Posted 22 January 2007 - 04:29 AM
Every movie I view that was shot with that stock amazes me with the "look" it gave.
That stock had a "signature " look in the same way 5247 did.
The fleshtones on '51 were always superb.
Look at the exteriors of The Good,the Bad and the Ugly and Easy Rider.
Posted 23 January 2007 - 07:12 AM
Posted 23 January 2007 - 12:07 PM
I respectfully disagree. These two stocks have distinctly different looks. The lighting requirements alone may have a lot to do with the different looks, as the footcandles required to get a decent image were considerably higher with 5251. It was not uncommon to see large carbon-arc fired HMIs used outdoors in daylight with 5251, a practice which subsided in the move to faster stocks such as 5254 and beyond.
i agree, but 5254 which replaced it looked the same and it was 100asa instead of 50asa. John Holland.
Posted 23 January 2007 - 12:12 PM
Posted 23 January 2007 - 12:30 PM
I've shot '54. You're entitled to your opinion, as I am mine. However, your implication that the two stocks looked exactly the same doesn't appear to be shared by many. The style and intensity of lighting did change considerably during the transition between those two stocks, and there is a readily apparent difference in gamma between films made on those two stocks.
Well i have shot with both stocks ,have you ?