Matt Sandstrom Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 hi, i'm recording a 720p video project to 35mm and i want it to be quite grainy, like old 16mm reversal. for the digital master i've added "film grain" using software and i love how it turned out, but i guess when going to film it would be better to create the grain optically/chemically? my idea would be to use the grainiest film stock there is, fuji reala 500d or f-400 perhaps, then underexpose it a stop in the recorder, then bleach bypass the print? i'm not sure if that's gonna give me enough grain though, but i can't think of any way of adding more. what about adding grain/gaussian noise digitally, will it look fake on film? i can imagine it becoming a "layer" rather than an organic part of the image. i know it's done all the time but subtly, heavy grain sounds like it would be a different story. thanks, /matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted February 22, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted February 22, 2009 Recording to color neg rather than intermediate stock should help. I think your plan of trying Reala 500D, underexposed and pushed, should work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Rodgar Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Recording to color neg rather than intermediate stock should help. I think your plan of trying Reala 500D, underexposed and pushed, should work. Now, if he wanted GOBS of grain, going to out Vision 2 500T S-8 and optically blowing up to 16 or 35 from there would be an option as well, if the loss of resolution is not overkill. That is some of the beautiful grain I have seen, but it usually is footage acquired on S-8 and blown up . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Sandstrom Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 Thanks guys, much appreciated. Yeah i've thought about super 8, a medium i've worked a lot in as some of you may know, or 16mm but it complicates things too much in this case, plus it probably gets more expensive, plus quality control becomes a problem, after all this is for a theatrical release and not an "art piece". /matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chris Keth Posted February 22, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted February 22, 2009 If you want a 16mm reversal look, I don't know if grain is the answer. All of the 16mm reversal I've ever shot was very slow, very saturated with nice inky blacks, and was quite smooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Rodgar Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 If you want a 16mm reversal look, I don't know if grain is the answer. All of the 16mm reversal I've ever shot was very slow, very saturated with nice inky blacks, and was quite smooth. Kodak 7250 400T/ 250D color reversal stock is quite grainy and low contrast, but I am sure it was discontinued a couple of years ago. There may be some leftovers somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Sandstrom Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 If you want a 16mm reversal look, I don't know if grain is the answer. All of the 16mm reversal I've ever shot was very slow, very saturated with nice inky blacks, and was quite smooth. sounds like you've shot mostly kodachrome? i'm not looking for huge grain, but the old vnf stock was definitely grainer than any any modern negative, especially if you're trying to create the 16mm look on 35. yes, the most prominent feature is the contrast and the weird saturation where it sometimes looks almost b&w and sometimes super saturated, but that i'm handling digitally. i've added grain that i'm pleased with too digitally, but i don't think it will transfer well to film. /matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Sandstrom Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 (edited) Kodak 7250 400T/ 250D color reversal stock is quite grainy and low contrast, but I am sure it was discontinued a couple of years ago. There may be some leftovers somewhere. for the record we've already shot the footage on video for various reasons, otherwise i agree that shooting film is always the best way of getting the film look. :-) i mean i'm not trying to make this look like film, it is what it is, but it's supposed to look a certain way that i think it's easiest to describe that way. /matt Edited February 22, 2009 by Matt Sandstrom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Nichols Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Heh, Anyone care to help me GET RID of film grain on some pushed scans :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Sandstrom Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 wanna trade? /m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now