always heard about ghosts haunting the same place going through the same routine every day/night. I thought I would shoot a piece where you couldn't tell the time period, hence the kerosene lamps. The woman is the ghost and she keep repeating this routine over and over but all is not as it seems. Dim dark B&W inside the house but the last shots are the exterior of the same boarded up abandon house in present time, daylight. She is repeating her routine even though nobody sees her in this abandon home.

 

The little girl is supposed to be her and the bear, all shiny and new is the same bear left on the step outside at the end, all ragged and beat up but I didn't get close enough to really see the wear. Also, all the clocks are going backward in time, just to make things more interesting. I like ambiguous details. I'm a huge David Lynch fan. It all has a purpose but I want you to figure it out, and there's no wrong answer, just interpretations.

 

Thanks. Feel free to e-mail me direct of check my sites for more info.

 

Shot by the way, if I didn't mention it, a non-reflex Bolex H16 with a Pan Cinor 17.5-70 Zoom and a 150 W work light. It's not the tools, it's how you use them.

 

Sean

http://www.DeepBlueEdit.com

http://www.MySpace.com/DeepBlueEdit

http://deepblueeditor.deviantart.com

Edited September 11, 2008 by Sean McHenry

[martin meddourene]

Hi,

 

I need a close focus range for a 16mm Beaulieu. What is the minimum focus distance you can get with the ANGENIEUX 17-68mm zoom ? thanks for answering

 

martin

[Tom Hepburn]

Good news folks,

 

The problem is solved. I believe it was a problem with the camera (with a little user error sprinkled in). Anyway, I'm totally pumped at the tightness of the grain with the 7231(b&w negative) I shot! Finally, a sigh of relief. Now I can work on my camera skills, story telling, and editing with decent footage. I'll post some stills when I get home from work, but I need to tip my hat to Bernie who worked on my Eclair and lenses.

 

Thanks to this board as well.

 

(a happy) Tom

Edited October 1, 2008 by Tom Hepburn

[Tim Terner]

That's good news Tom. look forward to seeing some stills from the new shooting and also interested to hear what was wrong with the camera

[Saul Rodgar]

Yeah, Bernie is awesome. However, he is so busy it takes him an average of 7 weeks to get to a camera. Otherwise, I would send him more business.

 

I would also like to read what was wrong with the camera and see some footage when you can post it. :)

[Tom Hepburn]

Hello All,

 

Here is what was done to the camera and lenses:

 

Reset gg to specifications and brought flange focal depth to zero.

Lowered movement friction for greater efficiency and lubed interior motor shaft.

 

Collimated/calibrated the lenses

 

 

Both "pre" and "post" images were shot with the same film stock.

 

Enclair Stills

 

I'd be interested in any thoughts anyone wants to share.

Thanks,

Tom

[David Rakoczy]

Ok.. so your Camera 'should' be spot on..

 

How about your Meter?

Did you overexpose/ underexpose..?

What did you rate your Stock at?

What did you transfer on?

What did you transfer to?

 

You should be getting a MUCH cleaner image IMHO.

 

I have attached a Super 16mm grab... 7217, Zeiss Super Speed 50mm, t2.8, , Spirit TK.

Edited October 2, 2008 by David Rakoczy

[Saul Rodgar]

I like the contrast of the "pre" images a lot better. But there is less grain, which also seems kinda muddy. Interesting. I would like to hear what your exposure and workflow was, as per David's post.