Jump to content


Photo

Pullling Vision3 7219


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 andres victorero

andres victorero
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Spain

Posted 11 October 2008 - 02:44 PM

Hi, I´m currently thinking to shoot a short where I will be a DP with Kodak Vision3 7219

The short will be mostly EXT and I´m thinking to pull the 7219 to get less grain and less contrast.
Do you have some experience pulling this stock? thanks
  • 0

#2 K Borowski

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

Posted 11 October 2008 - 02:59 PM

Buenos tardes Andres.

I've no experience with '19 (yet ;-) ), but I can tell you that, with color neg., pulling doesn't help that much. At most I'd pull a stop, maybe rate at 160 or 200 (at what'd be 250). Grain may be slightly better, though probably not as much as with 200T or 320D stock.

You'll also have reduced contrast.


Hope this helps. Good luck in your endeavours.
  • 0

#3 David Regan

David Regan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 218 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • New York

Posted 12 October 2008 - 07:33 AM

Hey Andres

I actually just did a push/pull test with the 7219, not much just a stop either way. The pulling was a very subtle difference as Karl said, you don't see it too much. Subtly reduced contrast and saturation can be seen in the color chart, but as far as grain goes, its very minimal. I find the 7219 already holds up so well, the grain is very minimal if it is properly exposed. Even over/underexposed by 2 stops, it was still very usable, some increased grain, but not terrible.

I'll try and post some stills if I can ever figure out why this site won't let me anymore lol.

Cheers and good luck.
  • 0

#4 Umpornpol Yugala

Umpornpol Yugala

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 12 October 2008 - 01:36 PM

What reason to use 500T for Ext shoot? Why don't use 50D stock instead? You gonna set lens at about T64 and when u drop in ND filters you gonna see nothing in viewfinder.
  • 0

#5 andres victorero

andres victorero
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Spain

Posted 12 October 2008 - 05:54 PM

What reason to use 500T for Ext shoot? Why don't use 50D stock instead? You gonna set lens at about T64 and when u drop in ND filters you gonna see nothing in viewfinder.


Yes I know. but the Ext places are mostly in dark shadows and poor sunlight. We will shoot at the end of the day too.
thanks for the replies
  • 0

#6 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 20 October 2008 - 12:18 AM

Yes I know. but the Ext places are mostly in dark shadows and poor sunlight. We will shoot at the end of the day too.
thanks for the replies



why not the 250D
  • 0

#7 Saul Rodgar

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

Posted 20 October 2008 - 01:57 AM

Go for 7205 or (to color balance in post) 7217. I would also consider using Fuji Vivid 160 T or 7212 if it is bright enough, unless you really can't color correct in post.

Pulled 500 ASA film for even medium brightness daylight exteriors is really not a good idea. Unless it really is at the end of the day, last lights. You may have to use a lot of ND to compensate for what you can't pull in processing and the viewfinder gets really dark, hard to focus. The flipside is it may be nice to have if it really gets too dark . . .

I have pulled 7205 two stops in bright sunlight, with snow. Really nice grain but milky contrast, and expensive to process. I wouldn't do it again. If you wan to see what it looks like, click on older reel below, in my signature section. It is the cop footage. I color corrected it in post, as it was too bland for my taste.

Where are you shooting, anyway?

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 20 October 2008 - 02:01 AM.

  • 0

#8 David Rakoczy

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

Posted 20 October 2008 - 07:55 AM

Pulling 19 for less Grain kinda sounds like Obama's Economic Plan for Small Businesses (Saul?).. no help at all!

I wouldn't shoot anything faster than 200asa in S16.. day or night.

After tha Palin comment Saul.. I couldn't help myself :lol:

Have a great day!

Edited by David Rakoczy, 20 October 2008 - 07:57 AM.

  • 0

#9 Daniel Porto

Daniel Porto
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 201 posts
  • Student

Posted 20 October 2008 - 09:33 AM

Does pulling film create more detail in shadows and blacks??? I heard David Fincher mention this on one of the commentaries (most likely fight club) and I read that they rated 500T film as 320.

I guess it most likely does capture more detail and because of this contrast is reduced.
  • 0

#10 Saul Rodgar

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

Posted 20 October 2008 - 12:10 PM

Pulling 19 for less Grain kinda sounds like Obama's Economic Plan for Small Businesses (Saul?).. no help at all!

I wouldn't shoot anything faster than 200asa in S16.. day or night.

After tha Palin comment Saul.. I couldn't help myself :lol:


Fair enough. :) We can politely disagree with each other and still respect each other otherwise, right?

I gotta say, the other day I shot some interior footage lit by warm afternoon light -daylight uncorrected- 7218 (rated 320) on R16 and Spirited it, zooming in to fill the screen to 16x9. I was really pleasantly surprised when I looked a the Spirit transfer!! Looks beautiful!

I had not shot 500asa on R16 or S16, only 400 asa rated 250 asa -particularly following the Spirit post workflow. The good news is it can look really good. There is more grain, of course, but nothing like I would expect.

Not for every project, for sure.
  • 0

#11 Saul Rodgar

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

Posted 20 October 2008 - 12:15 PM

Does pulling film create more detail in shadows and blacks??? I heard David Fincher mention this on one of the commentaries (most likely fight club) and I read that they rated 500T film as 320.

I guess it most likely does capture more detail and because of this contrast is reduced.


There have been great explanations of this question before posted here, by David Mullen and others. The short answer is yes. The archive is brimming with the detailed explanations I could give, but refuse to butcher up.
  • 0

#12 Adrian Sierkowski

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

Posted 20 October 2008 - 12:22 PM

Saul, as for the '18. Normally I like it in Super16, but watch out for a low contrast scene with a lot of white. The grain can bite you in the ass there!
For anything moody/dark, with a lot of contrast, I can like the look of '18, though I'm slowly starting to see what David means by not going over 200T. It's my go-to all around stock anymore (as I can shoot it int or ext under existing lighting (not at night, though))
  • 0

#13 Saul Rodgar

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

Posted 20 October 2008 - 12:29 PM

Saul, as for the '18. Normally I like it in Super16, but watch out for a low contrast scene with a lot of white. The grain can bite you in the ass there!
For anything moody/dark, with a lot of contrast, I can like the look of '18, though I'm slowly starting to see what David means by not going over 200T. It's my go-to all around stock anymore (as I can shoot it int or ext under existing lighting (not at night, though))


Yeah I love 200T for S16 night stuff. I usually use that, but I got to say the 500T really makes me wonder how much I can get away with . . .

In my test, the grain was worse in underexposed areas, as I would expect. The highlights were great generally. But I have seen some gnarly grain in light mid tones before, maybe that is what you mean?
  • 0

#14 David Rakoczy

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

Posted 20 October 2008 - 12:32 PM

100t is awesome in S16.. hope you try it soon Adrian.. treat it just like 200t... and you'll get even more perceived Sharpness! I shoot 100t and 200t exclusively with 50D sprinkled in. 200t at Night is beautiful and you really can light a large area with smaller Lamps (using more Hard Light). Just shot some Vivid 160.. it is ok..
  • 0

#15 Adrian Sierkowski

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

Posted 20 October 2008 - 12:36 PM

Yeah I love 200T for S16 night stuff. I usually use that, but I got to say the 500T really makes me wonder how much I can get away with . . .

In my test, the grain was worse in underexposed areas, as I would expect. The highlights were great generally. But I have seen some gnarly grain in light mid tones before, maybe that is what you mean?


Yep Saul, it was in the mids of white cabinets in an all white kitchen. Man, The horror!

As for the 100T, I'm going to try for it on the next one, mixed in with 200T. That wont' be till January, though, unless this music video comes through. Here's hoping.
I know though, that I'll have to use some '19 for the Jan shoot, though, just to deal with a particularly bad location that the director really likes (very dark club scene, and chances are It'll be just go in and shoot. . . no lighting. . .so i'm a bit worried about that).
Oh, David, the last project on the 200T, where I had to call you for technical help, came out looking wonderful, I think. As soon as I get some screen grabs from the color corrected one, I'll shoot them over to you.
  • 0

#16 Saul Rodgar

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

Posted 20 October 2008 - 03:36 PM

Just shot some Vivid 160.. it is ok..


No love for Vivid then?

I actually like the stock quite a bit, despite its non-Kodak otherness . . . Definitely has its place when Kodak "pretty" stock is not called for.

And yes, '12 and 17' are an awesome stock combo!!

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 20 October 2008 - 03:37 PM.

  • 0

#17 Adrian Sierkowski

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

Posted 20 October 2008 - 03:38 PM

I wish kodak would bring their new '60 stock out as a 16mm, I'd like to play with it.
  • 0

#18 Charles MacDonald

Charles MacDonald
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1157 posts
  • Other
  • Stittsville Ontario Canada

Posted 21 October 2008 - 09:50 PM

Does pulling film create more detail in shadows and blacks??? I heard David Fincher mention this on one of the commentaries (most likely fight club) and I read that they rated 500T film as 320.

be caseful between "pulling" and just reducing your working rating. Pulling implies you will modify the procesing (generaly by shortening the development time) to make the film less sensitive. Just picking a setting that gives more than stock exposure- ie 500T film shot at 320 is not "Pulling"
  • 0


Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

The Slider

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Opal

Technodolly