Jump to content


Photo

Vision 3 for Exterior Day


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Gian Claudio Guiducci

Gian Claudio Guiducci

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Rome, Italy

Posted 30 August 2008 - 07:01 PM

Hello everybody.
I'm shooting a short on S16 and I would like to try out the new Vison 3. Unfortunately we don't have the budget for testing, so I based my choice mostly from the reviews you posted, so thank you very much.

The short is mostly exterior days, with some Interior days and a couple of Exterior nights. At the beginning I thought of shooting the Ext. Days with Vision 2 250D, but then, in order to make it easier for the production, I thought of shooting everything with Vision 3, because I also think the grain on 7219 would be basically the same as 7205, and the 19 would give me more latitude and color saturation (the film takes place in the countryside of Italy and we hope for sunny days with very saturated green and good contrast). What do you think about this choice? Is it silly to shoot 500 T for Ext. Day with a lot of ND to bring it down?

And finally, would you rate the 19 with the 85B at 200 to get more saturated colors?

Thanks a lot,

Gian Claudio
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19765 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 August 2008 - 07:44 PM

200T '17, 250D '05, and 500T '19 are all rather similar grain-wise. But I think 250D is a little "snappier" than the others and 200T is a little smoother and softer, and slightly less grainy ultimately than '19.

'19 mainly has a little more latitude in overexposed areas, not in shadows.

Ultimately you'd still get better results, grain-wise, in Super-16 using slower-speed stock like 50D or 100T when you have enough light, then use the 500T when the light is lower. But if the '19 stock gives you the look you want for the day work, then why not use it?

Generally a more contrasty stock has stronger color saturation -- use something like Fuji 160T Vivid if you want punchier colors outdoors.
  • 0

#3 K Borowski

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

Posted 31 August 2008 - 11:00 AM

Ultimately you'd still get better results, grain-wise, in Super-16 using slower-speed stock like 50D or 100T when you have enough light, then use the 500T when the light is lower. But if the '19 stock gives you the look you want for the day work, then why not use it?

Generally a more contrasty stock has stronger color saturation -- use something like Fuji 160T Vivid if you want punchier colors outdoors.


I haven't seen HD 1080i of 7219 yet, but I personally would have avoided 7218 for that format, even if you rate it a full stop slower. Grain really does start to become your enemy in 16mm, unless it is the look for which you are going.

Remember that "Vision 3" is at best true technical innovation, at worst marketing hype to cover raised prices and a moderate improvement in image quality. While the allure of using the newest stuff available is understandable, Vision2 is highly advanced and is just as versatile when it comes to slower stuff. Just remember that EXR50D 7245 was "good enough" that it was almost old enough to drink before it was axed by Kodak. It was what, 19, 20 years old before it was replaced with teh new '01?

Slower stocks don't sell as much, so they don't need to be improved as much because there isn't as much sensitization and critical components involved in coating them and sensitizing them for high speeds. But they are very good at what they do, and, frankly, produce a higher quality result than '91.

Again, unless you want a lot of grain, shoot the slowest you can get away with in 16mm; that's my advice. Good luck with your project!
  • 0

#4 Adrian Sierkowski

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

Posted 31 August 2008 - 11:14 AM

I might tack on that for myself I always enjoy using the 7217 with an 85. It is often helpful for me inasmuch as I can carry 1 stock for a whole production and just a bit more light for the interiors, when needed. But, as mentioned, the slower the stock the tighter the grain. I like grain in S16mm when it's appropriate. I have also heard good reviews of using the 100T with an 85, though myself havn't had the chance to test this out.
  • 0

#5 Gian Claudio Guiducci

Gian Claudio Guiducci

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Rome, Italy

Posted 31 August 2008 - 05:04 PM

200T '17, 250D '05, and 500T '19 are all rather similar grain-wise. But I think 250D is a little "snappier" than the others and 200T is a little smoother and softer, and slightly less grainy ultimately than '19.

'19 mainly has a little more latitude in overexposed areas, not in shadows.

Ultimately you'd still get better results, grain-wise, in Super-16 using slower-speed stock like 50D or 100T when you have enough light, then use the 500T when the light is lower. But if the '19 stock gives you the look you want for the day work, then why not use it?

Generally a more contrasty stock has stronger color saturation -- use something like Fuji 160T Vivid if you want punchier colors outdoors.


Hello again,
Thank you David and all of you for your answers. Unfortunately, I have to use Kodak stock because they give us a huge discount in Italy, as opposite to Fuji.
When you say, "snapping", you mean it has more vivid and brilliant colors? Is, in your opinion, 250 D the Kodak stock the more resemble the Fuji 160T?
I personally like Fuji stock a lot and I use it when I lived in USA, but here in Italy is very rare to find production which use it...
I forgot to mention in the previous post that we don't know yet how the project will be finished, I guess it'll depend on the outcome. It could be video, 35mm optical blow up or DI. I have to keep all the option open. Any advice about the rating? 2/3 stop overexposure sounds pretty good to me, what do you think?

Thank you and best,

Gian Claudio
  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19765 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 31 August 2008 - 07:55 PM

Yes, "snappy", i.e. "has snap", means more contrast and saturation. I think the 250D stock, especially if overexposed a little, may have more of it than the 500T stock, but maybe not. It's been awhile since I tested both together on the same project.

2/3's of a stop overexposure is generally a good place to start.
  • 0

#7 Jason Hinkle (RIP)

Jason Hinkle (RIP)
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 240 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Chicago, IL

Posted 04 September 2008 - 12:41 AM

I just got some Vision3 back from the lab today. This was shot with about 80 ft candles of daylight balanced lights and an 85 filter. I have some other stills of closeups and such if anybody is interested I'll post them.

pic1.jpg
  • 0

#8 Martin Yernazian

Martin Yernazian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Director
  • San Francisco/Los Angeles CA USA

Posted 04 September 2008 - 06:25 PM

what lens did you use?
  • 0

#9 Ira Ratner

Ira Ratner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts
  • Other
  • Coral Springs, Florida

Posted 04 September 2008 - 07:25 PM

Close-ups of a chick in a bikini would be nice, but not THAT guy.

HAH!!!!!
  • 0

#10 K Borowski

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

Posted 05 September 2008 - 07:24 AM

Notice that grain is still visible, even with V3. It's not bad, but it is definitely there.

Remember the number 3 is just a number that the marketing guys came up with. The only thing that matters is how the material actually behaves, not how many T-grains it has or how many extra electron sensitizations the silver has gotten.
  • 0

#11 Martin Yernazian

Martin Yernazian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Director
  • San Francisco/Los Angeles CA USA

Posted 05 September 2008 - 02:56 PM

well that picture looks of bad rez, that's why I'm asking what lens did he used, I think that will say more than this bad quality pic
  • 0

#12 David Rakoczy

David Rakoczy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1579 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • USA

Posted 05 September 2008 - 09:13 PM

500t for day ext... Why handicap yourself??? Unless you LOVE BIG GRAIN for this particuar Project... I'd shoot 100t day and 200t night (low light).
  • 0

#13 Jason Hinkle (RIP)

Jason Hinkle (RIP)
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 240 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Chicago, IL

Posted 06 September 2008 - 01:25 AM

Close-ups of a chick in a bikini would be nice, but not THAT guy.


hehe. sorry no bikini shots this time! The image of the guy above was shot with an Angenioux 12-120 which does not seem to be taking very sharp images despite my best efforts, however it could just be my fault - I'm somewhat unhappy and frustrated with the grainy images I'm getting.

Here's one more still with the same vision 3, this was shot with a Nikon 50mm, though. It is probably the sharpest shot that I captured on this shoot so I hope this will be more useful for seeing the nature of the vision 3 stock.

Posted Image
  • 0

#14 K Borowski

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

Posted 06 September 2008 - 10:34 AM

Again though, notice the grain, especially in the out-of-focus highlights. I am not knocking your work Jason, it's a nice shot. Let us just remember that 16m is inherently grainier than 35mm, as it is about 1/6 of the image area of 35mm academy. So you are going to pay a penalty with the high-speed stocks. Personally, if it were me, I'd shoot with the slowest stocks available all the time, maybe overrating 2/3 to a full stop at all times. To me, grain is the enemy, except when going for specific looks. I wouldn't even use 500T stocks unless it were absolutely necessary. I probably wouldn't shoot faster than 200T with 16.

Shooting 500T during the day would be perfect if you're shooting something that you want to look like "The Shield". They actually do use the new Vision2 '99 scan-only film for everything now. Despite my aversion to grain, "The Shield" really does have a nice look to it, and that is part of the reason I watch it. It has desensitized me to bad decisions made by television characters I've seen so many episodes. In fact, I can predict how characters on the show will handle given problems by thinking "What is the worst possible thing that could be done to handle this situation right now, and that's usually what they doe!

I digress though. . . "The Shield's" creative team decided on the show's gaudy, grainy look deliberately, using Vietnam War footage as a model. They don't want it to look like anything else on TV, and it doesn't. So looking different can get you noticed, especially with everyone going out and shooting on RED these days; conformity is fu**ing boring. . .
  • 0

#15 Jason Hinkle (RIP)

Jason Hinkle (RIP)
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 240 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Chicago, IL

Posted 06 September 2008 - 03:34 PM

Thanks Karl. Actually if all of my shots looked like the bottom right corner of the one above (the wood table) I would be satisfied. I like that level of grain. I posted the shot of the guy because it has a lot of colors and I thought that would be what someone would like to see. But, probably the grain is what you would want to see, so I hope the shot of the glass is useful. Of course I'm a beginner, so I am just figuring this all out and hopefully at least somebody who is thinking of Vision 3, well hopefully my stills are somewhat helpful..?!

I shot some old 50 speed film outside a while back and it came out pretty grainy too, so I think the skill of the photographer is my biggest problem at the moment!

Edited by Jason Hinkle, 06 September 2008 - 03:35 PM.

  • 0

#16 K Borowski

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

Posted 07 September 2008 - 01:47 PM

I posted the shot of the guy because it has a lot of colors and I thought that would be what someone would like to see. But, probably the grain is what you would want to see, so I hope the shot of the glass is useful. Of course I'm a beginner, so I am just figuring this all out and hopefully at least somebody who is thinking of Vision 3, well hopefully my stills are somewhat helpful..?!

I shot some old 50 speed film outside a while back and it came out pretty grainy too, so I think the skill of the photographer is my biggest problem at the moment!


Hey Jason. Well, grain doesn't always depend on the level of skill or the lens you are using. People can get lucky and overexpose to cut down on grain. It really isn't that difficult to control though.

Grain shows up the most in greys, even colors, and with higher speed films receiving only rated exposure. Overexposure, shooting slower film, and avoiding strong greys or strong patches of even colors can help to minimize its effects.

IDK, again, grain can be good. But 16mm grain can become overpowering without care in its use.

If you're shooting 50D, even if its older, you should be getting a fine-grained image. Your images are probably being underexposed. Keep in mind that the 12-120 has a significant difference between F/- and T-stops. You should be using F/stops only for depth of field calculations, using T-stops for exposure.

As for having trouble with a 12-120, try to shoot it at F/5.6 or smaller to get to the "sweet spot" of the lens. It tends to be really soft wide open, good enough for the 10 o'clock news, but probalby not good enough for dramatic filmmaking.
  • 0

#17 Martin Yernazian

Martin Yernazian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Director
  • San Francisco/Los Angeles CA USA

Posted 07 September 2008 - 09:23 PM

spend some money and get a better lens.
if you can afford one, rent one.

Best
  • 0

#18 K Borowski

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

Posted 08 September 2008 - 12:17 PM

spend some money and get a better lens.
if you can afford one, rent one.

Best


Again, there is really nothing wrong with the 12-120 if you know how to use it and you don't shoot it wide-open. Are anamorphic lenses that are soft wide open bad over all too? They would be if your line of thought were extended to that situation. . .
  • 0

#19 Jason Hinkle (RIP)

Jason Hinkle (RIP)
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 240 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Chicago, IL

Posted 08 September 2008 - 04:35 PM

Those are awesome tips - thanks guys. There's so many details to consider, it's overwhelming sometimes! I have a friend loaning me a nice lens for a while and I'm going to shoot some tests to figure out my own lens too. I want to make sure I'm using my gear to the fullest before I spend more. Thanks so much - this has been hugely informative.
  • 0


Opal

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Visual Products

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products