[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: stock recommendation sought

At 08:52 AM 11/6/96 -0000, Geoff Boyle wrote:
>No, I meant underexpose.
>If you're trying to get a 1000 rating with a 500 stock then you are
>automatically underexposing it.
>The real question is whether you push process it or not.
>I wouldn't do this if I was post producing on tape, the benefits of the
>extra density are far outweighed by the grain increase and the harsher

>I've always wondered why I had less problems with grain than a lot of other
>DP's, I may have got the answer last week, I compared my printer lights
>with all the other rushes going through the lab. Mine were consistently 4
>points heavier. And I know that this doesn't agree with what I've said
>above, but I believe that a push process will make the grain problem even


OOPs!! I shoudln't write posts late at night. I get over/under confused that
I think you got the jist of my point which was denser neg, and to expose
more than meters tell you especially with higher asa films. I didn't know
your background and I appologize for my pontification. It does seem to me
though, that no motion picture stock is really capable of 1000 asa. Pushing
seems to be a very unpleasant optiion. If it rated at 500 and pushed N +1. I
could see it working, possibly, but a rating of 1000 and N +1 to 500 seems
to be to be a very low density neg. I think even if base fog were raised by
the overexposure, they could be driven to black in transfer.

Thanks for clearing up my boo boo.

Craig Leffel
Telecine colorist
Optimus, Inc.
Chicago, Il
aleffel at ix.netcom.com
cleffel at aol.com