Jump to content


Photo

Vision-2 50D (72/5201)


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 November 2005 - 08:48 PM

Now that I'm back in town, I went over to Kodak to see the demo film on the new 50D stock. My impressions:

(1) I forget sometimes that 35mm 1.85 projection is slightly soft & grainy, even with 50 ASA stocks... you keep hoping that when you shoot some mountain landscape in full sunlight, as they did in the demo, with 50 ASA film it would leap out at you with clarity... now some people would say that if the image was grainless, it would look like video (not me.) I'm ready to start shooting in 65mm I'm afraid...

The cameras were from CSC, so I assume Arricams -- did they use Cooke S4's or Zeiss Master Primes? The slight softness could be a Cooke S4 look.

(2) When you're talking about 50 ASA stock, there isn't much room for improvement... so I was mainly struck by how similar the two stocks were, '45 being just slightly more contrasty and having more red saturation. '01 was more neutral in color response with cleaner whites / grays.

(3) The blow-up from Super-16 of 7201 vs. 7245 was probably the best argument for the improved grain structure of the new stock. In this case, you could more clearly see that '01 was less grainy, even though '45 isn't bad.

(4) It was interesting that in the +2 stops overexposure test, there wasn't really any change in grain structure. I guess either 50 ASA film doesn't have a "slower" layer where overexposure helps, or basically it can't get much finer-grained than it already is rated normally.

(5) The comparison to the new 250D 5205 stock really shows you how good the 250D stock is, close enough to 50D to make you question needing the 50D stock. I'll probably still use 50D when I can, but it's nice to know that if I need to switch to 250D in an emergency, the look & quality will be very close.

(6) The change in look from 5245 to 5201 was not as radical as I had feared. Yes, '01 is slightly less punchy, less saturated, than '45 but not by a lot.

(7) Why did Kodak shoot mainly in shaded or overcast light -- I mean, in comparing how the two stocks handle a black man and a white woman in the same shot, it's not particularly impressive when the shot was done in heavy shade! In that soft of light, I would hope any color neg stock could handle that.

Anyway, I look forward to shooting a feature with the new 50D.

Edited by David Mullen, 17 November 2005 - 08:49 PM.

  • 0

#2 Chance Shirley

Chance Shirley
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 256 posts
  • Director

Posted 21 November 2005 - 01:36 PM

David,

I'm thinking about mixing some (blown-up/cropped) standard 16mm footage with Super 16mm footage for a future project. If I use the new 7201 for the standard 16mm camera, do you think the Vision2 250D stock would be a good choice for the Super 16mm camera (to compensate for the blowing-up/cropping of the standard 16mm footage)?

Thanks...
  • 0

#3 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 21 November 2005 - 02:32 PM

David,

I'm thinking about mixing some (blown-up/cropped) standard 16mm footage with Super 16mm footage for a future project. If I use the new 7201 for the standard 16mm camera, do you think the Vision2 250D stock would be a good choice for the Super 16mm camera (to compensate for the blowing-up/cropping of the standard 16mm footage)?

Thanks...


I agree that intercutting Regular-16 7201 with Super-16 7205 should be pretty similar for graininess in the final blow-up or transfer. Let us know what your tests find.
  • 0

#4 Chance Shirley

Chance Shirley
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 256 posts
  • Director

Posted 21 November 2005 - 03:50 PM

I agree that intercutting Regular-16 7201 with Super-16 7205 should be pretty similar for graininess in the final blow-up or transfer. Let us know what your tests find.


Thanks for the opinion, John. It'll be several months before I do any tests for this project, but I decided to go ahead and ask the question since David brought up the new 50D stock in his post.

Whenever I do get around to some testing, I'll let you know how it goes and try to post some stills.

Thanks...
  • 0

#5 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 21 November 2005 - 06:36 PM

Yes, I think it's a good idea IF you don't end up shooting wide-open on the lens on the regular 16mm camera to compensate for the slower-speed stock, because then you'll lose sharpness.
  • 0

#6 Chance Shirley

Chance Shirley
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 256 posts
  • Director

Posted 22 November 2005 - 12:26 PM

Yes, I think it's a good idea IF you don't end up shooting wide-open on the lens on the regular 16mm camera to compensate for the slower-speed stock, because then you'll lose sharpness.


I'm only planning on using the R16 camera for sunny daytime exteriors, so I think the 50 speed will actually be easier to use than the 250, which I expect will require some ND to get it down to a reasonable stop.
  • 0


FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Glidecam

Opal

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Tai Audio

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

The Slider

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC