Discuss Cinematography in this Awesome Rihanna Video

[Homunculus]

Um, T0.7 is 2 stops faster than the T1.4 they had available. You can buy glass today off the shelf that is within a stop of that.

This is not even a single order of magnitude. It's merely 4x faster than T1.4

pardon me for using the term order of magnitude incorrectly in a mathematical sense or logarithmic sense since I suck at math. I meant something along the lines of 'exponentially' and the lens taking in FOUR TIMES more light is a pretty exponential 'order of magnitude to me. rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

 

[PerroneFord]

LOL!!!

I just did a test shot in an unlit (or rather naturally lit) room in my building. As I sat there looking at ISO 3200 for proper exposure, an extra 2 stops would have been very nice! Honestly, shooting in that kind of light on a regular basis would be crazy.

 

[Jordan Scott Price]

pardon me for using the term order of magnitude incorrectly in a mathematical sense or logarithmic sense since I suck at math. I meant something along the lines of 'exponentially' and the lens taking in FOUR TIMES more light is a pretty exponential 'order of magnitude to me. rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Orders of magnitude are the powers of 10, but they are much, much more commonly used to exaggerate something. Let's not be picky! It's like saying "There were tons of pens in my desk drawer." Was there really a ton? Or just a lot?

 

[PerroneFord]

Sorry, it's the engineer in me...

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Yes hard to pull off on film with typical t2.0 or t1.4 lenses but Barry Lyndon was shot with legendary lens made by Nasa as a gift to Kubrick that is T/0.7 so that is quite an order of magnitude higher aperture than what anything else is capable of be it DSLR, film, whatever

You've got to be kidding me! Right? My point was that he did it on film.

But if I have to really explain... on film... 35 years ago... on 100iso speed film!!!

Common people, do the math.

First of all, the best modern motion picture film (imo) with a good exposure speed is Vision 3 500t 5219/7219. This film is over two stops faster than that used on Barry Lyndon.

Second of all, today's films stocks (even those in the past), can be easily pushed one to three stops and still give a great image. For example, Andrew Lesnie, ASC pushed some dark scenes on I Am Legend THREE stops and was still pleased with the results! That would have been of course with Vision 2 stocks, most likely.

Pushing a film in processing is different from doing it in post. MUCH different. The former is taking advantage of the wonderful latitude and latent image stored in the shadows (and highlights) of celluloid film.

So because of everyone who simply discounted my example based on a special lens and seemingly that alone, let's all agree that for low light situations and tests, a T/1.4 lens would be the fastest and easily accessible lens today.

1975 Barry Lyndon:
-.07 Lens
-100 speed film
- pushed one stop
-shutter unknown


2010 test
- T/1.4 lens (two stops less sensitive)
- 500 speed film (over two stops more sensitive)
- Pushed one, two, or three stops (up to two stops more sensitive than BL (with varying results!)
- Shutter unknown

So, on paper, it looks like using modern day film-stocks and lenses could bring a similar exposure to those ultra low scenes in 1975. Start pushing a little more and you can gain a stop or maybe two, as tests would need to conclude this is, in fact a good idea.

If pushed two stops, that would be a 2000 speed film with T/1.4 glass.
If pushed three like on I Am Legend and other films, it would be 4000 speed film T/1.4 glass....

This is certainly enough to get an exposure... if that's not comparable, even if worse, it still deserves a comparison.

It's very sad I have to explain why film should still be taken seriously in testing. If film was soooo terrible that it wasn't even worth testing.... wouldn't that be good for them (zacuto)?! They are trying to bring film down to DSLR's level.... errr, I mean bring DSLR's up to films level... thus if film would have performed so badly, wouldn't they want to show that? I'd think that would be highschool debate team 101.

My point is... even without a special lens, in today's world it is super competitive and comparable to shoot a low-light scene on film. Thinking otherwise is a silly mistake and myth perpetuated by digital supporters. I'm not saying film is more sensitive or better in low light versus digital cameras... especially with great cameras out there like the RedMX, Alexa, and Phantom...

But, again, there is no way film is soooooo terrible that it does not deserve a fair comparison...

 

[PerroneFord]

Ryan,

Did anyone give the impression that film was terrible? I certainly hope that I did not. My feeling is that film, when giving it's best effort, is better for situations where you might over expose, and high end digital cinema cameras are better where you might under expose.

The HDSLRs are not high end digital cinema cameras. Film should beat it on the top as well as the bottom.

You, I, and a few others have film in our background, and have pushed it. I have NOT had a chance to push modern print film. I am really VERY tempted to get some bulk 35mm film and load it into some cans and shoot it though. Just to see what it's like.

If costs were equal, I'd shoot film probably 99 times out of 100.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

No, no I understand Perrone. I know you! I know what you think, and I agree with you 99 out of 100!

I was a bit frustrated because it simply appeared that a few people had failed to see my point, writing it off because of the special lens on the shoot.

Point is... 500t film with a T/1.4 lens, and the ability to push in processing should be adequate enough for inclusion in a low light test. Being omitted on the basis of not worth testing is a strange and suspicious position to take, when doing a self called non-bias test.


ps: Peronne, what F-stop were you at with the 3200 speed interior?!

 

[Homunculus]

Ryan can you define what the heck "pushing film" an extra stop or two means? You mean raising luminosity curves in some sort of post production? Or what exactly are you talking about?

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

All i can add is that there is very few productions that lost out by shooting on film and there is many, many films that DID loose out by shooting digital.

Reasons why digital productions loose out are ample: going into production too early (without enough prep or funding) and overshooting trivial material instead of concentrating on the meat of the story are only two that come to mind right this moment.

 

[PerroneFord]

No, no I understand Perrone. I know you! I know what you think, and I agree with you 99 out of 100!

I was a bit frustrated because it simply appeared that a few people had failed to see my point, writing it off because of the special lens on the shoot.

Point is... 500t film with a T/1.4 lens, and the ability to push in processing should be adequate enough for inclusion in a low light test. Being omitted on the basis of not worth testing is a strange and suspicious position to take, when doing a self called non-bias test.


ps: Peronne, what F-stop were you at with the 3200 speed interior?!

Ryan, I think film was excluded from the test because they took the images out to ISO 6400 and beyond. I think we can both agree, that pushing film that far is not going to yield usable results. What was insane was that the D3s looked perfectly usable at ISO 25,000!

And I was at F1.4 for that indoor test. Most of that interior was reading .3 - 1.5 FC.

 

[PerroneFord]

Ryan can you define what the heck "pushing film" an extra stop or two means? You mean raising luminosity curves in some sort of post production? Or what exactly are you talking about?

"Pushing" film stock means having something like ISO 400 film loaded in the camera, realizing that you REALLY need ISO 1600 to get it, and setting the camera for ISO 1600. This horribly underexposes the film. When that film get's to the darkroom, you have a set of tables that for normal processing (no push), a different set of tables for a 1-stop push, 2-stop, etc. Basically, you develop the film for longer.

This has the effect of bring that image (called a thin image because it barely registers on the film) out more. Unfortunately at the expense of added grain. The longer you develop the film, the more grain you get. There are some film development chemicals that develop the film quite slowly, and you can be quite precise with the tables. There are some developers that work very quickly and it's hard to be exact with them. In newsrooms like where I worked, you'd need to get the film in from the late photographers (night football was the WORST), develop it, and print it, take it to layout, they'd position it and shoot it, and make up the newspage with it. So you developed printed and delivered within 90 minutes. With digital, this has all gotten much faster and easier I'd imagine.

 

[David G. Smith]

That is correct. "Pushing" a film stock is where you expose it at a higher ISO than it is normally rated, and in developing it is kept in specific chemical baths, for specific periods of time longer, based on how you specify. Pushing not only affects grain, but also contrast (increased), saturation (lower) and the gamma of the stock (the slope of the stocks characteristic curve, pushing normally steepens the curve). Modern motion picture color negative films stocks, and processing techniques are so advanced that a cinematographer has a lot of control over the look, and the light levels that they can work by rating a stock at different ISOs and developing accordingly.

The corollary, "Pulling" the stock is sometimes done as well. This is the opposite of "Pushing" in that you rate and expose the stock at a lower ISO than it is normally rated at, and in processing the film is developed for a less time at specific points. This usually decreases grain and contrast, increases saturation and smooths out the gamma curve.

There are lots of variations on how you can rate, process and print a film stock and this is the big time cinematographer's bread and butter.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Ryan, I think film was excluded from the test because they took the images out to ISO 6400 and beyond. I think we can both agree, that pushing film that far is not going to yield usable results. What was insane was that the D3s looked perfectly usable at ISO 25,000!

And I was at F1.4 for that indoor test. Most of that interior was reading .3 - 1.5 FC.

I'd agree when I see it. Film can be technically pushed that far, so I'd like to see it. Simple as that. If the results don't compare with the digital DSLR video results, then so be it.

I still don't' understand why omitting results is any kind of result!

To be honest, I've done some DSLR tests as well as other DP friends of mine... we found the noise presents itself about over 320=400iso.... so even at insane iso's, the noise will be present itself and somewhat high... and I'd like to see how that compares to film... there does not exist a universe where ISO 25,000 in digital is clean enough to be irreproachable. Let tests speak for themselves.

 

[GRENCH]

I'd agree when I see it. Film can be technically pushed that far, so I'd like to see it. Simple as that. If the results don't compare with the digital DSLR video results, then so be it.

I still don't' understand why omitting results is any kind of result!

To be honest, I've done some DSLR tests as well as other DP friends of mine... we found the noise presents itself about over 320=400iso.... so even at insane iso's, the noise will be present itself and somewhat high... and I'd like to see how that compares to film... there does not exist a universe where ISO 25,000 in digital is clean enough to be irreproachable. Let tests speak for themselves.

Remember that the D3 has a noise reduction setting in it. The were clear about crediting the lack of noise in the footage to that feature. I won't argue with you about the pushing of film because I know too little about that process, but could the reason have been that the film stock they had wasn't rated for that type of low light testing. Maybe a lack of preparation was the reason they didn't test film in that test. Just a thought. I'm not questioning film itself by any means.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Just to clarify, I re-read the 2007 article on I Am Legend... he pushed the film one stop (1000iso) and underexposed almost 3-4 stops under. When the film was printed the amount of shadow detail was a testament to how good the vision stocks were, in his opinion.

Doesn't change my opinion, but I just wanted to clarify for accuracy.

 

[GRENCH]

I think film is great. But I also think that DSLR is a wonderful 1st step in the right direction. Digital in general is evolving everyday. Cost wise I am a huge fan of DSLR cameras due to the fact that it has allowed many others including myself the chance to enter an arena that was closed to us for so long based on cost. People are creating amazing works outside of Hollywood that just a decade ago would have been unheard of. Film is the standard without question. But I enjoy digital films shot with the clean grain less look even more in some cases. It actually appeals to me.