Fogged film?

[mattias]

> 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

[Matt Pacini]

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

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

[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.

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

[MovieStuff]

<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

[Alex]

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

[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??? 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

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

[MovieStuff]

<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

[Alex]

<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!

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).]

[Alex]

I think Nigel means overexpose by two stops, underdevelop by one stop.

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

[MovieStuff]

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