-
> Push two stops and then have the lab pull one
i'm confused. i guess you mean rating the film two stops slower, but i've never heard the term pushing to describe that. i have heard people calling it pulling, which isn't right either but more understandable since that's what they'll have the lab do in the developing.
also, somebody said something about having the lab underexpose the film, which confused me even more. am i wrong if i say that exposure can only be done while shooting, and pushing/pulling can only be done while developing, and never vice versa?
/matt
-
Alex, I agree with you about the wide angle lens, but no matter how wide angle it is, it can't see completely to it's side.
In other words, it's not going to be looking 90 degrees to it's side, so theoretically, you could the the side walls out far enough to not be seen.
I just don't want that big of a setup attached to my camera.
I'm sure I would destroy it on the first shoot, runing around at night in the woods, like I'll be doing in a few weeks!
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
Yeah, if the width of the Opal is wider than the camera width or barrel of the lens, I could see something going wrong.
Especially if you have a "hand-held" day, and your tripod is not nearby.
Between takes, it may turn into a comedy of errors to try and find a place to lay the camera down, if the Opal is wider than the width' of the camera.
Of course, even on a handheld shoot, a tripod should always be available..
------------------
Alex
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:
Yeah, if the width of the Opal is wider than the camera width or barrel of the lens, I could see something going wrong.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Funny, that pretty much describes every professional matte box I've ever seen for both 16mm and 35mm. If you look at the Panavision matte boxes, they're huge! I don't see them worrying about something going wrong.
Roger
-
Only because the super-8 camera is so small, light and portable, that an extension wider than the camera could inadvertently get clobbered in tight quarters during handheld shoots.
It's just the nature of Super-8mm being smaller and lighter, it gets moved around with less thought and planning than a 16mm or 35mm.
If I knew my Super-8 camera would be tripod mounted all day, I would not consider the Opal mount a problem...
Heck, it would make the camera look cooler.
It's just in hand held situations that I see protential problems.
------------------
Alex
-
Roger--
Look---The Push2/Pull1 gives the exact same effect as Flashing. Try it.
Why is it so hard to think that there are very simple ways to get an effect that most think is complicated??? There are no greycards, no devices that go on the end of the lens that are expensive to rent like the Varicon.
When using this formula use it as stated--It does not work as well when you play around with the ratio. Good Luck
------------------
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nigel:
Roger--
Look---The Push2/Pull1 gives the exact same effect as Flashing. Try it.
Why is it so hard to think that there are very simple ways to get an effect that most think is complicated???
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First off, I don't think that flashing is complicated; YOU do.
Second, I might be willing to try your method and spend the money if it seemed like it would work. However, and I really mean no disrespect, but telling me to "try it" is not the same as giving me any kind of information about how it works.
Again, if you push two stops, you are going to underexpose your film by two stops. Now, no matter how you slice it, you are going to lose shadow detail when you do that. The ONLY way you will get that detail back is to overprocess in the lab. However, according to you, the lab would be instructed to pull one stop, which means that the film will not be overprocessed but underprocessed. I honestly can not see how you would get anything other than grossly underexposed film by doing what you are talking about.
Please explain exactly how the process will achieve lower contrast, since you seem to understand it so well.
Roger
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
Hi, Matt!
The matte box doesn't mount on the front of the lens where the threads are. Like most matte boxes, it is held on the end of a bracket and the camera lens protrudes into the back of the matte box. Therefore, if you don't want the walls of the matte box to be seen, simply make them far enough away so that they can't be seen with a wide angle lens. Also, you can angle the walls so that they flare out like most matte boxes do. Again, think big! http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif
Roger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My experience with the 4mm wide angle is everything is in focus from a few inches to infinity.
The depth of focus is so vast that if you dolly or steadi-cam into a person's face the camera will usually put a shadow on the subject from being so close before you lose focus.
I think optics in front of a 4mm wide angle lens probably wouldn't work well.
Also, led light sources make the most sense for flashing somewhere in the film chanber.
------------------
Alex
[This message has been edited by Alex (edited September 26, 2001).]
-
I think Nigel means overexpose by two stops, underdevelop by one stop.
------------------
Alex
-
Now that sounds more workable, since negative can take overexposure better than underexposure, then you would gain detail in the shadow areas and then underdevelope to keep the highlites from losing vital information.
Is this what you really meant, Nigel?
Roger
-
Your meter says you need a T5.6--So you shoot it T2.8. Then on your camera report you say under the "Processing" instructions you write Pull 1Stop.
This is what you do to get the same results as Flashing. When I learned the technique it was called "Push2--Pull1".
------------------
-
If it gives the same effect, then why do DP's go through the trouble of flashing the film, and NOT doing what you're describing?
Why in the world would anyone use one of those complicated real-time flashing rigs for an entire feature shoot, if they could do what you're talking about?
I'm thinking, that the effect is diferent, but even if it's not, you can't always just overexpose two stops, and even if you could, maybe you don't want to, for depth of field, reasons, and also for trying to shoot in the sharpest region of the lens, etc..
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
Matt, you kind of answered your own question.
If you were shooting at F8 or F11, opening up two stops might be a good thing, especially if the lab knows how to truly pull one stop when developing.
But if you are shooting at f4.0 or lower, whatever you gain in contrast reduction by opening up two stops and pulling one stop in developing may be offset by a loss in depth of field and overall clarity.
------------------
Alex
-
Whith a Varicon you can do just what you said "see" what you get before you get it. With my way you have to wait and see. A lot of DP's use it--Where do you think I got it??? Try it you just might like it. Good Luck
------------------
-
Nigel,
"Pushing two stops" is NOT the same thing as overexposing by two stops. Not now, not ever. Considering the number of posts related to this discussion, not once did you ever describe the exact procedure despite the obvious need for clarity. You kept repeating the formula, but the formula you described clearly would not work.
Certainly you know what the common definition of "pushing" is? What I find odd is that, for someone that supposedly uses this technique all the time, you sure aren't very familiar with the terminology nor were you forthcoming with an explanation of how it worked even AFTER I pointed out that your suggested process would result in nothing but underexposed film. Your only response was "Just try it!" In fact, you never did explain how it worked. Alex did.
Despite your protests that everyone should just listen to you without question, the fact is that your advice to the uninformed would have resulted in grossly underexposed and ruined film. Why didn't you just say, "Overexpose and underdevelope" if that's what you really meant? I think that's a fair question.
Roger
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nigel:
I know there is a differance between "Pushing" and "Overexposure". I did explain how it was done in another post as well using a starting point of T5.6.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure, AFTER Alex explained how it worked! Prior to that, here is what you kept repeating over and over:
"While shooting you "Push" your film Two stops. Then you tell the lab to pull it One."
and
"while using Neg film you can Push two stops and then have the lab pull one and get the same effect."
and
"Look---The Push2/Pull1 gives the exact same effect as Flashing. Try it."
and most importantly, you emphasized:
"When using this formula use it as stated"
Use it as stated?!!!
This wasn't the result of a misnomer on the formula. You gave specific repeated instructions to "Push" the film by two stops. In between every one of these posts were a couple from me, Mattias, Alex and others that questioned the formula over and over. Never did you come forward with an explanation until after Alex figured it out.
And you say you use this all the time? Seems doubtful to me. But then again, you still think "Three's Company" was shot on 35mm! http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif
Roger
-
Roger--
As I said in my post a bit back. When it was first taught to me it was called the "Push2/Pull1" Method. I know there is a differance between "Pushing" and "Overexposure". I did explain how it was done in another post as well using a starting point of T5.6.
As we know "underdevelopment" reduces can lower Gamma in film. Flashing raises the base-plus-fog density. Flashing does this by priming the film film with a small amount of light. When you use the 2/1 method (I will leave out the terms that you find offensive), you are doing both of the above.
Once more try--you will like it if you like flashing. Good Luck
------------------
-
Doubt all you want.
------------------
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nigel:
Doubt all you want.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, it's either that or "When using this formula use it as stated" and blow a wad of cash trying something that clearly wouldn't work!
Sorry, if my doubting nature spoiled your fun, but you're the one that kept insisting we should all just "try it" at face value. In the end, I have to wonder when you make statements like "There is nothing worse than a DP pulling his/her eye away from the viewfinder" only to find that YOU do it also or that your 'expertise' on TV film production tells something that was CLEARLY shot on video looks like 35mm film or that "pushing" film is used interchagably with the term "overexposure", (even though you know the difference!).
I have no doubt that you have some experience as a DP, but your preachy attitude wears thin, sometimes, especially when you make statements that seems to betray a lack of experience in the very thing you profess to know so much about. Perhaps it's not a lack of experience that it indicates; then clearly you are not writing what you mean. Therefore, before getting so short with people for not believing you, perhaps you need to be more precise in what you post, if you don't want anyone questioning it.
All anyone wants here is accurate information.
Roger
