Jump to content


Photo

the new 7219


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 Daniel Carruthers

Daniel Carruthers
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Canada

Posted 19 May 2008 - 11:37 AM

Hey I got a music video coming up and the director mentioned he wants a sharp image.
we are shooting on 16mm not super 16
and its all at night time, in a forrest for some,than in a circus tent lite by oil lamps.
So 7219 would be great for the speed being 500T
but I was leaning towards a 200 T stock cause it will be sharper
But Ive heard the new 7219 is supposed to be pretty grainless.
Ive never tested the stock,and I dont think I will beable to do any tests unfortunatly
so my question is how sharp is this stock in 16mm.is ther much of a difference from 7219 to the 200t.
one problem I might have with a slower stock is I dont have access to large lighting units, my biggest will be a couple 1ks. maybe a 2k???
And I want alot of contrast very black shadows, so what suggestions do you guys have to achieving highcontrast very dark shadows?
I know to light high contrast,but any techniqies like pushing or overexposing than printing down?? I dont have much experience with those techniques so any ideas??
thanks
  • 0

#2 K Borowski

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

Posted 19 May 2008 - 12:58 PM

Hey I got a music video coming up and the director mentioned he wants a sharp image.
we are shooting on 16mm not super 16
and its all at night time, in a forrest for some,than in a circus tent lite by oil lamps.
So 7219 would be great for the speed being 500T
but I was leaning towards a 200 T stock cause it will be sharper
But Ive heard the new 7219 is supposed to be pretty grainless.
Ive never tested the stock,and I dont think I will beable to do any tests unfortunatly
so my question is how sharp is this stock in 16mm.is ther much of a difference from 7219 to the 200t.
one problem I might have with a slower stock is I dont have access to large lighting units, my biggest will be a couple 1ks. maybe a 2k???
And I want alot of contrast very black shadows, so what suggestions do you guys have to achieving highcontrast very dark shadows?
I know to light high contrast,but any techniqies like pushing or overexposing than printing down?? I dont have much experience with those techniques so any ideas??
thanks


I am not an experienced filmmaker, but as far as choosing a stock goes, you want to go for the slowest stock you can use. Since filmmaking sometimes embraces grittiness or imperfection to tell the story or enhance it, you may wish to have a gritty look over a clean look, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

If you can get enough light and fast enough lenses to give you a working T stop then go for the 200T. Sure '19 is better than '18 was in terms of graininess, but it's still a 500-speed stock. You'll get sharper, finer-grained negatives from 200T every time, period.

So this is a matter of practicality. You're going to have to do tests, at the very least set up your lighting before teh shoot at the locations you're going to use and take meter readings. Without actually being there, I can't tell you if you can get away with 200T or will have to bump it up to 500.

So, I'd recommend you go with '19 over '18 definitely, as you're going to have to crop in on your image anyway as it is regular 16, and would go for the '17 if you can get away with it in terms of the amount of light you have, and the glass you have (obviously something with a wide maximum T stop is going to be best, assuming that your focusing needn't be too critical to make using very wide T stops impractical).

I'd highly recommend shooting a short test, can't you even spare maybe 50 feet of stock for this purpose?
  • 0

#3 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2250 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 19 May 2008 - 01:16 PM

Your director wants a "sharp" image that really means you need good lenses first . What you are saying about your shoot very small output lights means to me you have to use a fast 500 stock never used 19 myself but iam sure its a pretty good stock . Good Luck.
  • 0

#4 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 19 May 2008 - 01:46 PM

Also, consider the speed of the lenses themselves. If you cannot get a lens faster than T3, I would consider going with '19, because of your limited lighting equipment. But it really depends on how you wan to expose your negative.

Contrast can be dialed back during color correction, assuming you will finish on HD or SD video.

I have shot plenty of 7217 on R16 and S16 rated normally with smallish packages and faster lenses T 1.9 and T 2.2 and even T 3 to great results. But I was purposely underexposing 1 or 2 stops of the night footage for that real night time look.

Personally, I would rate 7219 at 400 ASA (less grain) and print down / dial contrast back in post.

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 19 May 2008 - 01:49 PM.

  • 0

#5 K Borowski

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

Posted 19 May 2008 - 01:50 PM

I have shot plenty of 7217 on R16 and S16 rated normally with smallish packages and faster lenses T 1.9 and T 2.2 and even T 3 to great results. But I was purposedly underexposing 1 or 2 stops of the night footage for that real night time look.

Personally, I would rate 7219 at 400 ASA (less grain) and print down / dial contrast back in post.


From what I've seen with '18 at 1080i HD ('19 should only be marginally better), you're going to get very noticeable grain even if you rate '19 at 320, especially when cropping in on R16.

With SD, I'd say there are less problemes with a 500 stock.
  • 0

#6 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 19 May 2008 - 02:01 PM

From what I've seen with '18 at 1080i HD ('19 should only be marginally better), you're going to get very noticeable grain even if you rate '19 at 320, especially when cropping in on R16.

With SD, I'd say there are less problemes with a 500 stock.


Even correctly exposed 200T through Da Vinci 2K with grain reduction software will show noticeable grain here and there. So chances are you are going to get noticeable grain no matter what you do if you are shooting at night. Still, 19 rated at 400 or 320 ASA should be a little better than rated at 500 ASA.

If Daniel wants to avoid grain altoghether, I would recommend using HD, and even then . . .
  • 0

#7 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 19 May 2008 - 02:05 PM

From what I've seen with '18 at 1080i HD ('19 should only be marginally better), you're going to get very noticeable grain even if you rate '19 at 320, especially when cropping in on R16.

With SD, I'd say there are less problemes with a 500 stock.


Even correctly exposed 200T through Da Vinci 2K with grain reduction software will show noticeable grain here and there. So chances are you are going to get noticeable grain no matter what you do if you are shooting at night. Still, 19 rated at 400 or 320 ASA should be a little better than rated at 500 ASA.

If Daniel wants to avoid grain altogether, I would recommend using HD, and even then . . .

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 19 May 2008 - 02:09 PM.

  • 0

#8 K Borowski

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

Posted 19 May 2008 - 02:25 PM

Even correctly exposed 200T through Da Vinci 2K with grain reduction software will show noticeable grain here and there. So chances are you are going to get noticeable grain no matter what you do if you are shooting at night. Still, 19 rated at 400 or 320 ASA should be a little better than rated at 500 ASA.

If Daniel wants to avoid grain altogether, I would recommend using HD, and even then . . .


Well, with film one could argue that you get nothing BUT grain ;-)

To rephrase, I find that the grain of film at 500 speed 16mm in 1080i HD starts to become objectionable, even rerated at 320 or 400, especially with cropped Regular 16; is that better? ;-)
  • 0

#9 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 19 May 2008 - 02:32 PM

Kodak has a '19 demo DVD free in this month's issue of InCamera. It's pretty remarkable to gander at IMHO.
  • 0

#10 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 19 May 2008 - 02:40 PM

Well, with film one could argue that you get nothing BUT grain ;-)

To rephrase, I find that the grain of film at 500 speed 16mm in 1080i HD starts to become objectionable, even rerated at 320 or 400, especially with cropped Regular 16; is that better? ;-)


For the sake of argument: objectionable is in the eye of the beholder . . . ;)

I hear you though. For cropped 16 I never go above 200T

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 19 May 2008 - 02:42 PM.

  • 0

#11 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 19 May 2008 - 02:45 PM

Kodak has a '19 demo DVD free in this month's issue of InCamera. It's pretty remarkable to gander at IMHO.


Is it available online? I wonder. I will be shooting a short on 7219 in June on S16, plenty of night work so I find out first hand how it handles grain in dark, low lit areas.

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 19 May 2008 - 02:46 PM.

  • 0

#12 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 19 May 2008 - 02:55 PM

Saul, I haave a few copies, e mail me your addy and I'll mail you out one later this week
adrian.sierkowski@yahoo.com
  • 0

#13 K Borowski

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

Posted 19 May 2008 - 03:12 PM

Is it available online? I wonder. I will be shooting a short on 7219 in June on S16, plenty of night work so I find out first hand how it handles grain in dark, low lit areas.


Actually, for me, when you're dealing with a lot of dark, inpenetrable shadows and only a few highlights, the high-speed stuff handles pretty well. But when you have pretty even exposure shooting 500T, like a high-key environment or something with a lot of grey, that is where you run into trouble.

Nothing handles dark, high-contrast situations well! ;)
  • 0

#14 Daniel Carruthers

Daniel Carruthers
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Canada

Posted 19 May 2008 - 03:19 PM

hey thanks for all your help
Im starting to think I'll go for the 500t 7219
we are going to be using prime lenses, we have a variety of cookes and ageniux.
and there fast around 2.2 or somthing? I shot with them before on 250 fuji daylight,and they looked great.
But I just remebered the director likes wide shots and long camera moves,which means Im gonna have to really lite the sets,so a 500 t stock might be my only option if Im limited on lights.
We arnt going for a theatrical realease or anything, just telivision,maybe some festivals?? so a little grain wont be too bad, and with prime lens then It should look decent.

a few more questions if I rate it at 320 asa do I instruct the the lab to print it down 1 stop or do I tell the person doing the transfer to print it down?
and by printing down will that increase contrast?
  • 0

#15 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 19 May 2008 - 03:42 PM

Actually, for me, when you're dealing with a lot of dark, inpenetrable shadows and only a few highlights, the high-speed stuff handles pretty well. But when you have pretty even exposure shooting 500T, like a high-key environment or something with a lot of grey, that is where you run into trouble.

Nothing handles dark, high-contrast situations well! ;)


Wait, I am confused: How do you go from "when you're dealing with a lot of dark, inpenetrable shadows and only a few highlights, the high-speed stuff handles pretty well" to "nothing handles dark, high-contrast situations well"?

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 19 May 2008 - 03:43 PM.

  • 0

#16 K Borowski

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

Posted 19 May 2008 - 06:55 PM

Wait, I am confused: How do you go from "when you're dealing with a lot of dark, inpenetrable shadows and only a few highlights, the high-speed stuff handles pretty well" to "nothing handles dark, high-contrast situations well"?


I was just jokingly saying that no imaging medium, film, HD, or analog 2" tape does well in darkness. Filmi gets grainier, digital pixelates, and analog gets noisier.
  • 0

#17 Daniel Carruthers

Daniel Carruthers
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Canada

Posted 20 May 2008 - 12:05 AM

hey hey just reposting my questions:)

a few more questions if I rate it at 320 asa do I instruct the the lab to print it down 1 stop or do I tell the person doing the transfer to print it down?
and by printing down will that increase contrast?
  • 0

#18 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 20 May 2008 - 01:57 AM

hey hey just reposting my questions:)

a few more questions if I rate it at 320 asa do I instruct the the lab to print it down 1 stop or do I tell the person doing the transfer to print it down?
and by printing down will that increase contrast?



You can ask the person who is scanning it to print down during transfer, but it is 2/3 of a stop, not 1 stop. And I think at that stage it is more visual than by numbers, unlike optical printing, but I may be wrong.

Depending on the telecine lab that is dong your transfer, but most will color correct on the fly as it is being transfered. It is a lot better if you can personally supervise the transfer so you can tell them how much to print down and how much contrast to add. It is called scene to scene supervised transfer and it is not cheap. But it ensures you are happy with the results, as most labs won't give you your money back if you are not happy with their standard color correction during transfer. If you are transfering to higher HD format you can also ask for a "flat" unsupervised transfer which is cheaper and lets you do your own color correction later on FCP or Color, etc.

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 20 May 2008 - 01:59 AM.

  • 0

#19 Andrew Koch

Andrew Koch
  • Sustaining Members
  • 243 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Burbank, California

Posted 20 May 2008 - 03:10 PM

hey hey just reposting my questions:)

a few more questions if I rate it at 320 asa do I instruct the the lab to print it down 1 stop or do I tell the person doing the transfer to print it down?
and by printing down will that increase contrast?



Could you clarify whether you are doing a print or just a telecine or both? Since you said you are not planning on theatrical release, I'll first address the issue of a digital transfer.

In this circumstance this process has nothing to do with the lab or printing, but rather happens in the transfer house (which could be in the same building as the lab, but it is not the lab).

The fastest and simplest way to change the ASA of your film is to shoot an 18% greycard at the beginning of your roll under a flat light that you want to appear as white light (For example: If you're shooting tungsten film with tungsten lights and want the lights to appear white, then light the chart with a tungsten light) Set your lightmeter to 320ASA and take a reading of the chart. If the meter reads 5.6 for example, then shoot the chart at 5.6, there is no need to do any compensation. By lowering the ASA to 320 you are automatically overexposing the 7219 by 2/3 of a stop, If you wanted to overexpose by a third of a stop, you would set your meter at 400ASA. Now that you have shot the chart, leave your meter at 320 and shoot the scene normally without any compensation since the meter is doing the math for you.

Once your film is processed, you now have a negative that is consistently overexposed from shot to shot bye 2/3. The benefit to this is that you have more information on the film, particularly in the shadows. When the colorist puts the film through the scanner, the first thing they will see is that overexposed greycard. All they have to do is dial down the brightness and neutralize the color so that it is a pure colorless grey. By making the chart look normal they are essentially "printing down" by 2/3 of a stop. Now the rest of your scene will have been "printed down" as well. If you can supervise this process, it would be ideal, if not then make sure you give explicit instructions to the transfer house to time to your greyscale.

In terms of contrast, this is something you can very easily control in a transfer room with your colorist. By "printing down" you get richer blacks and less grain and more saturated colors. By printing down, you are using more of the finer, smaller crystals, and burying the larger ones,

If you are making a print, you would still shoot a greycard the same way. Just make sure you give explicit instructions to the lab to time to the greyscale. When you get the print back, check the printer lights. Find out what the standards are for your lab. For example, standard printing lights for 16mm at one particular lab could be 25 for each color with 6 printer points equaling one stop (with some labs it could be 8, etc). If you over expose by 2/3 and they print down 2/3, then your printer lights would be something like 29 across. These numbers won't necessarily be that perfect (each color is not necessarily going to be the exact same number) but this should give you an idea of how you exposed your scene and how the lab printed your footage.
  • 0

#20 Daniel Carruthers

Daniel Carruthers
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Canada

Posted 20 May 2008 - 09:03 PM

Thanks andrew thats what I'll probly do then
also I want the film to be very warm,because its supposed to be lit by oil lamps so when I shoot the greyscale do I leave the lights clean? than I gel the lights orange after?
Or do I shoot the greyscale under the colour of light that I want?
I just dont want the the tranferer to time out the orange
  • 0


The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

CineLab

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc