Jump to content


Photo

Fuji Vivid 160t performance printed w/ no DI


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Gene Fojtik

Gene Fojtik
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago, IL

Posted 25 January 2010 - 12:20 PM

Has anyone had any experience printing the Fuji vivid stocks without a DI in 35mm?

I am considering using the 160 on a shoot and need to do some tests, but I intend to ultimately strike a print of the finished film via a contact print and wanted to know if anyone had done the same.

Anything I need to keep in mind when communicating with the lab? Should I expect better results printing on Fuji stocks vs Kodak?

Has any one mixed the Fuji 560t with Kodak 5219?

Does anyone anticipate mixing these two stocks creating problems in a print situation?

Also, has anyone pushed the 160 more than 1 stop?

Thanks.
  • 0

#2 robbie Land

robbie Land
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 28 January 2010 - 02:36 PM

Has anyone had any experience printing the Fuji vivid stocks without a DI in 35mm?

I am considering using the 160 on a shoot and need to do some tests, but I intend to ultimately strike a print of the finished film via a contact print and wanted to know if anyone had done the same.

Anything I need to keep in mind when communicating with the lab? Should I expect better results printing on Fuji stocks vs Kodak?

Has any one mixed the Fuji 560t with Kodak 5219?

Does anyone anticipate mixing these two stocks creating problems in a print situation?

Also, has anyone pushed the 160 more than 1 stop?

Thanks.


i shot the vivid in various situation and have not been happy. i wanted what the stock calls for, vivid color saturation, higher contrast, but it doesnt look good to me. i miss the Kodak EXR stocks and thought Vivid was my replacement. my final attempt i had the lab push one stop, but didnt achieve desire. so, i'm pleased with Kodak's V3 500T, which provides dense black and a saturation almost..like EXR.
now perhaps if i can havee it printed onto 3393 may up my saturation.
  • 0

#3 Gene Fojtik

Gene Fojtik
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago, IL

Posted 29 January 2010 - 01:09 AM

Thanks. I have seen some nice 35mm telecined footage of the vivid but have not heard much if anything about how it performs on a print. I have heard that the blacks look milky in 16mm. The tests fuji has posted look great but digitized footage on youtube does not tell you much about what the image will look like projected. I think the stock is designed for a DI and not a contact print. Do you have any frame grabs that illustrate your frustration with the stock?
  • 0

#4 James Compton

James Compton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 311 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 29 January 2010 - 05:26 PM

Thanks. I have seen some nice 35mm telecined footage of the vivid but have not heard much if anything about how it performs on a print. I have heard that the blacks look milky in 16mm. The tests fuji has posted look great but digitized footage on youtube does not tell you much about what the image will look like projected. I think the stock is designed for a DI and not a contact print. Do you have any frame grabs that illustrate your frustration with the stock?



The movie " Broken Embraces" used FUJI VIVID 160 for the Morroco scenes. That film is in theaters
now. Unfortunately, they used a DI on the whole film.
  • 0

#5 robbie Land

robbie Land
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 30 January 2010 - 03:26 AM

The movie " Broken Embraces" used FUJI VIVID 160 for the Morroco scenes. That film is in theaters
now. Unfortunately, they used a DI on the whole film.

well, i suppose it's another telecine stock.
i have 400' remaining in fridge, which is useless to me as telecine.
like i stated, i was quite displeased with the print results. yeah, milk and weak.
  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 January 2010 - 11:41 AM

well, i suppose it's another telecine stock.
i have 400' remaining in fridge, which is useless to me as telecine.
like i stated, i was quite displeased with the print results. yeah, milk and weak.


Doesn't sound like any Vivid 160 footage I've ever seen.
  • 0

#7 Dirk DeJonghe

Dirk DeJonghe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Kortrijk,Belgium

Posted 31 January 2010 - 01:21 AM

Both Vivid 160 and 500 look very saturated and contrasty with deep blacks when properly exposed and printed. Both stocks don't support underexposure as well as the Eterna stocks. Underexposing and printing at lower lights will make the picture fall apart with muddy shadows and more grain.
  • 0

#8 robbie Land

robbie Land
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 10 February 2010 - 01:26 AM

after discussing the matter with FujiFilm we have determined the results of my test were due to poor printing. a Fuji Vivid neg. looks different than a kodak neg. and at the time of the test the vivid 160 was new to the timer at lab and therefore misprinted. therefore, i will continue to work with this stock to achieve the stated saturation and desirable dense deep blacks.
  • 0


Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Technodolly