Jump to content


Photo

Vision3 250D or Vision2 50D?


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Nick Norton

Nick Norton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 248 posts
  • Student
  • Chicago

Posted 02 June 2009 - 11:51 PM

For an all exterior in bright, sunny FL... i was considering shooting either 50D or the new 250D, which i would have to use ND gels in the filter slot of my Eclair ACL.

A shallow depth of field is not something i would absolutely need, although i will be shooting higher frame rates occasionally (50 or 75fps.)

This is a documentary, although all outside, but scenes entirely in shadow may be unavoidable.

I would assume it would be more simple with the 50D and minimal filters, however i'm not sure if the 250D would be more versatile... or just how nice the image is in bright exteriors with the new stock.

Any help would be appreciated.

-nick
  • 0

#2 David Auner aac

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

Posted 03 June 2009 - 02:00 AM

For an all exterior in bright, sunny FL... i was considering shooting either 50D or the new 250D, which i would have to use ND gels in the filter slot of my Eclair ACL.

A shallow depth of field is not something i would absolutely need, although i will be shooting higher frame rates occasionally (50 or 75fps.)

This is a documentary, although all outside, but scenes entirely in shadow may be unavoidable.

I would assume it would be more simple with the 50D and minimal filters, however i'm not sure if the 250D would be more versatile... or just how nice the image is in bright exteriors with the new stock.


Hi Nick,

take your light meter to the locations and take some readings. I have shot some 50D this March in Cape Town and it was a bit close in deep shade. And I wasn't shooting more than 25-27fps.

Cheers, Dave
  • 0

#3 Adam Garner

Adam Garner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Other
  • Austin, TX

Posted 03 June 2009 - 12:30 PM

I agree with David : take a light meter out and do some spot checking.

I think 50D is great outside. I just shot a bunch in West Texas, in the desert. I even needed an ND6 at times since it was so bright! I don't know how it performs in the shade though. I just sent off some ultra-16 tests I'd be happy to share. Lots of sunny/shady mixes.

I don't know how the eclair is, but I shot with a scoopic and the viewfinder goes dark at higher t stops. So, using a fast film is a major pain for shooting outdoors. I stick with 50D for outside.
  • 0

#4 Nick Norton

Nick Norton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 248 posts
  • Student
  • Chicago

Posted 03 June 2009 - 08:45 PM

Sorry, i should have mentioned i am traveling to FL from Chicago... so i won't be able to take meter readings of the actual scenes until i get there.

Has anyone shot the new Vision3 stock in bright exteriors? Apparently, this film gives you more forgiveness in overexposure... but was curious to see how the grain would hold up compared to the 50D.


-nick
  • 0

#5 David Auner aac

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

Posted 04 June 2009 - 02:05 AM

Sorry, i should have mentioned i am traveling to FL from Chicago... so i won't be able to take meter readings of the actual scenes until i get there.

Has anyone shot the new Vision3 stock in bright exteriors? Apparently, this film gives you more forgiveness in overexposure... but was curious to see how the grain would hold up compared to the 50D.


Hm, AFAIK the 50D is pretty forgiving in overexposure too. Will you have time to shoot a test roll? 100ft of either and a quick telecine to miniDV and you'll know... And you could also rate the 250D a bit lower, that should tighten up the grain a bit.

Cheers, Dave
  • 0

#6 Adrian Sierkowski

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

Posted 04 June 2009 - 07:08 AM

I normally use 200T for my daylight stock, with an 85 in it. It rates at a 125, then, but I normally downgrade it to about an 80. It's also nice as when you need the extra exposure you can pull the 85 and shoot @ 200, rebalancing in post if necessary, or go to something like an 81EF.
  • 0

#7 David Rakoczy

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

Posted 04 June 2009 - 07:50 AM

I normally use 200T for my daylight stock, with an 85 in it. It rates at a 125, then, but I normally downgrade it to about an 80. It's also nice as when you need the extra exposure you can pull the 85 and shoot @ 200, rebalancing in post if necessary, or go to something like an 81EF.



Why? Why not use 100t or 50d?


Nick,

I would shoot 50d or 100t... I am a big fan of 100t (Kodak's sharpest stock). The 50d will have slightly more contrast than 100t.

On second thought, seeing your eclair probably will not have a full matte box with multiple filter trays.. use 50d. Of course if you desire grain use a faster stock.

.... from Florida B)
  • 0

#8 Adrian Sierkowski

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

Posted 04 June 2009 - 07:55 AM

For me, David, I dunno I seem to gravitate towards the faster stocks ;) and I really enjoy the way 200T has held up for me in the past.
  • 0

#9 David Rakoczy

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

Posted 04 June 2009 - 08:24 AM

For S16, I have been going in the opposite direction..... almost always 100t... 50d once in a while... and 200t only when necessary... I treat 200t like most treat 500t.
  • 0

#10 Adrian Sierkowski

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

Posted 04 June 2009 - 08:30 AM

And with great results as well (as I have seen). For myself, I'm normally rolling a 500T for INT stuff, (often due to lack of power @ location) and I had such a wonderful time shooting the '17 for all my ext work on one film that I kinda just stuck with it.
It helps too that a lot of what I'm asked to shoot wants a bit of a grittier look and/or can't afford much of a lighting package (if they're paying for the film). It's just the predilection of my budget bracket. Soon, though, soon, I'll run some 100T or maybe even move over to some of the Fuji stocks I haven't yet tried, Vivid 160 and F-64.
  • 0

#11 David Rakoczy

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

Posted 04 June 2009 - 09:13 AM

Thanks. 200t is a fantastic stock no doubt. Blows away Vivid in my opinion. 200t is much tighter.

Ya know Adrian, I (for the most part) don't work with large units anymore... mostly 2ks & 1ks.. sure we rent 20ks and 18k Pars etc as needed but I usually shoot with what I own and that is 2ks on down and don't carry a genny except for when renting those larger units or shooting in a remote location, so for the most part it's 2ks,1ks, Zips & Nooks on house power... While rating 100t between 100 and 64, we get it done even with those smaller lamps.... starting to dabble with harder light... and softer filters. Of course, as is always the case, having a talented focus puller is a MUST!
  • 0

#12 Adrian Sierkowski

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

Posted 04 June 2009 - 11:05 AM

Quite true. And I do sometimes enjoy being WFO on the lens, but for myself, I have a real affinity for softer lighting higher speed stocks. This is, of course, just my recent "mode," if that makes any sense. I am thrilled that I'll have a nice vampire film this fall/winter which seems to be calling for harder lighting techniques; and if we're lucky enough to be able to afford S16mm (still in the air v F900) I'm going to definitively be going 100/200T primarily because of the green screen/digital mattes we'll likely have to do.
  • 0

#13 David Auner aac

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

Posted 04 June 2009 - 12:07 PM

I am thrilled that I'll have a nice vampire film this fall/winter which seems to be calling for harder lighting techniques; and if we're lucky enough to be able to afford S16mm (still in the air v F900)


Wow, cool! I hope it works out for you and you can shoot it in Sweet16! Vampire films are one of my most favorite genres! I have been playing with the idea of doing a short R/S16mm vampire flick in the style of Nosferatu a long time. Please do keep up us posted on that project! OTOH on a film like that I wouldn't mind the grain at all, but for 'screen it would be pain indeed!

Cheers, Dave
  • 0

#14 Adrian Sierkowski

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

Posted 04 June 2009 - 12:20 PM

It's just int he very early stages right now, e.g. I have an incomplete script and no idea on budget... but should it work out, the sequence i"m most looking forward to is a "room lit only be candles" Oh I can smell the Barry Lyndon love coming on!
I'll update as I can if/when it materializes more. It won't shoot till late fall/winter... so I have some time to mill it over.
Is it just me, and not to go too far off of topic, but are these horror genres cyclic? 80s, Ghosts, 90ealy 2000s Zombies, Mid Late 2000s, Vampires? Just a thought.
  • 0

#15 Jason Hinkle (RIP)

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

Posted 09 June 2009 - 04:16 AM

I just shot some lens tests on 50D and I really liked how easy it is to use in the sun. Here's the footage -
View on Vimeo - boring test footage but you can see what 50D looks like anyway. I shot some more stuff in overcast and shady areas and it looks awesome. In some other shots I experimented with pumping up the brightness in FCP and it responded very nicely - the image seems loaded with detail.

On the flip-side, I was stuck with only Vision3 500T on a super bright day for one exterior shot recently. I put all the ND filters I had and closed the the lens all the way - it still wasn't enough. The footage came out very grainy with a slight flicker due to obviously way too much light. It luckily was rescued in post, but I wasn't happy with it. It did also have a very raw, gritty look to it so I can imagine the a higher speed could work if you're going for an edgy vibe. I wouldn't personally go with Vision3 in the sun again though, maybe the 250. The 50D is very smooth and pretty by comparison.
  • 0

#16 David Rakoczy

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

Posted 09 June 2009 - 07:39 AM

Jason, were you opening and closing the iris while shooting your test? If so, why?
  • 0

#17 Jason Hinkle (RIP)

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

Posted 09 June 2009 - 11:39 AM

Jason, were you opening and closing the iris while shooting your test? If so, why?


i was actually checking all of those lenses for vignetting, i'm not sure if that was the right way to do it? I just got my camera converted so super-16 so i was trying out all of my lenses. Aside from the part where I was messing with the iris, they were all at f5.6
  • 0

#18 Daniel Carruthers

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

Posted 09 June 2009 - 12:27 PM

I recently shot on vision 3 250D
its a very nice stock, really fined grain. I shot is on ultra16 with an angeniux 12-120 zoom lens
it worked great on daylight interiors, but I had to use the stock on a bright sunny afternoon outside
and I wished I had a slower stock, like 50d?
I put on all the nd filters I could and I had no choice but to close the lens down to t8
which is way to much depth of field than I prefer
  • 0

#19 Adam Garner

Adam Garner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Other
  • Austin, TX

Posted 09 June 2009 - 01:38 PM

...but I had to use the stock on a bright sunny afternoon outside
and I wished I had a slower stock, like 50d?
I put on all the nd filters I could and I had no choice but to close the lens down to t8
which is way to much depth of field than I prefer


Agreed. 50D is such a great speed for outdoors. Even with 250D I had to make an NDx6 and it was still blowing out. I'd save it for overcast days, and use the 50D in bright sun. If you WANT a granier look you could just underexpose the 50D a little and push more light through it during telecine, no?

I think if you use 250D in full sun, or even 500T, you're going to get a flat as hell image since the aperture is going to shut down.
  • 0


Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Metropolis Post

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

The Slider

Visual Products

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post