5217/5212 pulled?... 1,2 stops?

[Ian Coad]

i'm shooting a film about a young boy in a trailer park - the low contrast qualities of 5229 will serve for interiors and night exteriors.

 

but i want to create similar color palette for the days, but more liberated. i'd like to reduce the grain for the moments when he is outside on his own. i'm wondering if pulling down 5212 or 5217 and potentially adding a low con filter (never used one, no clue how effective they actually are) could yield results that would give me something pastelly like this:

 

 

i'd also love to know of any films or examples of what those two stocks can look like when pulled - for a low contrast kind of look.

 

i'd also like to know what pulling does to grain structure if pulled 1 or 2 stops.

 

if i'm way out in left field certainly let me know.

 

thanks very much.

 

- ian.

[Saul Rodgar]

The grain structure of pulled film is generally tighter than normally exposed and processed footage. The stocks you want to use are lower contrast stocks to begin with, and the 12 is the tightest grain stock currently in production as far as I am concerned.

 

I have pulled 7205 2 stops and it looked nice, sharp and very low contrast. I increased the contrast in post, so if I showed you the results, it would not be indicative of how it looked off the negative. I have not pulled 12-17, but I would expect them to behave somewhat similarly to 05. I would not use a low con filter with the pulled stock, unless you have done testing beforehand. I would also shoot exteriors without a polarizer filter, for less contrast.

[Ian Coad]

great stuff saul, thank you.

 

anyone out there have any good film references for pulled stock? the only ones i know of are the examples in my cinematography books (such as 'reflections').

[anthony le grand]

great stuff saul, thank you.

 

anyone out there have any good film references for pulled stock? the only ones i know of are the examples in my cinematography books (such as 'reflections').

 

 

I sometimes pulled film stocks when I was shooting 16mm and I think it looked great. But the result will depend a lot of your exposure. Do you plan to overexpose to compensate the pull process or do you want to let the overall negative underexposed?

 

Chris Doyle did that quite often, with Wong Kar Wai and maybe Paranoid Park? It looked like. Lady in the Water was pulled one stop as well.

And of course, Harris Savides. I think The Yards and Birth were pulled 2 stops but severely underexposed so it may be a different look of what you want. Maybe he did that with Gus van Sant's "trilogy" but I'm not sure sorry. Last Days and Elephant were low contrasts and soft, he used 7229 and 5263 and I wouldn't be surprised if pulling was included.

Here's a ad where he was cinematographer for Sofia Coppola, the underexposure is important:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgNoD1Lemyw

 

Two Lovers by James Gray was pulled one stop as well without compensation and I think it looked gorgeous.

But generally speaking, pulling, underexposing and printing up may give you a softer look you're after. You shouldn't have a grain increase if you do both and will have something very soft.

[Saul Rodgar]

Here's a ad where he was cinematographer for Sofia Coppola, the underexposure is important:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgNoD1Lemyw

 

Um, I don't see "underexposure" on that Dior spot, are you sure you don't mean overexposure? It definitely looks like the the footage was pulled maybe 2 stops and on-camera exposure adjusted for that at least 1 stop. Also, it looks like the polarizer was left off the lens. It reminds me of my own results with pulling stock, before I added more contrast.

 

Also, not adjusting the exposure when pulling stock is definitely not recommended, unless one has done testing and so on. 2 stops overexposure (even on negative film) can spell disaster quickly.