[Tig] What do colorists prefer? (was: Telecine 101)

fft at mindspring.com fft
Sat Mar 15 13:40:03 GMT 2003


C.J,
colorist prefer well exposed negative. If you are shooting something that is
dark than wouldn't we want to plan out the lighting and film stock selection to
give us our intended look? Different stocks do different things. From what I
know Kodak's 5218/7218 stock can be a softer contrast film stock. The great
thing about the stock is that it gives you the ability to roll down and roll up
the toe and shoulder of the film in transfer. This allows the colorist to hide
or gain information in the low lights and high lights. This type of film stock
would be beneficial in a uncontrollable lighting situations. Kodak has been
trying to accommodate the film community by giving them film stocks that work
well in many situations. If you are planning on a certain look for your project
than I would definitely investigate the pro's and con's of the different film
stocks. Careful selection of film stock will help in the film transfer process.
I hope this helps.

John Palmisano
Manhattan Transfer Miami


"C.J. Scheppers" wrote:

> Lynette Duensing supports the tig.
>
> Hello Mr. Lovejoy and TIG,
>
> Your message prompted me to go ahead and ask a few questions which might
> draw some input over a period of time.  I am sometimes asked to be lighting
> director on film projects and I have shot some of my own projects, too.
>
> On other peoples' projects, I usually get into a "discussion" with the
> cinematographer about filmstock, exposure rating, lighting ratios and
> overall lighting level.  So that this message does not get too long or
> complicated, could I just invite comments about film stock selection at
> this time?  Is Kodak Vision II 5218/7218 the immediate answer to the
> question of what filmstock will be used?  If the show is supposed to be a
> dark, contrasty psycho-drama, is a soft contrast film the right way to
> start?  Is much of the filmstock's benefit being put to waste in telecine?
> Would it have an adverse effect on the quality?  Wouldn't it be reserved
> for shooting scenes in uncontrollably lit, high-contrast settings?  If the
> director is going for contrast, wouldn't a more contrasty film help get the
> desired look and reduce the amount of work necessary to make such
> high-contrast lighting schemes while on location?  Should filmstock be
> selected carefully for better telecine later?
>
> What do colorists prefer?
>
> C.J. Scheppers
>






More information about the Tig mailing list