500 asa film, 400 asa camera...

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
Roger, I agree with you about film rating being asthetics (in part anyway), but at some point, the highlights are going to blow out, or the detail is going to disappear in the shadows, eh?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, of course there's a point where the image is going to be affected in some way. In fact that's the whole point. Making the negative look "normal" isn't always what people want when they shoot, which is why I use the 'David Lynch' analogy. But even if you want the screw around with the look of the final image, you need a consistant reference point to start from and that's what the ASA rating is. It's the highest index you can give a particular film and still get "normal" characteristics. But it does not indicate the ONLY way it can be shot to tell a story or set a mood.



------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[crimsonson]

ie 'Band of Brothers'

overexpose and less saturation.

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

[Matt Pacini]

Roger, I agree with you about film rating being asthetics (in part anyway), but at some point, the highlights are going to blow out, or the detail is going to disappear in the shadows, eh?
Maybe I'm just paranoid after shooting so much reversal, but there's a point, even with the extended latitude of neg stock, where you're pushing the limits of the film, and losing detail. (Obviously, a stop or less isn't going to be a big problem.)

Matt Pacini

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

[AlexGfromUK]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mattias:
people, will you stop this endless flow of misinformation disguised as expert advice on this board?

i'm 100% sure it's one third of a stop, so it's obvious you're just guessing. counting your way is like saying 50% is medium gray, when we all know it's 18%. if you had actually owned a light meter you could have easily double checked this.

if you know the answer to a question, answer it. if you don't know the answer, answer it anyway if you like, but indicate that you're guessing or speculating. don't say you're pretty sure.

/matt

and then, after one night of sleep, i added this:
sorry, that wasn't really motivated. it wasn't directed at anybody in particular, and i realize everybody can be wrong once in a while. i do stand behind the general opinion i tried to express though...

[This message has been edited by mattias (edited November 05, 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In all my time on this board I have never once referred to myself as an expert. I obviously had the wrong idea about asa stops, big deal. I think you need to chill will!



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

[MovieStuff]

Everyone get a cup of coffee!

The funny thing about all this is that the difference between 1/3 and 1/4 stop on negative is so negligable that you'd never see it! Hardly worth fueding over. However, it is good to understand the mathmatical progression of how ASA works.



------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[mattias]

> I think you need to chill will!

ablolutely, and i did. i hope you read the thing at the end...

/matt

[chas_ucla]

If there is one thing I hate more than anything about S8 it's the bloody math part... ;0

Hey Scott, I don't know if I mentioned this but that guy, Ian, (the one who works for the S16 company) gave me a huge bag full of Pro-8 stock...if you ever want to collaborate on an over/underexposed short for Flicker or whatever, let me know...


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

[8th Man]

Speaking of 500 asa, does anyone know how to keep the black areas from becoming a sea of grain? I shot a few rolls of this stuff and found that any dark or black parts became so grain infested that I really found it to be rather worthless. Is there anything that can be done about this at shooting time besides avoiding blacks and areas that are just too dark? I figured this is what 500asa was made for and in fact the pro8 demo tape didn't seem to have the same problem with their concert footage so what gives?
Otherwise it seems that by the time you light well enough for 500 you might as well shoot the 200 asa surveillance film.
The 200 stuff is nice by the way. I got some swell shots of Tokyo night exteriors with the neon and such and the 200 really impressed me. I didn't have as much luck using it with daylight though.

------------------
PRM

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 8th Man:
Speaking of 500 asa, does anyone know how to keep the black areas from becoming a sea of grain?

Otherwise it seems that by the time you light well enough for 500 you might as well shoot the 200 asa surveillance film.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that's the trick!

Always shoot with the slowest film you can get away with. However, ANY negative will give you tighter grain characteristics if you overexpose it a bit (1/2-1 full stop). That will make the blacks go purer without losing detail.

Therefore, if you can shoot with 200 ASA to begin with, then that is what you should use. ASA 500 film rated at 250 won't give you a better picture than ASA 200 film rated at 200. However, ASA 200 film rated at ASA 100 will give you a better image than ASA 200 film rated at 200.

Make sense? It's all relative to what you start with; not relative to other emmulsion speeds.

The rating that Kodak gives film is the WORST case scenario; it is the highest rating you can index the film and still get acceptable image characteristics. But that doesn't mean that it is the BEST index for the film, in terms of image quality; only the limits of how high you can index it.

Hope this helps!

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[Vurfer]

All this with slightly overexposing the film to get more detail in the shadows just applies to negative stock, right?

Is there any advantage in slightly over or underexposing reversal stock, or is the picture at its best when it's exposed exactly right?

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