Jump to content


Photo

800T Results!


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 SSJR

SSJR
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Student

Posted 10 April 2006 - 02:22 PM

Okay guys so i finished my second 35-mm shoot!

I was amazed after shooting this film stock how little grain there was. I was really happy with the result of this discontinued film stock. I wish they didn't kill it !

Here are some stills from the movie i just shot. I have some of this stuff left. Factory sealed. Please let me know if you would like to take them off my hands :)

David thanks for the tips on the lanterns it worked like a charm!



Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image
  • 0

#2 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

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

Posted 10 April 2006 - 02:41 PM

Very nice images. Is your production a feature or documentary?

For its speed, the Kodak VISION 800T Color Negative Film 5289 was an amazing stock. Yes, it had more graininess than the slower VISION stocks, but with good solid exposure, the film delivered good images. But the new Kodak VISION2 500T Color Negative Film 5218 has such an improvement in image structure that most find it gives better results, even if rated EI-800 with/without push processing.
  • 0

#3 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 10 April 2006 - 03:31 PM

I just figured out what I don't like about the way modern films look on video. It's not the filmstock, it's the transfers. They just look so clean and perfect.
Here I am looking at what is supose to be a "crappy" emulsion, and I see smooth images that look like progressive video.
Why does nobody use that Kodak teleprint film like Spielberg does, it makes transfers so much more film-like, like prints
  • 0

#4 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

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

Posted 10 April 2006 - 03:51 PM

I just figured out what I don't like about the way modern films look on video. It's not the filmstock, it's the transfers. They just look so clean and perfect.
Here I am looking at what is supose to be a "crappy" emulsion, and I see smooth images that look like progressive video.
Why does nobody use that Kodak teleprint film like Spielberg does, it makes transfers so much more film-like, like prints


I've never felt the 5289 was "crappy". As I mentioned, with a good rich exposure, it could yield very good images, albeit with some grain "texture", especially in 16mm.

Yes, quite a few still prefer to do transfers from a print film like Kodak VISION Color Print Teleprint Film 2395:

http://www.kodak.com...1.4.8.4.3&lc=en

Gives a more contrasty image, especially in the shadows. But the trend today seems to be the "smooth" images that hold good detail from shadow to highlight.
  • 0

#5 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 10 April 2006 - 04:08 PM

I didn't mean crappy in a bad way, I like "crappy" film images. I like newsreel foorage, I like dupes, I like contrasty prints, I like old Ektachrome football footage, I like grainy images etc.
I'm a garbage can for film technology failures. I like it all.

What I ment with "crappy" was grainy and with worse tonality than say brand new 100ISO vision footage.


Gives a more contrasty image, especially in the shadows. But the trend today seems to be the "smooth" images that hold good detail from shadow to highlight.


you said it. I don't object to people having their own ideas, I'm just saying trends are always there, and sometimes I like them, sometimes I don't.

Some of the modern transfers look to me as if, they just took the image as it is from the negative/IP
without gamma corrections, or S-curves applied.
  • 0

#6 Tim Terner

Tim Terner
  • Sustaining Members
  • 340 posts
  • Producer
  • Prague, CZ

Posted 10 April 2006 - 04:23 PM

Grabs from the footage look wonderful. Get more inclined to start on film every time i see stills of this quality
  • 0

#7 Chainsaw

Chainsaw
  • Guests

Posted 10 April 2006 - 05:22 PM

I have to say that I miss the '89 stock as well. I never really got to utilize it as much as I would have liked. I always felt that it's "graininess" was one of its better attributes. The very last time I shot with it was back in 1999 and it was only because our Art Department ordered the wrong Wildfire paint.

We had a single scene with a black cinderblock wall that was covered with runic symbols painted in Deep Violet Wildfire paint, when we needed them painted in UV Invisible Blue to pull an exposure with the 5285 reversal stock. As the Devil would have it the Deep Violet paint has the least fluorescent properties of any of the Wildfire paints and we only had a single 400w Wildfire fresnel lamp. Needless to say that this mistake wasn't caught until 12 hours before shooting so repainting the set was not an option.

The scene in question was hastily discussed and a new look was chosen for it. I pulled 800' of 5289 out of my fridge and we went for almost a polar opposite look to what we had planned on shooting. The '89 looked utterly fantastic and I don't regret having to use it at all. It was exposed normally and pushed it 2/3 of a stop and tranferred from Beta to a DVCPro50 codec (not my preferred choice) for editing. Here's what we ended up with:

Quorthon1.jpg
Camera: Panaflex Gold - Frame Rate: 22fps (transferred @ 24fps) - Shutter Angle: 200 - Filtration: 1/2 White Pro-Mist - Lens: 27mm Primo - T-Stop: 1.9 (bottom)


Quorthon2.jpg
It doesn't show here but there is dripping water all over this set from a modified rain rigging.


Quorthon3.jpg
Lit from behind with two crossed Baby 5K's and a BJ directly above and behind - from above with an uncorrected 1,200 HMI PAR punched through a Black Silk - from the front with a Mickey Mole boucned off a Showcard painted with fluorescent orange marking paint - the "runes" are lit with a single 400w Wildfire lamp punched through a 4x4 cello.

Quorthon4.jpg
The coda from the shot above - there is a lighting change - when the fire starts the two 5K's, the 1,200 PAR, and the Mickey Mole are killed.


This is far from my favorite material but it was great fun to shoot. I would love for Kodak to resume production of this stock. Mr. SSJR has made me realize how much I miss this stuff. I may have to call the DR Group tomorrow and see if I can score some while it's still there for the taking. Or, if SSJR still has those cans I'll gladly give them a good home...
  • 0

#8 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

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

Posted 11 April 2006 - 08:57 AM

Exposing Kodak VISION2 500T Color Negative Film 5218 at EI-1000 and using a Push-1 process should come close to emulating the 5289 "look", as it will boost contrast and graininess.
  • 0

#9 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 19 April 2006 - 07:43 AM

Is your production a feature or documentary?


Where on earth would you still find caucasian people living and dressing like that?
  • 0

#10 Luke Prendergast

Luke Prendergast
  • Sustaining Members
  • 491 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Victoria Australia

Posted 19 April 2006 - 04:05 PM

Wow Chainsaw, the skin in that 2nd still looks great, almost translucent like a wax sculpture. I guess it was the UV and warm light combination. Have to experiment with that.
  • 0

#11 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 19 April 2006 - 04:35 PM

Where on earth would you still find caucasian people living and dressing like that?


Hahaha. East 55th and Buckeye? ;-)
  • 0

#12 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 19 April 2006 - 06:17 PM

sorry, I'm not from US, what's on that location?
  • 0

#13 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 19 April 2006 - 08:57 PM

Where on earth would you still find caucasian people living and dressing like that?




the house looks like it is from Pioneer Village in Salem, MA. But I am not sure. Where did the shoot take place/

chris
  • 0

#14 jijhh

jijhh
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Student

Posted 19 April 2006 - 09:24 PM

Where on earth would you still find caucasian people living and dressing like that?


bucks county, pennsylvania or any other amish community for that matter.
  • 0

#15 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 19 April 2006 - 10:31 PM

Hahaha. East 55th and Buckeye? ;-)

There is no East 55th and Buckeye. Buckeye ends at East 93rd.
  • 0

#16 SSJR

SSJR
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Student

Posted 19 April 2006 - 10:38 PM

the house looks like it is from Pioneer Village in Salem, MA. But I am not sure. Where did the shoot take place/

chris



Your right Chris!
  • 0

#17 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

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

Posted 20 April 2006 - 11:17 AM

Sorry, by "Documentary" I meant re-enactment or docu-drama, not cinema-verite. ;)
  • 0

#18 Josh Hill

Josh Hill
  • Sustaining Members
  • 258 posts
  • Other
  • New York, NY

Posted 22 April 2006 - 12:24 AM

bucks county, pennsylvania or any other amish community for that matter.


Actually, you can have Amish communities that vary greatly with how they dress and act and how they are perceived to the outside world. There are no standard guidelines as to how the Amish should act/dress/etc. and behavior is dictated by the communities themselves. There are Amish communities in the United States that allow for electricity and, I believe, even automobiles.
  • 0

#19 SSJR

SSJR
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Student

Posted 07 May 2006 - 01:35 AM

Sorry, by "Documentary" I meant re-enactment or docu-drama, not cinema-verite. ;)


Dude your fine :P
  • 0

#20 nathan coombs

nathan coombs
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Director
  • Exeter, UK

Posted 07 May 2006 - 03:52 AM

I just figured out what I don't like about the way modern films look on video. It's not the filmstock, it's the transfers. They just look so clean and perfect.
Here I am looking at what is supose to be a "crappy" emulsion, and I see smooth images that look like progressive video.


Yes, it does look quite video like but that is because

1) They are night scenes lit in a diffused way with a low range of f-stops.

2) The lighting setup is quite dull with no use of strong directional lighting like you seen in many films. The lighting setup in these shots is not really taking advantage of the properties of film and is slightly video-like in its diffused spread, keeping every subject and spot within a narrow exposure range.
  • 0


Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

CineTape

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine