Not "slow" in frames per second, but "slow as in film speed. At the time they could maybe reliably shoot at the equivalent of ISO 800? (some historically informed cinematographer, please feel free to correct me.
On the topic of FPS, though, that's definitely an ongoing issue. I wrote up some of the most salient points a while back here, if you're interested:
At the time they could maybe reliably shoot at the equivalent of ISO 800? (some historically informed cinematographer, please feel free to correct me.
It would be unusual to shoot on film stock as fast as ISO 800. In most cases 500 would be the highest. The scenes in Barry Lyndon shot on the f0.7 lenses were actually filmed on ISO 200 stock, partly to avoid too much grain.
Standard film stocks would be 50, 200, 250, and 500 ISO. I know that nowadays Kodak don't produce 35mm film stock greater than ISO 500 (unless as part of a special order).
It is quite common to push-process Kodak Vision 500T one stop to ASA 1000.
Of course, Stanley Kubrick shot Barry Lyndon before the widespread availability of T-grained film. Thus, the high-speed film available in 1975 would've been much grainier.
What does it mean to "push-process" film to a higher ISO? Is that the film equivalent of shooting digital at ISO 500 and then increasing the exposure a stop in Lightroom?
You intentionally underexpose the film when you shoot, pretending that it has a higher ASA rating than it actually does.
You then increase the time and/or the temperature when developing the film, to compensate for the underexposure. You end up with a correctly-exposed image, but at the cost of extra grain, extra contrast, etc.
Comments
"he was shooting on far slower film than the digital sensors available today. "
My guess is the hype engine will focus on the idea that if 48 FPS is "twice as good" as 24 FPS then 96 FPS is even better.
In true Hollywood style I bet they'll be post processing to make scenes look like they were filmed with standard lens.
Not "slow" in frames per second, but "slow as in film speed. At the time they could maybe reliably shoot at the equivalent of ISO 800? (some historically informed cinematographer, please feel free to correct me.
On the topic of FPS, though, that's definitely an ongoing issue. I wrote up some of the most salient points a while back here, if you're interested:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/08/frame-wars/
It would be unusual to shoot on film stock as fast as ISO 800. In most cases 500 would be the highest. The scenes in Barry Lyndon shot on the f0.7 lenses were actually filmed on ISO 200 stock, partly to avoid too much grain.
Standard film stocks would be 50, 200, 250, and 500 ISO. I know that nowadays Kodak don't produce 35mm film stock greater than ISO 500 (unless as part of a special order).
It is quite common to push-process Kodak Vision 500T one stop to ASA 1000.
Of course, Stanley Kubrick shot Barry Lyndon before the widespread availability of T-grained film. Thus, the high-speed film available in 1975 would've been much grainier.
What does it mean to "push-process" film to a higher ISO? Is that the film equivalent of shooting digital at ISO 500 and then increasing the exposure a stop in Lightroom?
Similar.
You intentionally underexpose the film when you shoot, pretending that it has a higher ASA rating than it actually does.
You then increase the time and/or the temperature when developing the film, to compensate for the underexposure. You end up with a correctly-exposed image, but at the cost of extra grain, extra contrast, etc.
Not sample rate, but rather the unrelated concept of "film speed" [1], a measurement of the light sensitivity of a piece of film.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed