Jump to content


Photo

Impressed with Kodak 7201


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Frank DiBugnara

Frank DiBugnara
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 15 October 2006 - 06:28 PM

I just got to see some footage from the last spot I shot. It was my first experience with the Kodak '01 stock in 16mm. I've heard others say that in a 35mm print there is not as dramatic a difference between '01 and '05--but I think the '01 takes 16mm to a new level. A totally grainless sky, for example, was a little tricky in 16mm prior to this stock (except for maybe '45). Now we have the tight grain of '45 but much more dynamic range. The interior stuff is '05--which looks great and intercuts well. But expecially in NTSC, you appreciate what '01 brings to the table.

Raw Footage of 7201 and 7205
  • 0

#2 ljoski johnsen

ljoski johnsen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Student

Posted 15 October 2006 - 09:15 PM

Wow, that really looks amazing. Which lenses did you use? Did you use any filters? Where did you process and transferred at? Great stuff, man.

Ljoski

Austin TX
  • 0

#3 Frank DiBugnara

Frank DiBugnara
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 15 October 2006 - 09:28 PM

Thanks. I appreciate it.

The specs are:

SR3 Advanced
Zeiss Prime Set (9.5mm to 85mm)
Century 6mm
Zeiss 12 to 120mm
Process at Fotokem
Transfer to DigiBeta on a Spirit at Encore Hollywood
Filters were just NDs and Polarizer--Some smoke softened the interiors
  • 0

#4 Bryan Darling

Bryan Darling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Director
  • Sacramento, CA

Posted 15 October 2006 - 11:04 PM

I was curious if you used power windows or such in your transfer? Or did you conform the filters around the subjects? I ask because it looked as though the filteration was around the person pretty tightly on the beauty shots.
  • 0

#5 Frank DiBugnara

Frank DiBugnara
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 16 October 2006 - 11:48 AM

The bay I was in had a max of three simultaneous power windows at any given time. We tried to keep them sublte, but at times it is fun to really try to get the subject to "pop"--It feels so much more acceptable to have a more noticable window in a spot than in a narrative piece.
  • 0

#6 Bryan Darling

Bryan Darling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Director
  • Sacramento, CA

Posted 16 October 2006 - 12:51 PM

The bay I was in had a max of three simultaneous power windows at any given time. We tried to keep them sublte, but at times it is fun to really try to get the subject to "pop"--It feels so much more acceptable to have a more noticable window in a spot than in a narrative piece.



I agree. I even think it would work in a narrative. It has a certain aesthetic quality. I haven't worked with power windows before and I thought perhaps you had done so in your transfer. It's a great effect. Great stuff.
  • 0

#7 steve hyde

steve hyde
  • Sustaining Members
  • 446 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 16 October 2006 - 01:38 PM

..Beautiful photography Frank and seamless matching between stocks. Thanks for posting this.

Steve
  • 0

#8 ryan_bennett

ryan_bennett
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Student

Posted 16 October 2006 - 01:56 PM

WOW! Must've cost a lot of money but it's worth it great stuff!
  • 0

#9 Elliot Rudmann

Elliot Rudmann
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 208 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago

Posted 24 January 2007 - 09:03 AM

Hey Frank, that footage looks spectacular! I shot about 800' of 7201 (overexposed 1/2 stop) for a student project recently and it really didn't come out anywhere close to what you got, lots of noise in the sky. I assume it was the telecine. I sent the film to be processed at Cinelab and I got it transfered (supervised to 720x480) at Finish lab in Boston. I had heard good things about Finish, but when comparing my footage to yours, i am very disappointed in hindsight. Was your transfer a 2k? Does anyone have any ideas as to what I should do differently next time? Just to clarify, all of my footage was shot and exposed properly - I'll try to post some full rez screen grabs later so you can see the noise I'm referring to.
  • 0

#10 adam berk

adam berk
  • Sustaining Members
  • 168 posts
  • Director

Posted 24 January 2007 - 10:18 AM

Hey Frank, that footage looks spectacular! I shot about 800' of 7201 (overexposed 1/2 stop) for a student project recently and it really didn't come out anywhere close to what you got, lots of noise in the sky. I assume it was the telecine. I sent the film to be processed at Cinelab and I got it transfered (supervised to 720x480) at Finish lab in Boston. I had heard good things about Finish, but when comparing my footage to yours, i am very disappointed in hindsight. Was your transfer a 2k? Does anyone have any ideas as to what I should do differently next time? Just to clarify, all of my footage was shot and exposed properly - I'll try to post some full rez screen grabs later so you can see the noise I'm referring to.


Which machine did you transfer on? I've had SD Spirit/Shadow transfers of underexposed vision2 500t and 200t come back less grainy (possibly noisy) than properly exposed 7201 transferred on a rank.

I'm also totally convinced that the quality of your lenses makes a difference in perceived grain as well.
  • 0

#11 Elliot Rudmann

Elliot Rudmann
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 208 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago

Posted 24 January 2007 - 10:27 AM

Which machine did you transfer on? I've had SD Spirit/Shadow transfers of underexposed vision2 500t and 200t come back less grainy (possibly noisy) than properly exposed 7201 transferred on a rank.

I'm also totally convinced that the quality of your lenses makes a difference in perceived grain as well.



It was an SD transfer on a DaVinci machine, not exactly sure what model...don't know too much about that stuff. Interestingly, on the same project, the 7217 200t I shot (1/2 stop overexposed) came out excellent in the transfer. When I get off work, I'll post some grabs.
  • 0

#12 adam berk

adam berk
  • Sustaining Members
  • 168 posts
  • Director

Posted 24 January 2007 - 12:08 PM

It was an SD transfer on a DaVinci machine, not exactly sure what model...don't know too much about that stuff. Interestingly, on the same project, the 7217 200t I shot (1/2 stop overexposed) came out excellent in the transfer. When I get off work, I'll post some grabs.


The DaVinci was probably the colour corrector, not the telecine.

Do post some grabs.
  • 0

#13 Frank DiBugnara

Frank DiBugnara
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 24 January 2007 - 02:09 PM

Elliot,

My stuff was a standard def transfer to DigiBeta off a Spirit. The fact that your 7217 (I assume telecine on the same machine) looks better makes me think that perhaps you had bad stock or made an accidental exposure error. Were there any other variables like different lenses?

Post some screen grabs when you can.....
  • 0

#14 steve hyde

steve hyde
  • Sustaining Members
  • 446 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 24 January 2007 - 02:18 PM

Hi Frank,

Do you recall which shots were made with the Zeiss 12 -120?

Again, thanks for posting this example. This is very inspiring work.

Steve
  • 0

#15 Frank DiBugnara

Frank DiBugnara
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 24 January 2007 - 07:46 PM

Steve,

As far as I can remember, the zoom lens shots were: (considering that a new shot is every picture change)

numbers 3,4,5,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,18
  • 0

#16 steve hyde

steve hyde
  • Sustaining Members
  • 446 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 24 January 2007 - 08:06 PM

Thanks Frank. This is a very helpful post. Nice of you to take the time to share this work.

Interesting that 11 out of the 18 shots were made on the Zeiss 12-120. You must have shot it open for the interiors (T2.5?) and I assume you used NDs to acheive shallow DOF on the exterior bridge.

Steve
  • 0

#17 Frank DiBugnara

Frank DiBugnara
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 24 January 2007 - 09:41 PM

I'm happy you find it useful. Yes, zooms always make shooting faster, especially on a tight schedule. I'd always pick a prime if I can, but at the same time I don't feel that this particular zoom produces a significantly degraded image on the small screen. I'm told that the Optex modification for super 16 on this lens introduces some degradation, but I'm not sure if that's true or how significant that is.

On exteriors, I think I tried to keep that lens at a 4 or so for best resolution (and to help out the AC a little on focus for walking shots). For interiors I had decent-size instruments and I did switch to 7205 so stop was not an issue. I think I was also around a 2.8/4 split.
  • 0

#18 Chris Burke

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

Posted 24 January 2007 - 10:05 PM

Hey Frank, that footage looks spectacular! I shot about 800' of 7201 (overexposed 1/2 stop) for a student project recently and it really didn't come out anywhere close to what you got, lots of noise in the sky. I assume it was the telecine. I sent the film to be processed at Cinelab and I got it transfered (supervised to 720x480) at Finish lab in Boston. I had heard good things about Finish, but when comparing my footage to yours, i am very disappointed in hindsight. Was your transfer a 2k? Does anyone have any ideas as to what I should do differently next time? Just to clarify, all of my footage was shot and exposed properly - I'll try to post some full rez screen grabs later so you can see the noise I'm referring to.



Finish uses a Ursa Diamond. I would take it back to them if you are not pleased. If they can not make it happen consider going over to National. They have a Shadow which is much better.


chris
  • 0

#19 Elliot Rudmann

Elliot Rudmann
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 208 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago

Posted 24 January 2007 - 11:34 PM

Here are some grabs comparing my shots of 7201 and 7217. I'm pretty sure that there was no exposure error in the 7201 shots, I over exposed it by 1/2 stop.

7201 grabs:

http://www.enzymefil...cakes/7201a.jpg
http://www.enzymefil...cakes/7201b.jpg
http://www.enzymefil...cakes/7201c.jpg

7217 200T grabs - I think these look a lot better in terms of having less noise (or grain?) in the image.

http://www.enzymefil...cakes/7217a.jpg
http://www.enzymefil...cakes/7217b.jpg

let me know what you guys think. Is a spirit transfer machine a good way to go next time?
  • 0

#20 Frank DiBugnara

Frank DiBugnara
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 25 January 2007 - 12:18 AM

Well first of all, you shot standard 16 which is naturally going to appear more grainy than super. Blacks and highlights look good so the exposure seems healthy (although the clouds are a bit hot in the second picture.) I'd guess that the grainy results are a combination of a lower-resolution lens and old telecine. Also, keep in mind that your two examples of 7217 are much tighter shots which will naturally give the appearance of a sharper image even if all the other variables are the same.

Yes, I think Spirit is a great way to go--especially for 16mm. It's known as one of the sharpest machines. You can always make something less sharp after the fact with good results.
  • 0


The Slider

Glidecam

CineLab

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

CineTape

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

The Slider

Opal

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks