Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by Jarin Blaschke, Dec 15, 2017.
...and the 85B is an amber filter which is the opposite effect.
not to make another assumption, but you can shoot in color and filter later to your hearts content with whatever tonality/spectral response curves you want--particularly if you use digital as an intermediary step--shoot color, scan it, post process it with your desired spectral response and output to film. lots more control--and no unexpected results.
sorry if you think my suggestions implicitly assume that you don't know what you're doing. I mean no insult to your skills and knowledge, however there are other people out there that are not as advanced as you that may look at this thread for advise. i apologize if my speaking of my experiences on this subject has upset you in any way.
No, I realize that and offer apologies if that read as snarky. It's just odd when multiple people reply without actually fully reading the post. I'm not a person who gets upset over the silly internet : ). We're all here for positive reasons.
When the rare contemporary black and white film does get made, and when it even less commonly gets shot on film, it is indeed most often originated on color film. This would be, as you point out, the easiest method with the most control, and it would also have the benefit of added sensitivity. I've briefly entertained the color original method in my mind, but the film really needs to transport you into the past. For me, nothing quite does that like an image made of actual flecks of metal in the emulsion rather than clouds of dye. Sigh.... unless we output select channels onto black and white intermediate stock and then re-scan... ah, there goes simplicity...
well, good luck in any case. for what it's worth, I got very very dark skin tones with a 47b (3 stop loss)--it's a bit overkill for ortho look, I think--it looks unnatural to me, but it is exaggerated--oh--and, for some reason, very grainy looking to me as well. I have blue eyes too--a test pic of me had the eyes looking unnatural light colored as well with that blue filter.
47B is a deep blue color separation filter which allows NO green through (or red), so what you get is NOT equivalent to Ortho film, but old blue-sensitive glass plates.
You probably found something that works, but for next time I'd forego wratten filters and acquire a "short-pass filter" with your desired cutoff wavelength. There is a large selection to pick from by visiting an optical supplier such as thorlabs or edmund optics.
Shortpass filters with fused silica substrates don't block UV, and the spectral transmission is very accurately measured and provided. You can also ask them for custom (unmounted) diameter to ensure it fits your lens. The stock diameters are typically 12.5, 25, and 50mm dia.
Simply choise the filter depending on what wavelength in the yellowish region you want to start cutting off at. There are other options. The selection of roll off wavelengths increment by 25nm throughout the VIS/NIR. The glass is UV grade fused silica, so it passes all the way down through UV.
Hope this helps. The Wratten filter system is a bit ... limiting ... in the optical world. There's lots more options readily available once you think outside the box.
This is excellent! Thank you!
Not so fast. You need to talk to a tech engineer first. Unlike conventional photographic lenses, machine optics assume a set a angle of incidence, and filter performance can change with temperature. But if you want to go that route, Hoya also provides custom items. I still recommend getting ahold of an old Wratten catalog because of the matching spectrograms and application guidelines for all the filters. It's a useful point to start the conversation, even if many of these old gel filters are now impossible to find.
Drew... I AM an engineer.
An optical engineer, in fact. A lens designer.
The kind involved in optical design in both a theoretical and very hands-on way, who backs up knowledge with first-hand experience. Kinda like how PE is with emulsion knowledge.
I gave him good advice. Those filters will work for his application.
Thanks. I don't pretend to be an engineer, but have designed some fairly complex optical systems just by asking the right kind of questions. And in this case, I'm reminded of certain architects who perfected the art of trying to devise the most complicated path to solve an otherwise simple problem. If it were me, I'd have some extant movie in mind that had the look I admired, and simply track down the cameraman and ask him. It's in the credits. I've chatted with these kinds of people before, no problem, and have even worked side-by-side with NASA optics engineers on certain projects where they were vastly better technically informed than me; but I was way better at common-sense shortcut jerryrigging. I worked with several of these things - quartz silica optics, narrow-band "sandwich" filtration, aerospace sealants, etc. I have all kinds of specialized filters in my lab, with a definite reason for each. But generally the simplest approach is the best; and there's probably some very ordinary, less-drastic way to attain the look he wants.
I do this all the time with still film.
First choice: Wratten 44A or 44 (exact same results, true orthochromatic rendering), but these are only available as gels and I don't carry them into the field much.
Second choice: 80B (or 80A) color compensating filter. These look blue, but pass quite a bit of green too and give a really nice orthochromatic rendering.
A #47 will pass only blue and give you the 19th century "blue-sensitive" look.
Try a few tests and see what you like.
I'm sure you know best, Drew.
I meant 80A. I was getting my tungsten correction filters mixed up.
Published transmission curves for the B+W 081 blue filter look superficially similar to the Wratten 44a. Has anybody ever compared them directly? The 081 is out of production but they show up on auction every now and then.
I mean no disrespect, Nodda. There are unquestionably forums and chats dedicated to what might now be classified as alt or historical motion picture techniques. There's even a new 600 million dollar facility at our local University (UCB) dedicated to alt or art films. I don't know what it provides different than the low-budget private venue right down the street except wine and champagne instead of orange soda and popcorn. But it does demonstrate a lot of significant donor interest behind it that would make us still photographers salivate for just a tiny percent of it. They show some framed work in the lobby, but motion pictures are the primary focus. I've instantly gotten answers from Hollywood technicians about filtration issues that were fairly frustrating on forums like this.
My whole point is that he's after a particular look which he assumes is due to Ortho film, but might not be. So it's not necessarily about an allegedly correct filter at all. Other types of questions are also relevant, like one already mentioned - makeup.
There are plenty of tests coming as well. In the end, what will matter are the test results that look "right" for the film we are making, and not some nanometer graph. Maybe the final choice will be something common, maybe it's a gel filter, maybe it's something obscure from Edmund Optics. The point is, from help on this forum, I now have more, curated options to begin subjective tests - thanks everybody.
Knowing the director, he will probably prefer no make-up, or actually make efforts to make them grubbier - think Daniel Day Lewis in "There Will Be Blood." The look will be sharp where it counts, and the tonality derived from real skin.
It may be that certain shots will use blue, cyan or green, depending on how we want skies and land/seascapes to look, and how prominent a face is in frame.
I look forward to seeing your research progress and what the end result ends up looking like.
But I can't say that oddly coloured lights would be overly high on my list of concerns when dealing with professional talent. (And aspiring talent is readily convinced to roll with just about anything if you have the pull to make it look good for their career.) Just remember how many actors these days pull of stunning performances on a complete green screen or even in a mo-cap studio wearing pingpong ball covered spandex... Things on set look weird, and that kind of goes with the job. If your talent knows the look and understands what is going on, then I would be highly shocked to hear about anyone having an issue shooting a film in heavily tinted light.
I've not been in front of many cameras, but I for one would much prefer weird coloured light to excessive amounts of light if that is what it ends up taking to get enough through a filter to make the needed exposures for a shot.
Good luck, and I hope the project goes well.
Please remind me the stunning performance by any actor in a completely blue/greenscreen world. I must have missed it. Our team is committed to creating a tangible world for the audience where a great actor can react to real things, and live in the role and transport the viewer. I am part of making everyone's work look good, not just my own. As someone who works in constant, very close proximity to actors, I will have to disagree - a primary blue or green set would indeed be distracting to them. The set would also be deeply colored for all of the interiors: 20 days of work out of 30 and many emotionally intense scenes.
I think of it this way:
I distract the actor less from his/her work-> the acting is very good -> the film is good in what it set out to do -> my work is seen and appreciated.
I can't really recall anyone complaining about Andy Serkis's work...
I've spent a lot of time in spaces lit by heavily tinted red or green light, and have guided tours in a small observatory, lit in red, for hundreds of people of all ages over the years. First reaction upon seeing the red lights tends to bring a reaction, but I've never once seen someone dwelling on the lighting for more than a few minutes. (They all either focus on the telescope, or get distracted by playing with how voices echo off the dome.)
Human vision is surprisingly adaptable, and we're talking gelled lights, not putting a high powered strobe in an actor's face. And you're not flipping the switch on them after calling action and surprising them with it.
I think you're highly overestimating how 'distracting' the lighting effect would be, but it is your project, and I'm not going to lose any sleep over what methods you attempt to get the look you're going for.
The nice thing about projects like this is that, even if you make a "mistake" on the first try, it might prove useful somewhere down the line. Sounds like you are willing to experiment some, and hopefully you'll have some fun with it too.
Well... not so much. It's a proper theatrical feature film with international distribution- so there will be a lot of testing and extra prep on my end. It will need to be ironed out by the time we enter production. I'll see what I can share of the technical results after it's all done and in the market.
Thanks everyone for pointing me in good directions...
I ultimately found this:
I am testing it with double x tomorrow.
However, for the actual movie, via Panavision, Schneider is custom making filters for us. They will have the same 570 nm cut, but transmitting much more of the violet and UV light.
This will be a very interesting looking movie.
Wow. Good find!
that SP570 looks great and is offered in common sizes.
What glass will be used in your custom Schneider/B&W filter?