Film Test

Tom Hepburn · October 2, 2008

Gentlman,

After reviewing today the two, I did find the newer ones a bit "soft." Ironic ey?-see original subject? One difference in these example is that the "pres" were scanned at 1920 by 1080.

I used 7231 stock

I used a $30 computar 12.5mm lens (yep, you read right) on the shot in front of the bricks. I used an Angenieux/Bell and Howell 17-68mm zoom on the shot in front of the picnic tables.

the meter was set to asa 80

I took a reading, adjusted 2 stops for my ND filter and 1/3 for my yellow filter, as well as another 1/3 since my shutter is 144 degrees. I over exposed 1/3 on the shot in front of the picnic table.

It was processed at transferred via telecine at standard 16:9 to MiniDV tape.

I digitized it in Adobe Premier Pro, imported into AfterEffects and exported a still.

In an effort to get more accurate readings, I've purchased a Spectra IV A. I was using an older analog Sekonic meter for these shots.

David I took your advice and focused on the ground glass and locked the viewfinder, but I think I should have taken more time. I wonder if the lack of crispness was do to my not nailing the viewfinder and my eye. It seemed pretty in focus at the time, but things were pretty chaotic as my kids did the sound because of a no show, and did a heck of a job I might add for an 8 and 10 year old.

As always, I'm interested in any further info. I was glad to see the blotchy grain gone, but would like to get things more crisp.

Thanks in advance,

Tom

Saul Rodgar · October 2, 2008

I see. So you went directly to DV this time. No wonder the grain looked muddier/ softer than the Spirit scans, which I believe went to HD?

The Spectra IV light meter is AWESOME. That is my working meter.

Some Computar (and other new c-mount) lenses are great. Most of the new ones are good enough for HD, originally designed and used for industrial megapixel video app's, so they look great when used for film. Not all newer c-mount lenses are created equal, but even the lesser ones hold up really well. I have a similar 12.5mm T1.8 Computar lens that is all right.

Certainly the DV step could be altering the perceived results. Generally speaking, one wants to keep the workflow identical when doing this type of lens/camera/film comparison to be able to rule out any distortion it may have been introduced by changing said workflow. I know it's hard to sometimes, but that makes it hard to be certain what was it that really made the difference.

Edited October 2, 2008 by Saul Rodgar

Adrian Sierkowski · October 2, 2008

Well an SD scan would certainly hide a good deal of the grain due to it's lesser resolution. The first time I saw 500T I had shot (7218) in HD. . I was surprised at the grain! Wasn't there on the SD one-light for the offline really. But, live and learn I suppose (this is before I discovered the joys of 500@320, and the grain didn't detract any from the piece).

David Rakoczy · October 2, 2008

Tom,

Use a longer lens... go to 68mm... that will help 'soften' your BG and give you the 'illusion' of a sharper Image.

Overexpose 2/3 to One Full Stop.

Always 'Tape' focus and check that with an 'Eye' focus.

Hampus Bystrom · October 2, 2008

Tom,

Use a longer lens... go to 68mm... that will help 'soften' your BG and give you the 'illusion' of a sharper Image.

Overexpose 2/3 to One Full Stop.

Always 'Tape' focus and check that with an 'Eye' focus.

Is it good to overexpose Black and white negs?

I've heard that it's better just to nail the exposure?

David Rakoczy · October 2, 2008

Hampus.. you are correct... I forgot Tom is dealing with B&W. Yes, I stand corrected...

Sheeesh.. note to self... gotta wake up before posting :huh:

Tom Hepburn · October 2, 2008

Thanks Guys,

Saul, I didn't have the funds for a HD scan this time around. After doing a dry run on my computer (which had a nice mushroom cloud above it upon hitting "import" :), and calculating the cost, I'm going to have to stay with SD, at least for now. However, and you'll have to take my word for this, while my camera was being serviced I decided to send my "pre" negatives to a different place and telecine to SD. The results on the blotchy grain were the same, just at a lower resolution. So, I'll hope that measuring and minute focusing will improve the images.

Thanks again for the input.

Tom

Saul Rodgar · October 2, 2008

Thanks Guys,

Saul, I didn't have the funds for a HD scan this time around. After doing a dry run on my computer (which had a nice mushroom cloud above it upon hitting "import" :) , and calculating the cost, I'm going to have to stay with SD, at least for now. However, and you'll have to take my word for this, while my camera was being serviced I decided to send my "pre" negatives to a different place and telecine to SD. The results on the blotchy grain were the same, just at a lower resolution. So, I'll hope that measuring and minute focusing will improve the images.

Thanks again for the input.

Tom

Yeah, transfering the pre and post footage to SD was a good call. Your comparison tests are pretty darn accurate then.

David Rakoczy · October 2, 2008

(Generally Speaking) The focus won't alter the grain.. There is something else going on. Either Lens or Lab... or both.

Tom Hepburn · October 2, 2008

(Generally Speaking) The focus won't alter the grain.. There is something else going on. Either Lens or Lab... or both.

Hey Dave,

I wasn't talking about the grain, just that the post images looked a bit soft. I'm good with the grain situation. The make up of the grain in the post images seem reasonable. I've got three primes that I'm going to use. I used to have them on my Cine 100 so I know they can take crisp images. Unless, someone has a Ziess that they want to give away.....but I don't know who that would be......Dave

Tom