Fogged film?

[MovieStuff]

<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>

Hi, Nigel!

I don't think anyone here is saying that they take their eye away from the view finder and aim randomly. Lighten up, man. As you pointed out, you also have on occasion taken your eye away from the viewfinder. The issue isn't WHY someone would have to do it but what happens when they are forced to on their particular camera, that's all.

Roger

[Nigel]

I also close the viewfinder when I do have to take my eye away.

------------------

[Matt Pacini]

Alex: "In general, slightly fogging the film, and we're talking ever so slightly, might be a good thing, especially for reversal. "

(Matt Pacini resonds):
I tend to agree with you, although, obviously, the unpredictability factor makes this not something to actually try with the viewfinder.
I've actually thought about this quite a bit, since contrast in reversal is next to grain, being the touchy thing about S8.

They make pretty elaborate rigs for 35mm cameras, to do exactly that, and of course, they do it in the lab also. (Pre-flashing & post flashing they call it...)
Maybe we should be installing a little light inside the camera with a control for the amount of fogging!
I bought a Tiffen Ultra Contrast filter to do basically the same thing.
I can't use it though, because with my Nizo Ultrawide adapter, it puts the lens too far our there.

So Roger, here's another modification you can do to cameras!
Are you up for it?
Give mes your opinion of why this is a good/bad idea,OK?

Matt Pacini

------------------

[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>

Totally disagree. Especially in Super-8. Any facial contact with the camera can produce vibration.

If you know your framing is solid, and won't be changing, then not touching the camera makes more sense.

And without an orientable viewfinder, Super-8 shooting can be more difficult, so it is completely understandable if one ends up taking their eye away from the viewfinder momentarily.

Although light through the viewfinder won't affect a video camera (although it is a good idea to keep sunlight away from a video viewfinder), when I shoot Video, I only use Sachtler Tripods.

When balanced correctly, I can have my Video Camera pointing down, let go of the tripod head, and the video camera won't move!

I once saw a slight flair on some Super-8 footage, it looked like a very subtle lens flair, I noticed it happened whenever the camera person took their eye away from the viewfinder, but, I rarely ever see that result.

In general, slightly fogging the film, and we're talking ever so slightly, might be a good thing, especially for reversal.

It may in fact reduce contrast slightly!

I would just hazard a guess that for reversal film, that ever so slight fogging may actually be a good thing, but for negative stock, it may be a bad thing.

Bottom line, next time you shoot outdoors, design a test shot where you take your eye away from the view finder, and see if you notice a change.

Perhaps the best test would be to go outdoors during the daytime and simply run some film and turn the eye-piece to the closed position, then to the open position, alternate back and forth a few times and see if it produces a change in the look of the film.

Also, it may be that the effect is more noticeable when the camera is in wide angle versus close-up, so check the camera out at a telephoto settings, a medium setting, and a wide setting.

------------------
Alex

[This message has been edited by Alex (edited September 26, 2001).]

[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.



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

[Alex]

I saw a student film once shot with a damaged film camera. The camera had a very minor light leak by the sound head.

The film was Echtachrome...the projected film clearly showed a slightly flashed or contrast reduced image...

I like the look!

So, here is a new consideration...is flashing the film by the sound head "DIFFERENT" than flashing it in the film gate...

By the time the film has traveled to the sound head, the speed is much smoother than when in the film is being exposed in film gate, so the flashing could produce a different "effect" depending on whether you flash a smoothly moving piece of film or do it when the film is perfectly still in the film gate.

If they still made sound film, it would be interesting to convert or add an adjustable flashing unit by the sound head...even down to
slightly adding sepia or some other colored light.

Instead of the coloring or flashing of the film being done at the moment of exposure, the "flashing" or "coloring" being done 2/3 of a second later could induce a second chemical reaction that may produce a different result than having everything happen at the same moment in time.



------------------
Alex

[MovieStuff]

It makes no difference when the flashing takes place; before, during or after the primary exposure. The film doesn't see any difference. Also, whether the film is stationary or moving won't make any difference either since the exposure is spread across the entire frame. If each frame is exposed the same, then all is well. The one advantage of doing it while shooting is that there are no surprises later after processing. Also, you have the choice of mounting a small light above the glass for constant exposure or letting the ambient light change the flash ratio naturally.

Roger

[Alex]

What about the idea that flashing through the lens means the aperture opening and depth of field play a role, but if you do it by the sound head location, depth of field and f-stop become irrelevant?

------------------
Alex

[This message has been edited by Alex (edited September 24, 2001).]

[MovieStuff]

Depth of field and aperature aren't an issue. Either the method I've described or the one you describe will produce correct results if the mechanisms involved are working correctly. The only difference is that doing it by the sound head means that you don't always know if something is going wrong or not. Doing it in the matte box means you can see the effect while you shoot and can tweak the system for best results.

More problematic, as far as inserting a tiny light by the sound head goes, would be finding a small enough light that had the correct color temperature and be able to adjust the level of that light without also changing the color temperature. Theoretically, I guess anything is possible, but it doesn't seem practical to me, off hand.

Roger

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
Depth of field and aperature aren't an issue. Either the method I've described or the one you describe will produce correct results if the mechanisms involved are working correctly. The only difference is that doing it by the sound head means that you don't always know if something is going wrong or not. Doing it in the matte box means you can see the effect while you shoot and can tweak the system for best results.

More problematic, as far as inserting a tiny light by the sound head goes, would be finding a small enough light that had the correct color temperature and be able to adjust the level of that light without also changing the color temperature. Theoretically, I guess anything is possible, but it doesn't seem practical to me, off hand.

Roger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the lens approach is more practical. for the Sound head area of the tape, I would say a variable led might produce the best result.

But without sound cartridges, I suppose it's a moot point anyway.

In the event that the front lens is already in use as Matt has described, can a "mod" be made that would "create/split" the viewfinder beam of light thus creating an additional "access" point to the film gate via the newly made "secondary viewfinder".

Imagine you could take the viewfinder "signal" and split it before it reached it's final destination.

That viewfinder split-point could divert part of the beam to a second viewfinder, which could be used as a "flashing" point.

I picture this "secondary" viewfinder port being located on top of the camera directly above the film chamber.




------------------
Alex