-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nigel:
I said that I have never flashed reversal film--I have never had the need. However, while using Neg film you can Push two stops and then have the lab pull one and get the same effect. I do know what I am talking about and have shot plenty of flashed film.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, using the method you've described is hardly the same thing as flashing. Also, pushing any film is going to increase contrast and grain. Negative will tighten the grain if overexposed and get super grainy if underexposed; especially two stops.
But let's look at the formula you are talking about: You are going to underexpose the film by two stops and then ALSO underdevelope it. What's the point? Why would you feel the need to manipulate negative in this manner?
Roger
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
Way ahead of you, Matt!
Years ago, I created (for slide photography) a matte box that had a piece of milky opal glass in the top and a piece of regular glass at a 45 degree angle so that the opal glass was reflected across the entire image.
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/flash.jpg
By using the correct ND filter over the opal glass, I could "flash" the slide film using ambient light and lower the contrast while shooting. It looked terrible and flat when projected but made perfect slide dupes on regular slide film without having to use the slower and more tempermental dupe film.
I did this during the late 80s when I was producing huge, automated 24 projector slide presentations for amusment venues and the such. I tried it on one roll of Kodachrome super 8 and it worked like a dream. Unfortunately, Kodak had stopped making Kodachrome prints so I never got to try it out for movie duplication. It would probably work well for telecine, though.
Roger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Interesting, I do the same thing when I shoot video, then make the final overall adjusting when I edit, and the picture unadjusted looks just awful...(I don't use optics, I use built in menu items that are provided on the video camera)
Does your set-up cause any loss of light to the camera?
------------------
Alex
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nigel:
Look, There is nothing worse than a DP pulling his/her eye away from the viewfinder. That is what they do for a living. If you are not looking through the lens then what are you looking at??? You either keep with the shot or you half ass your way through it as far as I am concerned.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've discovered it can be helpful to view what is coming into a frame, not just what is already in the frame.
On temporary lock-off shots especially, I will look and see what I can't see through the viewfinder.
------------------
Alex
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:
Does your set-up cause any loss of light to the camera?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nah. It's just a piece of regular window pane. The opal glass is hard to find since all glass now has to be safety glass and opal glass doesn't fit that bill when it brakes. I like opal glass because it doesn't scratch as easy as plexiglass, though plexiglass will work just as good.
Roger
-
Roger, I viewed your little diagram above.
Do you get any problems with reflections on the clear glass? (The side not facing the opal glass?)
So, do you need to use a polarizer for this setup to work?
Or, is it that you set the glas far enough back into the unit, that it doesn't see any side image?
(Then you couldn't use a wide angle at all though...)
Also, can you tell me your opinion of what I was talking about above, with some kind of conrolled ambient light inside the camera, instead of the external rig?
Also, Nigel. I've never heard the term "pushing" used when referring to the initial exposure, only over or underexposing.
It's a little confusing, and either way, I don't think that's what flashing the film is anyway, right?
Plus, you're right, if you're talking about negative, reducing contrast isn't needed, but it is in reversal, or at least it could be helpful. And also, as you know I'm sure, lots of DP's flash negative, so SOMEBODY must find it useful and not overrated!
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
I had no problems using a wide angle lens. Besides, the lenses on Super 8 are far from "wide", you know?
No reflections, although you do need to seal up the area around the lens. I used black felt and overlapped it from each side fastened with velcro. Worked fine.
The thing about using a light for flashing is problematic since you have to account for the color temperature of the bulb. Low wattage (read "portable") bulbs are inherently warm. That is why flashing with light bulbs is generally done in the lab under controlled conditions.
I experimented with doing that and finally came up with the unit I described in my drawing. I would be scared to death to have a light bulb flashing my film in the chamber as I shot. I would be afraid that something would go wrong and I'd get a bunch of clear, yellowed film!
As far as flashing negative, it was very popular in the 70's as a way to heighten sensitivity and shoot by available light. "Sugarland Express" was shot by Vilmos Zigmond using flashed film. I think he also used in on "The Rose" with Bette Midler.
The whole concept about "pushing film" works like this:
In the old days of still photography before Kodak actually put any ratings on film and people were just happy to get a damned image of any kind, film was just "film" with no particular speed assigned. Through experimentation, you could shoot and process it as any ASA you wanted. If you needed slower speed, then you would overexpose then under-develope to try and keep any detail that might otherwise burn out. If you needed more speed, the you would underexpose and overprocess to pull the image out of the shadow areas of the film.
That is why I'm having a hard time with the idea that "pushing two stops in the camera and pulling one stop in the lab" will lower the contrast of any film. If you push two stops, then you are underexposing it by two stops and losing detail in the shadow areas. The ONLY way to get that detail back and have any resemblance of a proper grey scale is to overprocess. However, if you "pull one stop" in the lab, then you aren't over processing at all and if the processing time is cut short, then detail in the black areas will be forever lost, which is counter to the reason for flashing in the first place.
In fact, even if one DID overprocess to retrieve the detail in the black areas, the film would have heightend grain and contrast. In short, I don't see how "pushing two stops in the camera and pulling one stop in the lab" would produce the same effect as flashing film, which is designed to retain shadow detail and reduce contrast. However, perhaps there is something that I am not understanding about the process that Nigel is talking about.
Roger
-
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MovieStuff:
[B]I had no problems using a wide angle lens. Besides, the lenses on Super 8 are far from "wide", you know?
(Matt Pacini resonds):
Exactly my problem, S8 cameras not being very wide, that's why I use the Nizo Aspheric III wide angle converter A LOT! It brings it down to something slightly over 4mm.
Problem is, like I said, you can't stack up other filters or whatnots (like the flashing rig) then put the wide angle converter out on the end.
Just doesn't work. So if I were crazy enough to do something like this, it would have to be internal.
How about something that's not even electronic at all?
Like cut a little hole in the front of the camera, put a little piece of opaque glass over it, & have something to open & close it at will?
Is this too wacky?
Roger:
"As far as flashing negative, it was very popular in the 70's as a way to heighten sensitivity and shoot by available light. "Sugarland Express" was shot by Vilmos Zigmond using flashed film. I think he also used in on "The Rose" with Bette Midler."
(Matt Pacini responds):
Roger, I read all the time in American Cinematographer, of DP's pre & post flashing these days, not just 20+ years ago.
It's not a thing of the past at all, although obviously, they're doing it for a particular look. Probably every other month, I see it mentioned on a current film though.
By the way, I push processed a few rolls of film from Lost Tribes (Ekatchrome 160).
It's hard to imagine Ektachrome looking worse than it does already, but this accomplished that!
Really grainy, with a bizarre color shift.
For those of you who have bought the film, it's part of the scene where the guys are running around in the tunnels.
I had to shoot in available light, since we blew a breaker in the Dam, and couldn't plug in any lights!
We got the shots, but man, it looks bad!
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
Matt wrote:
"I use the Nizo Aspheric III wide angle converter A LOT! It brings it down to something slightly over 4mm.
Problem is, like I said, you can't stack up other filters or whatnots (like the flashing rig) then put the wide angle converter out on the end. Just doesn't work."
Sure it could. The drawing I did isn't to scale; it just shows the principle. The unit I made was actually about one foot left to right and had an opening on the front that was about 8-10 inches high. Think big, son! All you have to do is get the walls of the unit out far enough that the lens doesn't see them. I made mine for use with a still camera on a tripod, but you could make a really light one using foamcore and thin plexiglass for super 8. Should work fine!
Roger
[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited September 25, 2001).]
-
Roger, I put just one Tiffen filter on my lens, then screwed in the Wide angle adapter, and even that was too much.
I was getting vinietting just from that little 1/4 inch thick or whatever filter!
So my Nizo wide angle lens just HAS to be the only thing mounted to the front of the camera, unfortunately...
So unless I'm really misunderstanding your setup, I'm pretty sure it is going to step out my wide angle adapter more than 1/8 of an inch or whatever would be the maximum.
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
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
