Jump to content


Photo

First Time Shooting Film (S16) - Looking for Stock Advice


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 Chris Durham

Chris Durham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 290 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • New York, NY

Posted 13 February 2009 - 12:53 PM

I'm working as DP on an upcoming project originally destined to be shot on the Sony HVR-Z5U with a Letus adapter. Over the past week though we've begun considering other cameras - first the Red One, and now the possibility of shooting Super 16. So I started talking to another shooter about his experiences with S16 as well as getting a crash course in stocks.

The recommendations were Vision 200T for exteriors and 500T for interiors, and these seem sound. I've been doing some research on my own and poking around the forums, and 200T is a well regarded and versatile stock. I'm wondering about the 250D as well. According to Kodak, 200T with an 85 filter rates 125 ASA, so there's a stop of difference which means more ND on the 250D in bright daylight.

Any thoughts or advice? I'm just kind of thinking about options, we'll do some tests before the shoot of course, I'm just trying to figure out a starting point.
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19761 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 13 February 2009 - 01:24 PM

Kodak Vision-2 200T & 250D, and Vision-3 500T, are all rather close to each other. I've shot some 35mm tests and it's a bit like splitting hairs, which is a good and bad thing.

Even though Vision-3 500T ('19) is almost as fine-grained as the other two, basically it still works out that the slower the speed, the finer the grain, but like I said, it is hair-splitting, the differences are so minor. However, if you have the speed for 200T, I think it would be better than '19.

I like shooting 250D stocks for day interior work. I can rate them at 160 ASA and with HMI lighting, that's not a problem to get the stop needed.

I've also used tungsten stocks with no 85 or the LLD, which works fine too, it's just that you get somewhat paler fleshtones and in some telecines, slightly noisier whites if lit by daylight because of the density on the neg. But I prefer this technique if I think I will generally be timing the image on the cool side.

However, I prefer daylight stocks if I plan on timing the daylit image on the warm side.
  • 0

#3 Rajavel Olhiveeran

Rajavel Olhiveeran
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • India

Posted 13 February 2009 - 03:06 PM

this depends on the format of final projection also i guess. if u gonna plan to blow it to 35 mm for final
projection on theatre..then sharper ur first negative stock ..better it is!
As Mr.David says the with the latest kodak stocks nothing can go wrong with any of the stocks....but
take care extreme care in not to UNDER EXPOSE in 16 mm...because if u are gonna blow it to 35mm
the grain will exagrte to great extent....and might be little crude on a big screen!
cheers!
  • 0

#4 Chris Durham

Chris Durham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 290 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • New York, NY

Posted 13 February 2009 - 03:49 PM

Thanks guys. David, your knowledge is helpful and appreciated as always and Rajavel thanks for the advice on blow up. Truth is we're not 100% on this decision yet, but it looks like a strong possibility. The shoot we intend S16 for is a portion of the film and the director hopes to get more of a budget before we continue, and perhaps even based on the success of the shoot which is why he's willing to put more money into it. The idea of shooting Red was enticing, but shooting 3 days on S16 won't be significantly more expensive and has distinct advantages. So we're not certain of the final delivery method yet - but if we do go film I do want to be as flexible as possible. Firstly, I'm concerned about how seamlessly we can mix film and HD if we need to, and secondly I want versatility in delivery so while I favor graininess in a 16mm image - particularly for this shoot - I do want to leave the myself wiggle room for a blow up. thanks again. I'm sure I'll have more questions here and in other forums.
  • 0

#5 Tom Hepburn

Tom Hepburn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 341 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago-land

Posted 13 February 2009 - 04:16 PM

Hi Chris,

Just an aesthetic opinion on my part: I always find myself a bit disappointed when viewing something that cuts away from film and back again. I find myself noting the change as opposed to being carried along by the story.
Of course I do understand budget limitations.

Tom
  • 0

#6 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 13 February 2009 - 04:18 PM

I've also used tungsten stocks with no 85 or the LLD, which works fine too, it's just that you get somewhat paler fleshtones and in some telecines, slightly noisier whites if lit by daylight because of the density on the neg. But I prefer this technique if I think I will generally be timing the image on the cool side.

However, I prefer daylight stocks if I plan on timing the daylit image on the warm side.


David, Have you got any pics using this technique? It would be much apreciated!
  • 0

#7 Dev Varma

Dev Varma
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Auckland, New Zealand

Posted 14 February 2009 - 08:07 AM

Hi Chris...

I just shot a feature on super 16..and did grading on 2k luster... i experianced, dont ever shoot underexposed if you are doing interior and with 500T. grains will kill you in post... and dare not to take any white background...again grain problem...exterior day is all good 200T is a very good stock. I best of luck...
  • 0

#8 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 14 February 2009 - 11:34 AM

Just curious why 50d isn't a possibility for daylight?
It would only be a stop slower.

OTOH I guess you could use 200T for both interiors and exteriors at a push wich would be impractical with 50D, so that might help with budget and versatility as it would if you could get away with all 200T?

but anyway I'm curious yr reasons for 200T
  • 0

#9 David Rakoczy

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

Posted 14 February 2009 - 01:43 PM

I have to disagree with Mr. Mullen. Kodak's 16mm 200t and 500t are not alike at all. The grain difference is astounding... even with the 250D.

I shoot 7217 (200t) and 7212 (100t) almost exclusively. I absolutely love 7212 :wub:
  • 0

#10 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 14 February 2009 - 02:31 PM

I have to disagree with Mr. Mullen. Kodak's 16mm 200t and 500t are not alike at all. The grain difference is astounding... even with the 250D.

I shoot 7217 (200t) and 7212 (100t) almost exclusively. I absolutely love 7212 :wub:


Are you not a fan of the 50d either then?
I'm guessing you are shooting the 7212 for exteriors as it's quite slow?

I'm interested to hear peoples reasons as I may be shooting predominently exterior stuff for my next project.
  • 0

#11 David Rakoczy

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

Posted 14 February 2009 - 03:37 PM

Are you not a fan of the 50d either then?
I'm guessing you are shooting the 7212 for exteriors as it's quite slow?

I'm interested to hear peoples reasons as I may be shooting predominently exterior stuff for my next project.


50d is great... but I like to shoot 100t for exteriors. I always use one form or another of ND so it is no problem placing an 85ND in the filter tray. btw... 100t is Kodak's (sharpest) stock available. I use 100t whenever humanly possible and switch to 200t for night exteriors or dark interiors. When shooting time lapse of the sun hitting directly into the lens, I'll shoot 100t with no filters and add the 85 in telecine.

The only stocks I use are 100t and 200t.. once in a while 50d... but never anything faster than 200t.... unless of course the shot calls for super grain/ grit... then all bets are off. I also love 7285 (since we are talking 16mm here)... very tight.. very sharp.. great color! Tried Vivid 160... too much grain for me... went back to Kodak. :wub:

A note to the original poster.. Chris, get the book FILM LIGHTING by Malkiewicz.
  • 0

#12 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 14 February 2009 - 03:51 PM

50d is great... but I like to shoot 100t for exteriors. I always use one form or another of ND so it is no problem placing an 85ND in the filter tray. btw... 100t is Kodak's (sharpest) stock available. I use 100t whenever humanly possible and switch to 200t for night exteriors or dark interiors. When shooting time lapse of the sun hitting directly into the lens, I'll shoot 100t with no filters and add the 85 in telecine.

They only stocks I use are 100t and 200t.. once in a while 50d.... but never anything faster than 200t.... unless of course the shot calls for super grain/ grit... then all bets are off. I also love 7285 (since we are talking 16mm here)... very tight.. very sharp.. great color! Tried Vivd 160... too much grain for me... went back to Kodak. :wub:



Hmmm, thats kind of intresting, from the way people are talking in this thread it sounds like Kodak would have been better keeping EXR 50d. I was sad when it went as it was my favourite neg stock and I know it was extremely popular for filmouts back then too. It's starting to sound like Kodak made something of an own goal! :(

Thanks for your thoughts on this!

love

Freya
  • 0

#13 David Rakoczy

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

Posted 14 February 2009 - 05:49 PM

I've been doing some research on my own and poking around the forums, and 200T is a well regarded and versatile stock. I'm wondering about the 250D as well. According to Kodak, 200T with an 85 filter rates 125 ASA, so there's a stop......



Actually, that is 2/3s of a stop (120 iso) as opposed to 1 stop. I rate 200t at 120 iso and 100T (my favorite) at 64 iso... thus opening up 2/3s of a stop to tighten up the grain BEFORE adding any Filters... an 85 is only another 2/3s of a stop loss in addition to the compensation already mentioned.
  • 0

#14 Rodrigo Silvestri

Rodrigo Silvestri
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera

Posted 15 February 2009 - 10:08 PM

David, Have you got any pics using this technique? It would be much apreciated!


In this album I have pics of Fuji Eterna 400T with daylight (no filters), and overexposing 2/3 (they're a bit corrected in post).
The first pic is 400T with tungsten light, pushed 1 stop. All this has been shot on an SLR camera, C-41 process, not exactly the same as 16mm with ECN-2.
The last 2 pics are other things.
Consider Fujifilm, it looks great for me. Love Eterna 400T for exteriors with no correction.

Rodrigo.
  • 0

#15 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 16 February 2009 - 03:51 AM

In this album I have pics of Fuji Eterna 400T with daylight (no filters), and overexposing 2/3 (they're a bit corrected in post).
The first pic is 400T with tungsten light, pushed 1 stop. All this has been shot on an SLR camera, C-41 process, not exactly the same as 16mm with ECN-2.
The last 2 pics are other things.
Consider Fujifilm, it looks great for me. Love Eterna 400T for exteriors with no correction.

Rodrigo.


Thanks Rodrigo.. Nice pics. Yes it's how I imagine it would look. :)
  • 0

#16 Chris Durham

Chris Durham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 290 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • New York, NY

Posted 23 February 2009 - 12:28 PM

Thanks again, everybody, for the response. In the end, we decided to simplify everything by going with a single stock, Kodak Vision2 200T. We'll have to push it some in the interiors, but it's by all counts a very versatile stock. Since this is my first real foray into film I'm trusting my AC who has worked with this camera (SR3) and these stocks before. From what I've seen I'm pretty fond of Fuji stocks but I'm starting in the area of greatest familiarity.

To make things more interesting, we've decided to shoot Super 8 for B roll. For this we're ordering stock from Pro8mm and going with the 50D for exteriors and the Vision 3 500T for interiors counting on the smaller grains to help us in the blow up. The finished product should be contrasty and grainy so I think this will be a good thing in the end.

Edited by Chris Durham, 23 February 2009 - 12:29 PM.

  • 0

#17 Doug Durant

Doug Durant
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera

Posted 25 February 2009 - 02:53 PM

Thanks again, everybody, for the response. In the end, we decided to simplify everything by going with a single stock, Kodak Vision2 200T. We'll have to push it some in the interiors, but it's by all counts a very versatile stock. Since this is my first real foray into film I'm trusting my AC who has worked with this camera (SR3) and these stocks before. From what I've seen I'm pretty fond of Fuji stocks but I'm starting in the area of greatest familiarity.

To make things more interesting, we've decided to shoot Super 8 for B roll. For this we're ordering stock from Pro8mm and going with the 50D for exteriors and the Vision 3 500T for interiors counting on the smaller grains to help us in the blow up. The finished product should be contrasty and grainy so I think this will be a good thing in the end.


I wouldn't push the '17 unless you really want more grain/contrast. Also, I don't believe they have the same kind of stocks for super8, definitely not a 500 speed stock which would be even too grainy for super 8.
  • 0

#18 Adrian Sierkowski

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

Posted 25 February 2009 - 02:58 PM

The grains remain the same size on film stock... it's the image that's magnified on projection, so an 8mm image will magnify more to project than a 35mm image, and therefore all the grain will magnify....
  • 0

#19 Ian Cooper

Ian Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Other
  • England

Posted 25 February 2009 - 03:33 PM

...Also, I don't believe they have the same kind of stocks for super8, definitely not a 500 speed stock which would be even too grainy for super 8.


Vision2 7217 200T, and Vision3 7219 500T are both available from Kodak as super8 cartridges.
7218 was also available in super8, although I have a feeling the Vision3 might be replacing it rather than in addition to it.
  • 0

#20 David Auner aac

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

Posted 25 February 2009 - 03:33 PM

I wouldn't push the '17 unless you really want more grain/contrast. Also, I don't believe they have the same kind of stocks for super8, definitely not a 500 speed stock which would be even too grainy for super 8.


Hi Doug,
stocks are the same regardless of format. And of course Vision3 500T is available for Super8 as well.

Cheers, Dave
  • 0


Willys Widgets

Opal

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

Glidecam

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Opal

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly