spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on Sept 18, 2017 17:19:08 GMT
spiderwort Thank you so much. Yeah, that actually makes a lot of sense. I wasn't taking into account the need for each frame to stop (which I knew it did; I just wasn't thinking about it), which would necessitate an increase shutter speed. I was aware of the awkward visual appearance of high shutter speeds, so I was having trouble reconciling how it all works. I understand it now. As for exposure, I had never realized how much a cinematographer was contrained by the amount of light, given that ISO and shutter were already set. I'm guessing that moving picture films are designed to have greater latitude when filming so that a cloud passing over doesn't ruin a scene by causing an underexposed moment. In still photography, it's easy to change the shutter or aperture to compensate, but in moving film, you'd want a film that wasn't so picky. Thanks for all your answers. You're very welcome, Flynn. Glad I could help. And learn something, too. Just one more thing: about your comment regarding film latitude - actually, that depends entirely upon the ASA of the film. And if a cloud comes over, it can ruin a scene and you would have to re-shoot it. However, sometimes such an event, if all in one shot, works for the scene so you can just leave it and it will seem natural. I remember one or two of those in The Last Picture Show at the lake fishing scene. It was quite effective. But usually you'd do another take, especially if you're likely to cut to other shots within the scene, as they wouldn't match. Thanks for your OP. I've enjoyed our exchanges a lot. EDITED TO ADD: I'm unfamiliar with the new film stock you've discussed with Doghouse6 . Film is hardly being shot anymore and I'm surprised that anyone is developing new stocks. In any case, it sounds like a stock like that might resolve the problem discussed above - though I'm not sure. I wonder if it's a stock studios are using for archival purposes, because these days they archive everything they shoot digitally on film, since digital isn't a stable medium. I'll have to do some research on this. You've piqued my curiosity.
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Sept 18, 2017 18:22:39 GMT
...just a FYI...I saw a full page ad in a digital photo mag indicating that people should look into backing up their digital images with film. This ad was not a joke. It really was a warning about the fragility of todays silicon technology devices.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Sept 18, 2017 20:17:14 GMT
...just a FYI...I saw a full page ad in a digital photo mag indicating that people should look into backing up their digital images with film. This ad was not a joke. It really was a warning about the fragility of todays silicon technology devices. Absolutely, kos. After so many people in Hollywood fought and fought the transition to digital, it came anyway, in every way. For years we just edited digitally but transferred back to film and distributed on film. And now everything - even those few films shot on film (!) - are distributed digitally. But the studios quickly learned that digital is not at all a stable medium. So now they are archiving their masters back on cellulloid, which, if properly cared for, is a long-term format. For those of us who love film, it's maddening, and heartbreaking. The irony is rich, isn't it? About 35 years ago, a friend (who wasn't in the business) rhapsodized to me about how digital media would completely replace photochemical. I was skeptical, and theorized that if it did come to pass, it wouldn't be until an entire generation had died off. The production company I worked for was still shooting and editing entirely on 35mm, although we were at the point where shows were delivered to broadcasters only on video (either 1" or 3/4") and the company was just getting into offline editing to trim shows for syndication, offering training to the entire editorial staff. The assistants and apprentices jumped at it, but the senior guys who'd been around for 30-40 years wanted nothing to do with it and stuck to their Moviolas. And here's how out-of-touch I am: whether involving CGI, non-linear editing or - as above - archiving, I've never for the life of me understood the process by which digital makes its way to photochemical.
|
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on Sept 18, 2017 21:04:21 GMT
Doghouse6 Yes, the irony is rich indeed. And I can so relate to your post! I'd forgotten about the video transition - editing on video and broadcasting on 1" masters - before all editing went digital. And I loved the moviola! I miss the feel of film. Then flatbeds came, then video editing, then digital. I don't think I've held film in my hand since about 1990. To his credit, Spielberg, God bless him, has stuck with film editing for decades. And his long time editor, Michael Kahn, has always cut on a moviola. I heard that recently he went to digital editing, but I'm not sure of the circumstances - I think maybe BFG (2016), which I didn't see, but which apparently was shot digitally (oh, man!), although Steven's next film, now in post, was shot on film. Can you imagine cutting Schindler's List on a moviola? I love that man!! Both men! As for how they transfer digital to film, I do not know how they do it either. I wonder if it in any way resembles the film experience, grains and all? You wouldn't know unless you had a print struck and were able to view it projected. EDIT: I posted above that we cut digitally and transferred back to film. What I should have said was that we edited digitally and then the film negative was cut to match and distribution prints were struck off of that. Now, we edit digitally, master digitally, and distribute digitally - with the exception of a few high profile directors who are still shooting film and arrange to have their films screened in theatres that still show film prints. Those are few and far between.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Sept 18, 2017 21:49:36 GMT
So all those home movies and slides that we were told to transfer to cd's and dvd's should have been left as they were .. on film ?
AGH !
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Sept 18, 2017 21:51:22 GMT
As for how they transfer digital to film, I do not know how they do it either. I wonder if it in any way resembles the film experience, grains and all? You wouldn't know unless you had a print struck and were able to view it projected. EDIT: I posted above that we cut digitally and transferred back to film. What I should have said was that we edited digitally and then the film negative was cut to match and distribution prints were struck off of that. Now, we edit digitally, master digitally, and distribute digitally - with the exception of a few high profile directors who are still shooting film and arrange to have their films screened in theatres that still show film prints. Those are few and far between. I don't know why I never got around to it before, but I decided to finally take the bull by the horns and educate myself. And remarkably fast, a very simple answer came that can be boiled down to two words: laser printing. I told my computer-programmer hubby about it, and his reaction was the same as mine: "WOW!" But it's also an "Of course!" It makes perfect sense. Just as a home printer can translate the bits and bytes of a digital file into color imagery...well, you know the rest. And what are lasers but finely-focused beams of light? And what's film-based photography but chemical emulsions on a solid medium reacting to light? A gobsmacker, huh? About your edit: if I understand correctly, the digital file(s) of the final cut incorporated the key numbers from the original negative, which was then cut accordingly (just as in the olden days)?
|
|
Flynn
Sophomore
@flynn
Posts: 515
Likes: 270
|
Post by Flynn on Sept 18, 2017 22:35:49 GMT
|
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on Sept 18, 2017 23:00:54 GMT
I don't know why I never got around to it before, but I decided to finally take the bull by the horns and educate myself. And remarkably fast, a very simple answer came that can be boiled down to two words: laser printing. I told my computer-programmer hubby about it, and his reaction was the same as mine: "WOW!" But it's also an "Of course!" It makes perfect sense. Just as a home printer can translate the bits and bytes of a digital file into color imagery...well, you know the rest. And what are lasers but finely-focused beams of light? And what's film-based photography but chemical emulsions on a solid medium reacting to light? A gobsmacker, huh? About your edit: if I understand correctly, the digital file(s) of the final cut incorporated the key numbers from the original negative, which was then cut accordingly (just as in the olden days)? I wonder if you're right about that? Probably so. But if you are, would the celluloid capture the light in grains just as it would if it were being run through a film camera? If so, then Oh, God, I wish they would just make film prints and run them in the theaters where we could experience the exquisite beauty of modulating grains!
As for going back to cut the negatives after editing digitally, actually I never bothered to find out. I assume that what you suggest is correct - or something close to that. I used to know how they did it with the video editing, but I've forgotten now - that seems like eons ago.
|
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on Sept 18, 2017 23:06:34 GMT
So all those home movies and slides that we were told to transfer to cd's and dvd's should have been left as they were .. on film ? AGH ! Yes. I looked at some 8mm films I shot in the mid-sixties about 5 years ago and they looked as good now as they did then. Same with some 16mm films I shot in the early 70s. Bummer, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Sept 18, 2017 23:10:19 GMT
spiderwortSome of the slides I had had degraded and turned orange. I was able to digitize them via a scanner and then turned them into black and white images . Some of them were improved by the new "look". Nothing to do with this interesting thread .. just one of those "train of thought" interruptions. Sorry, gang !
|
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on Sept 18, 2017 23:17:55 GMT
BATouttaheckYes, I've had similar problems with my slides on some occasions. I've taken better care of my films - kept them cooler and in the dark. That could be the difference. Or maybe the film stock of the slides - it's been so long I can't remember the ASA or anything about that part. But I know keeping film cool, dry, and in a dark space is important to preservation. FYI: There's a salt cave up in central Kansas where studios have stored their precious films for many, many decades.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Sept 18, 2017 23:23:52 GMT
spiderwortThere's a salt cave up in central Kansas where studios have stored their precious films for many, many decades.
The studios who didn't destroy them for the silver content, that is !
The slides were stored properly. It's possible that having them processed at KMart and drug store type places shortened their color life.
|
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on Sept 18, 2017 23:34:09 GMT
The slides were stored properly. It's possible that having them processed at KMart and drug store type places shortened their color life. Yes, that could be it. Back when I was shooting slides (the sixties), I sent them off to be processed. Most have stayed in good condition, but occasionally some have faded. I have friends who've complained about processing these days. But there aren't a lot of choices anymore, it seems. I've given up shooting film or slides, and I don't have a digital camera. I'm thinking maybe it's time to get one. Never thought I would say that.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Sept 18, 2017 23:35:08 GMT
I don't know why I never got around to it before, but I decided to finally take the bull by the horns and educate myself. And remarkably fast, a very simple answer came that can be boiled down to two words: laser printing. I told my computer-programmer hubby about it, and his reaction was the same as mine: "WOW!" But it's also an "Of course!" It makes perfect sense. Just as a home printer can translate the bits and bytes of a digital file into color imagery...well, you know the rest. And what are lasers but finely-focused beams of light? And what's film-based photography but chemical emulsions on a solid medium reacting to light? A gobsmacker, huh? About your edit: if I understand correctly, the digital file(s) of the final cut incorporated the key numbers from the original negative, which was then cut accordingly (just as in the olden days)? I wonder if you're right about that? Probably so. But if you are, would the celluloid capture the light in grains just as it would if it were being run through a film camera? If so, then Oh, God, I wish they would just make film prints and run them in the theaters where we could experience the exquisite beauty of modulating grains!
As for going back to cut the negatives after editing digitally, actually I never bothered to find out. I assume that what you suggest is correct - or something close to that. I used to know how they did it with the video editing, but I've forgotten now - that seems like eons ago.
The sources I found seemed credible. Turns out Arri has a finger in that pie too: the Arrilaser, which uses three lasers in an RGB configuration to write digital video onto film. Kodak has one as well that they call Lightning II. As for the grain (although this is completely intuited), I don't see why not; it's a characteristic of the emulsion's - rather than the cellulose acetate substrate's - reactivity to light, although in this operation, my further assumption is that it's more akin to printing on positive stock than to the exposure of neg stock (but six of one; a half-dozen of the other). Which raises another question: when this archiving of digital sources to film is done, is it to negative or positive stock? If you have the answer, great; otherwise, consider it merely rhetorical musing. But ain't all this fun?
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Sept 18, 2017 23:41:45 GMT
BATouttaheck FYI: There's a salt cave up in central Kansas where studios have stored their precious films for many, many decades. Ah, yes: UVS (Underground Vaults & Storage) in Hutchinson. I've been there - astonishing place - and had many dealings with them back in the day. They do all sorts of storage for businesses too: documents; microfilm; data tapes and whatnot.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Sept 18, 2017 23:42:05 GMT
spiderwortI have had "too big to lug around" digital cameras and now have a small one that fits in my pocket. I love it. The pictures I can get with it are so much better than what I ever had on film. No getting them wrecked when they are processed. No take one shot only because they each picture costs so much. Over or under exposed ? play on the 'puter and fix 'em up. I have met and talked to professional and heavy-in-to-it hobbyists with the huge lenses and massive cameras. All digital., fwiw. You will wonder why you waited so long once you take the plunge.
|
|
Flynn
Sophomore
@flynn
Posts: 515
Likes: 270
|
Post by Flynn on Sept 19, 2017 0:45:21 GMT
spiderwort Here is a link to Kodak's motion film product guide (effective 2016). www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Products/Product_Information/index. At Kodak.com, you can also find a listing of major films shot on film, as well as a link to tell you the films playing near you being projected from film! Unfortunately for me, there's nothing up here in Wisconsin. I'd have to drive to Milwaukee just to see Romy and Michelle's something-or-other. Thanks, Flynn. I really appreciate this. And I pray that film will not completely pass away. It would be a profound loss, if it does. EDIT: Flynn, when I click on your link, it says it can't be found. Can you re-post it? Thanks. I reposted the link above. It seems to be working now.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Sept 19, 2017 1:11:32 GMT
spiderwortI sometimes don't recognize "me" with my new avatar. It's a tribute picture of Harry Dean Stanton. There's three of us playing on the games board ... all picked different images, luckily.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Sept 19, 2017 1:31:53 GMT
Which raises another question: when this archiving of digital sources to film is done, is it to negative or positive stock? If you have the answer, great; otherwise, consider it merely rhetorical musing.
I would assume to negative stock, if they're going to - oops, I'm talking film again. I was going to say make prints. But with digital, positive masters might work just as well. It's all a mystery to me. A mystery I've shown great reluctance to solve. If you find out, let me know. Cool. More rhetorical musing, but my thinking was this: when you begin with camera neg, you strike an IP from which you then strike an IN, from which you in turn produce positive prints for distribution, thereby saving your original neg from damage. But if you're going from digital to film, my guess would be that you'd begin with a positive, from which you'd then make an IN (if needed for any future duplication, assuming your digital source had become unstable) for the same reason: to protect your master...and also because of the generational loss inherent in film duplication. If you go from a digital positive to a film negative, it takes you an additional generation away from your source if you need any further duplication and want to avoid handling your master. If any of that makes any sense. I can tell you this: Duncan the Delinquent Dachshund (in my avatar) "handles" his masters all the time, and we're much the worse for wear.
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Sept 19, 2017 19:42:35 GMT
...to all digital enthusiasts:
You will never, ever get a better archival (long lasting) image using the digital format as compared to film. Archival processing of film images is the primary reason we have historical photo records from the 19th century.
At an Apple symposium that I attended in the early 2000's (LA), a keynote speaker warned about losing many many important images shot on the digital format because of the volatility of the medium. He insisted that while this is the most photographed time in history, the majority of the digital images will not survive.
|
|