Jump to content


Photo

Fuji 64D and Eterna 250D


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 Matthew Novak

Matthew Novak

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • NJ, NY

Posted 05 June 2007 - 10:26 PM

Hey, so I'm shooting a student film this month and was planning on shooting Fuji's Eterna 250D (16mm). After doing a quick exterior test of the stock my eye favored the older F-64D film. The stock seemed to have more punch in the colors and wasn't as flat as the 250D. Has anyone else experienced this?

The film takes place for the most part outdoors but there are some interiors with lots of windows. Because of this I planned on sticking with the 64D throughout the shoot. I may have to push the film one or two stocks in one location and was wondering if anyone knew how this film handles being pushed. Also do you guys think Eterna 250D should be used instead of pushing F-64D?


Final question I actually found the 64D to have more latitude than the Eterna 250D. Has anyone else experienced this or was this a fluke. Thanks

Matt
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20074 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 June 2007 - 11:34 PM

Eterna 250T and 250D are more pastel and lower in contrast, wider in dynamic range, than F-64D, which is punchier, more saturated. It's probably a fluke that the F-64D seemed to have a wider latitude, because it doesn't -- generally a stock can't be both punchier, more snappy, and yet have more exposure range.

You could try the new Vivid 160T instead if you want a more contrasty and saturated stock for your indoor scenes. Or overexpose 250D and print down.

If this is for video transfer, you can make Eterna 250D look as saturated and contrasty as F-64D in the telecine.
  • 0

#3 Ed Nyari

Ed Nyari

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Other

Posted 11 June 2007 - 03:22 PM

generally a stock can't be both punchier, more snappy, and yet have more exposure range.


Just wanted to say, that it is possible (though probably not the case in reality), because contrast is not really a linear function, specially not with film, the "punchyness" mostly comes from midtone contrast. It is possible that a film has a steeper straight section of the curve (a punchy film), yet , through a large toe and shoulder have big dynamic range.
The best example is a comparison between a typical video camera and film. The film mostly looks more punchy, more dynamic, while a video will look a bit flat, but film will have more dynamic range. It's because film has more mid-tone contrast and at the same time has huge highlight and shadow compression.

Edited by Ed Nyari, 11 June 2007 - 03:24 PM.

  • 0


New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

The Slider

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

Abel Cine

The Slider

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly