Motion Picture and Still Camera Film - Differences?

[cmacd123]

They also shoot night sceens at night, as well.

I remember the first time I saw Hollywood shooting a night shot near my home in LA. I was shooting stills by available light myself and their lights really seemed like overkill. They were shooting a cop/detective weekly called "Baretta" IIRC, and I was very much surprised at the intensity of the lights they were using....

Then, about 3 years ago, I was able to see an asian crew filming some night sceens in a quaint costal village in Vietnam. The lighting there seemed to be much more reasonable.

Bach at the time that series was in production they likly only had ISO 100T film to use, with a fixed shutter speed of about 1/50 to 1/60 of a second (depending on the camera)

"Hill Street Blues" was one of the first series where there were 250T and faster films. The Available light look for that series was made posible by the faster film which allwed more use of the "normal" lights on the set.

Now 500T is the norm. Shooting 500T at 1/60 of a second is almost like available light shooting with Tri-X. The Film crews will want to watch the shadows because there is a loss of latitude when the film is scanned for TV.

{While I am at it, the sequence before Digital intermediate production was Original Camera negative printed on an intermediate positive film, (with Orange mask built in for Colour Productions) then on to a duplicate negative. The duplicate negative(s) were used to make all the release prints.

Editing and special effects as well as "timing" (the movie term for adjusting exposure on printing) could be done at both the positive and duplicate negative stages. The movie printers can be programed to adjust the printing exposure on a scene by scene basis.

With digital the Original Camera Negative is scanned and played with in the digital domain, and is used to "write out" multiple Printer negatives. All exposure and colour variations are corrected in the digital domain.}

 

[ajuk]

Am I right in assuming that continued improvements in still films at the extent they are still improving is mostly down to the continued popularity of movie film?

 

[AgX]

Perfect wording.

 

[nworth]

They just go through shooting another movie here in the other LA. Some of the night shots were close to my house. I was impressed by the modesty of the lighting and by the skill in its use. From the small lights, my guess is that 500D may have been the film. The requirement is, of course, to light the scene and still make it look like a moonlit night. That takes some skill. I also noticed that they were able to deal with a great many different kinds of lights. They used a combination filters on the lights and on the cameras to do the corrections, but the fact that they could do so testifies to some careful design in the film. At various points I saw white flame arc, metal halide, phosphor enhanced mercury vapor, and tungsten halide lamps being used.

 

[Prest_400]

Am I right in assuming that continued improvements in still films at the extent they are still improving is mostly down to the continued popularity of movie film?

I think so, at least on most.

A good example may be ektar. I believe it uses the 2 electron sensitization and another improvement that affected grain size.

I wonder if TMY "2" carries technology from MP.


Last summer I seen how they were shooting a spot for a cosmetics brand here in a local beach. It was afternoon and they had reflectors, and a few (3-5) continuous light sources.