Jump to content


Photo

Difference in Kodak 500T


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Alex M. White

Alex M. White

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Other
  • United States

Posted 06 September 2007 - 01:06 AM

I am shooting a short film in a month, and I will be ordering 15 rolls of 16mm this Monday, September 10th. I am unable to do personal stock tests myself due to equipment restrictions.

I am struggling with whether to pick Kodak's Vision2 5229/7229 Expression 500T or 5218/7218 500T.

I have watched Kodak's promotional "Light and Shadow" DVD numerous times, but am still unable to decide what the pros and cons of each stock are. The short film consists of one night exterior, one interior (concert hall), and one studio interior.

What are the differences in grain, color saturation, and shadow detail? Any other differences?

Thanks for your time,
Alex M. White

P.S. What is the difference between 52XX and 72XX?
  • 0

#2 David Auner aac

David Auner aac
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 September 2007 - 01:53 AM

P.S. What is the difference between 52XX and 72XX?


5xxx is 35mm motion picture film, 7xxx is 16mm. Sorry I can't help you the other questions as I am new to film...

Cheers, Dave
  • 0

#3 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 06 September 2007 - 02:00 AM

As I recall the 18 is a newer stock so it supposedly has less grain than the expression '29. Also, it's designed to cut in with other vision 2 line stocks.
the 29 is lower in contrast so i have heard that it digs deeper into the shadows for night shooting. Personally, the 18 is a safe choice for most things. It's a nice stock, strong, not too grainy.
  • 0

#4 John Brawley

John Brawley
  • Sustaining Members
  • 834 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Atlanta Georgia

Posted 06 September 2007 - 03:13 AM

I am shooting a short film in a month, and I will be ordering 15 rolls of 16mm this Monday, September 10th. I am unable to do personal stock tests myself due to equipment restrictions.

I am struggling with whether to pick Kodak's Vision2 5229/7229 Expression 500T or 5218/7218 500T.

P.S. What is the difference between 52XX and 72XX?



Hi Alex.

The 52 prefix is for 35mm, the 72 is for 16mm stocks.

Most of the time the 18 is the standard stock. The expression is a sort of lower contrast version. i tend to think of it as mushier myself. I don' like. ive tested it twice and both times it just seemed to be a much softer and mushier looking image....which may well be fine if that's what you're going for. it seemed to appear to be a little grainier, but that may simply be because of the lower contrast. In theory, it should also have a little more latitude but I didn't see it much in the tests I did.

I was forced to use a whole bunch of 29 short ends on a short film i did a while ago. As well as being old, which doesn't help they were pretty hit and miss. I actually found it had a pretty nice sweet spot when overexposed by 1/2 to 2/3 of a stop, but it very quickly fell off a cliff if the exposure was on base or under. But what's the point when you're shooting a high speed stock right ??

You can see the clip here

http://www.dietcokef...t,363,switch.sm
  • 0

#5 Chris Walters

Chris Walters
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 19 September 2007 - 05:21 PM

Hey I love the clip very well lit. Were the clothes dancing together green-screened? Very nice job.

Chris Walters

http://www.dietcokef...t,363,switch.sm
[/quote]
  • 0

#6 Kevin Zanit

Kevin Zanit
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1223 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • LA

Posted 20 September 2007 - 02:34 AM

I posted a bit ago some tests I did for a film, testing 5218, 5229 and 5279. This stuff was for a war movie, so it is definitely contrasty. I also have the same tests processed normal & bleach bypassed.

http://www.cinematog...mp;#entry170410
  • 0

#7 John Brawley

John Brawley
  • Sustaining Members
  • 834 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Atlanta Georgia

Posted 20 September 2007 - 03:22 AM

Hey I love the clip very well lit. Were the clothes dancing together green-screened? Very nice job.

Chris Walters

http://www.dietcokef...t,363,switch.sm



Hi Chris...

thanks for the feedback. The clothes were shot by simply getting the actors into greenscreen body stockings. The VFX supervisor then took plenty of stills in the existing lighting to replace all the internals after the actors were keyed out. I was surprised at how well it turned out !

jb
  • 0

#8 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 26 September 2007 - 09:39 PM

Hi Chris...

thanks for the feedback. The clothes were shot by simply getting the actors into greenscreen body stockings. The VFX supervisor then took plenty of stills in the existing lighting to replace all the internals after the actors were keyed out. I was surprised at how well it turned out !

jb


If you can find out how the footage was imported for NLE editing that could prove very valuable information for the forum.
  • 0


Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

CineLab

The Slider

Opal

CineTape

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

CineLab

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products