Jump to content

Got 35mm rushes back - very upset


Recommended Posts

I used this free dpx viewer as color kept crashing. Wonder what i did wrong. These look better!!!

 

 

which viewer? some of them do an auto gamma adjustment, which might what your seeing. In all honesty, you don't have that much to worry about.

your shots look good enough that they can be graded to a very acceptable level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree that this is the stock's fault. This looks like just fine exposures (the grain in the sky is the only sign of age I can see) coupled with horrible horrible timing.

 

 

Have you looked at the neg? It looks like a very rich exposure just from what I see on the screen, which is GOOD. Maybe even some overexposure (again, GOOD) that saved you from what would amount to minor (maybe 1/2 to 1/3 of a stop increase base fog at most with such slow film unless you stored it in a sun window).

 

Get a reading of the D-min (clear film, and find D-max somewhere.

 

 

For Fuji F-64, here is what they should read (hope I am allowed to give this out):

 

D-MIN: Red 0.19 Green 0.47 Blue 0.80

 

LAD: Red 0.79 Green 1.17 Blue 1.53 (This is what a properly-exposed grey card should read on this film that is fresh).

 

 

Sorry, I guess they don't give out D-max, just D-min, average gamma and LAD values. P.S. I woul want to overexpose my LAD values so that they are still Red 0.60 Green 0.70 Blue ~0.75 above D-Min, as the base fog goes up you want to keep your exposure above it, even if that means blocking up the highlights more

 

Make sure you get your negative read with STATUS M (it doesn't measure true visual RGB responses transmitted through the film negative, rather how PRINT STOCK dyes respond to the dyes in the negative when exposed through it in a contact print or optical print.)

 

 

Even some higher-end still minilabs can help you out. You'd have to send a piece across the ocean to the U.S. but I would be happy to read a clip of a chart, D-max, D-min for you for free. Don't have a F64D Shirley, but I could compare it with the other Fuji neg's I have and see how it compares to my aforementioned F64 AIMs. Will see if I can find osome Fuji D-max, should be roughly the same fore all the stocks, and will post that for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Phil Rhodes: Maybe the timing error is due to it not being overcast and rainy? Correcting the footage to what you always describe your homeland to look like, dark, rainy, and dreary? ;-)

 

 

 

Here is a link to a wonderful guid by Arri to the DI process, that happens to explain EVERYTHING about film in the process, and all sorts of information about densitometry, print-through curves, logarhythms, fL, % grey, luminance, illuminance. It will leave you with your head spinning you've learned so much if you read it top-to-bottom: http://www.acvl.org/digital_intermediates/dicompanion/ch02.html#id339839

 

The section on color negative film I've given you a link to says D-max on ECN-2 neg. hovers around 1.6 above B+F, so with F-64D 8522 stock, that should be Red ~1.80 Green ~2.10 Blue ~2.40 or so. Without having actual HD, MD (18% grey/ AIM roughly), and LD D-max is a great way to make sure you've received enough processing time, temperature, turbulation. Under-developed film will have weak D-maxes in areas of gross overexposure (but it is your fault if you under-expose a shot! ;-) )

 

 

I hadn't seen the grain in the black dress earlier. Yeah, it looks like either or underexposure and age fog there..

 

Another little tid-bit of advice: With a gamma of only about 0.55, There's only about 0.17 per stop measuring the film with a densitometer, so if the fog were say 0.06 above standard, that'd be 1/3 of a stop of fog I'd compensate for in exposure, 0.8 would be 1/2 stop, and 0.11 would be 2/3 of a stop compensation. I think blue would be affected first in this stock by fog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow ben!! what did you do to make the pictures look so good.

 

Let me be very specific on this shoot, if it's of any interest. The stock I obtained last year very cheap. It was from a motion control special effx house. I got it all for about 100 bucks. Thats 10,000 ft. I can tell of the exact age (am i missing something? codes etc). But I reckon its 2007/8 - That is just a guess mind. We shot the film with an old Mitchell S35mm . From the days of hammer horror. On the day because the operator is old, he didn't want to add on the Matte box. So, we were getting exposures of F11 F8 and sometimes F16. The day was VERY strange. We would have sunshine, then overcast, then rain, sunshine. More Scottish than English. Bizarre. At the start an exposure was fluffed badly, almost white. So we filmed all day, I took the neg to Deluxe Soho, then developed it, then I took it to my friend at a post facility in Soho where they have a Spirit. As I was getting this for a freebie I left it to him and collected it the next day as a series of DPX files on my hard-drive. 800ft around 160 gig.

 

 

I got home, attempted to open the sequence in 'Color'. It kept crashing, frustrated i found a light DPX viewer called http://djv.sourceforge.net/ - DJV imaging. With literally no experience of handling DPX, i opened and looked and saw the initial images I posted. In my naive innocence I thought that was it and the stock must have been stored under an oven or something and we messed up the exposures completely. Then I got to work, opened it in color and it looked 'fine'. slight magenta to the look but alright.

 

Basically, Im clueless regarding how to use DPX files. Should I get the neg re-scanned, with me sitting in? This will probably cost money. money id rather not spend. Im not very technical minded, but willing to try and learn. Adrian your jump into D-MAX is a bit much for me right now. And something I need to learn the basics of before I can appreciate what you are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil, I am starting to get angry. Re-scan it, are you kidding? Did you read any of my response? I contributed about an hour of my time for free to help you out and all you did was fall for the bnig, pretty pictures. The info I gave you you can find out exactly how well you exposed the neg, what to expect from the scans.

 

 

Also, not to belittle in any way the color correction job Ben did, but that is a basic grade. You need to fix your computer issues, learn the software, learn to read neg's and quit blaming labs, timers, film stock, etc. Ultimately this comes down, I think, to your not having adequate computing power to handle what you got back.

 

DPX is an industry standard and a great format to work with. What do you want back, JPEG basics? Worst case, i'd find someone who can convert the scans you have to a usable format for you and your computer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
what did you do to make the pictures look so good.

 

Load into Photoshop, hit CTRL+SHIFT+L, hit CTRL+M, curves to taste...

 

You could do better if you did it all in curves.

 

Mount one of the DPX files online somewhere, then we can finally put this to bed. Either way, again, please go through every step of the process you're using, one by one, in order, being as specific as you can.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil, I am starting to get angry. Re-scan it, are you kidding? Did you read any of my response? I contributed about an hour of my time for free to help you out and all you did was fall for the bnig, pretty pictures. The info I gave you you can find out exactly how well you exposed the neg, what to expect from the scans.

 

 

Also, not to belittle in any way the color correction job Ben did, but that is a basic grade. You need to fix your computer issues, learn the software, learn to read neg's and quit blaming labs, timers, film stock, etc. Ultimately this comes down, I think, to your not having adequate computing power to handle what you got back.

 

DPX is an industry standard and a great format to work with. What do you want back, JPEG basics? Worst case, i'd find someone who can convert the scans you have to a usable format for you and your computer

Sorry Mr Borowksi - Excuse my stupidity, I'm rather new to film, so your technical knowledge was a bit daunting for me. I opened the DPX files at work and they displayed correctly and i created a prores4444 file which came in at a managable 20 gig and my laptop could deal with it.

 

Of course I dont want jpegs back. Im well aware of the incredible nature of DPX and the link you provided is amazing. I need to spend time going through and letting all that information soak in. If i post up a dpx file, can you have a look at that for me??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just getting those images in the ballpark... Literally about 60 seconds on each using Curves. Here are the Curves for the last image I posted:

 

2altcurves.png

 

The only way I've messed around with DPX files is from within compositing apps. Personally, I would probably batch convert the DPX to low-contrast 16 bit TIFFs, then create QuickTime movies from the sequences. I'd cut in Final Cut Pro 7, applying color from the timeline. Knowing me, I'd probably write the DPX converter and the color tools too. I always make things more complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks to me like they've provided you with linear DPXs. I got similar results to Ben S and the Mill using Nuke - setting the input space to Linear and viewing in sRGB. Note that I didn't try and do any correction to the images.

 

See (hopefully) attached image...

 

post-14688-0-43064900-1309800140.jpg

Edited by Will Earl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I doubt very much he's been given linear DPX files, which would be close to useless. What is much more likely is that the DPX viewer he's using is linearizing the DPX (log->lin), but not gamma correcting it for display.

 

I used to get linear DPX¨s from a Spirit data cine (MK1) about 10 years ago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Man, that's outrageous. Putting linear values into a DPX is like charging an electric car with a gas generator... Missing the point.

 

Switzerland is not at the forefront! I think they would have messed up the Log/Lin conversation. It was something the facilities did less than once a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is much more likely is that the DPX viewer he's using is linearizing the DPX (log->lin), but not gamma correcting it for display.

 

Actually this does make much more sense and is the much more likely scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

What I'm seeing here does look very bad -- so bad in fact that it couldn't be entirely due to old stock. To screw up the saturation like that takes a computer. So, the good news is, hanging the existing film on a proper telecine with a competent colorist I'll guarantee will get you a better looking picture. Probably so much better that you'll be happy with it. So, pick a good video house, walk in the front door, and ask a sales guy about doing a little test on this roll of film you have in hand.

 

Another rule of filmmaking: Never throw anything away. No matter how bad it looks, there may be a way to save it.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

+1

 

Inappropriate scan correction, I couldn't possibly imagine such slow speed film being bad just a few years old, plus you'd have density and fogging issues.

 

 

I've abused the crap out of 2 decade old 7245 with a CD-2 based developer and it's been better than that.

4517209775_c22b5a746d.jpg

Kodak 50D 7245 Test #1 by athiril, on Flickr

 

 

 

Your stock is grainier than normal, but otherwise fine, maybe could use a little more exposure.

Edited by Daniel Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ben Syverson, on 04 July 2011 - 12:01 PM, said:

What is much more likely is that the DPX viewer he's using is linearizing the DPX (log->lin), but not gamma correcting it for display.

 

 

this was the correct answer. Cheers Ben

Link to comment
Share on other sites

late to the discussion, but this is not a stock problem as other people have said. 64D can be put through the ringer so-to-speak - stored improperly, x-rayed, cooked slightly in a stove, etc., and still come out fine (same holds true for Kodak's 50D - the lower the ASA, the thicker the emulsion). Someone mentioned D-MIN readings on 64D too, and those figures seem off. Fuji's reds are always rated in the mid to high 20's to low to mid 30's, greens mid 50's to mid 60's and blue's can touch the very low 100's without an indication of a problem fwiw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...