BLKRCAT
75% Film
So in filming my next video I decided Id post one of the images from the roll and see if anyone can guess the film and the speed at which it was shot at judging from this image.
No cheating!
You have 24 hours RFFers!
No cheating!
You have 24 hours RFFers!
Huss
Veteran
Ilford Delta 400 rated at 400, 1/30 sec at f2
pepeguitarra
Well-known
Tri-X 400 Professional EI1200 Wide open at 1/250 secs Texas Rangefinder.
--------------------
Edited to confirm my above comment and to add that the camera could be the Texas RF
--------------------
Edited to confirm my above comment and to add that the camera could be the Texas RF
Last edited:
bayernfan
Well-known
looks like a delta to me. Either Delta 400 at 800 or Delta 3200 at 1600. i'm probably way off.
De_Corday
Eternal Student
well... the motion blur in the foot tells me the shutter speed is under 1/60... DOF is shallow but not crazily so... figure f/4?
so...
1/60 or 1/30 @ f/4, at nighttime, with a good range of tones... i'm going to say its either 3200 or 6400
so...
1/60 or 1/30 @ f/4, at nighttime, with a good range of tones... i'm going to say its either 3200 or 6400
grouchos_tash
Well-known
Tri-x @1600 - 1/30th sec - f2.8
xenohip
Established
Almost agree with Huss.
Going to say Ilford Delta 400 rated at 800, 1/30 f2.
Going to say Ilford Delta 400 rated at 800, 1/30 f2.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I'm lost in translation here. Filming for video, to me (I'm in broadcast since 1991) means using special film to take motion pictures and then use cinefilm machine to digitize it. I wouldn't guess which film it is.
If it is shoppers drugmart jargon it might mean something like taking still images and using them for digital video. Nice way of using it, but on video it is hard to tell about negative scan. Even at uHD video.
If it is shoppers drugmart jargon it might mean something like taking still images and using them for digital video. Nice way of using it, but on video it is hard to tell about negative scan. Even at uHD video.
xenohip
Established
Pivot...
Going to say this is a digitally captured image.
Going to say this is a digitally captured image.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
It does seem like it could be Delta 400. I do get a sense of barely perceptible grain that I don't think would be visible at EI 400. So maybe Delta 400 at EI 800? Of course, the "grain" could be digital noise, but I will trust this is not a trick, and it really is film.
BLKRCAT
75% Film
We're almost Midway through I'll give a clue!
This image was shot 6x9
This image was shot 6x9
xenohip
Established
Option 1: 6cm x 9cm
Ilford Delta 3200 at 3200, 1/30 f4. The "wormy" nature of the noise (not grain) shows what is unfortunate about shooting film these days-- difficult to get a scan that resolves the native grain pattern and looks the way film should look.
Option 2: 6mm x 9mm
Panasonic
Ilford Delta 3200 at 3200, 1/30 f4. The "wormy" nature of the noise (not grain) shows what is unfortunate about shooting film these days-- difficult to get a scan that resolves the native grain pattern and looks the way film should look.
Option 2: 6mm x 9mm
Panasonic
glchua
Established
Tmax400 at 400, 1/15, f1.4.
sara
Well-known
Holy this is argh.
I'm going to say Tri-X, and because this looks like most of my images shot at night, I shoot it at f2.5 and 1/30.
Haha!!
I'm going to say Tri-X, and because this looks like most of my images shot at night, I shoot it at f2.5 and 1/30.
Haha!!
Huss
Veteran
That is crucial info that should have been mentioned at the beginning, as it affects the possible aperture range (I don't know of a 6x9 camera with an aperture bigger than 3.5), the relative DOF of the image, and the fact that as the negative is much larger, faster film can be used that shows the same level of grain as a smaller negative with slower film.
Ilford 3200, 1/30, f8
BLKRCAT
75% Film
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
I would go for HP5+, f/5.6 and 1/15 so ASA probably at 1600.
Laviolette
Established
The out of focus highlights seems to indicate that the lens is wide open or near so. Like Huss said, probably F3.5 if this is 6x9.
Would be interesting to see the negative, because blacks look a bit crushed but the overall contrast isn't that high. That would mean a fast film like Delta 3200.
The scene is probably around EV 3 or 4 at ei100 at most. So my guess would be : 1/30, F3.5 @3200 (probably Delta 3200).
O.T. : The flare caused by her headlamp is quite weird!
Would be interesting to see the negative, because blacks look a bit crushed but the overall contrast isn't that high. That would mean a fast film like Delta 3200.
The scene is probably around EV 3 or 4 at ei100 at most. So my guess would be : 1/30, F3.5 @3200 (probably Delta 3200).
O.T. : The flare caused by her headlamp is quite weird!
Huss
Veteran
The DOF is much shallower with a 6x9; f3.5 at this distance will have far more blurring in the background.
Laviolette
Established
I never shot 6x9 (only 6x6), so I can't argue with you about that. But DoF isn't that great here, the numbers to the right of her head are already out of focus.