Hi Janis My experience is of film to film-camera and film to digital-video-camera though I’d expect video to film would have similar requirements. For both, front projection works best. Projector and camera as far from screen as possible to produce a projected image of between 12 and 15 inches wide. The camera behind projector as far as possible with lens as appropriate. This reduces parallax and hardly any ‘hot-spot’/. Best to use a paper screen with no texture. With a film camera and using tungsten balanced film use an 81A filter (otherwise the colour will tend towards cyan), best use a camera with a mirrored shutter and variable speed. This is so you can adjust the flicker rate by eye otherwise film slightly slower than projection if possible. With a video camera set white balance manually and by eye. Adjust shutter speed until flicker is acceptable.
I hope that’s helpful Best Wishes Rob > On 4 Feb 2023, at 15:55, [email protected] wrote: > > Hello > > I have an experimental music video project which only operates with > analogue/optical effects. It was all filmed with digital cameras high iso - > so its veeeeery grainy (purposely so, see sample still). Now I would like to > perform a final step over: Print it on 16mm (or 35mm film) and then scan it > back in 2k or 4k > > There are three ways I imagine this can happen, tho have no previous > experience: > - 16mm print out and scan back to digital: quite expensive to do, even for > 4min. > - 35mm print out and scan back to digital: probably cheaper - though maybe > the resolution is too good / the grain no present enough. Then again: Maybe > this is just the necessary amount of information/sharpness needed to render > the digital grain/artefacts clearly > - Use a Bolex or Krasnogorsk and film the digital master from a screen or > projector, develop the film and scan back to digital (?): does this give you > adequate quality? I'm especially interested in this technique since its the > cheapest but also because i imagine the 'sloppiness' of the bolex/krasnogorsk > adds a movement/breathing that could be quite interesting for e.g. the shots > that were filmed on a gimbal. > > Questions: > > - has any of you experience with filming from a screen / projector? If yes, > I'd appreciate some tips regarding technique. > - I guess in all the cases above it would make sense to have a digital master > that is rather a little more overexposed than underexposed? > - ho do overexposures end up on the film negative/scan back? does it get more > organic or does it stay rather digital in its aesthetic? > > I hope I could express myself understandably. > > Best > Janis > > <Screenshot 2023-02-04 at 16.53.21.jpeg> > -- > Frameworks mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.film-gallery.org/mailman/listinfo/frameworks_film-gallery.org
-- Frameworks mailing list [email protected] https://mail.film-gallery.org/mailman/listinfo/frameworks_film-gallery.org
