Jump to content


Photo

Mixing 7213 and 7217?


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Eric Lin

Eric Lin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 21 August 2011 - 05:07 PM

Hello all. I'm curious if anyone has had experience shooting and comparing these two stocks side by side. We have an incredible deal to shoot 7217 (200T) for a feature which is what I tested and are planning to shoot for all daylight exteriors and interiors. A situation has come up where we may also get a decent amount of 7213 stock to shoot as well at a big discount. But, I didn't test the 7213 and won't have a chance to test it before we start next week. Having shot other Vision 3 stock (7201, 7207, 7219) and having tested the 7217, I think I can get what the grain and contrast will feel like on the Vision 3 stock. Testing is the best way to go, I know, but time right now won't permit before we start.

I'm wondering if anyone can speak to how noticeable the jump be between the two stocks if one scene is shot with 7213 and the next scene is shot with 7217 if both are daylight exterior scenes and similar lighting conditions (ie daylight exteriors)?

The look and feel of the film was supposed to be pretty consistent so instinctually, I'm against shooting both stocks within the same film. Especially if they edit the film differently and reorder things, a sequence I think would be later in the film and be helped by the look of the older stock may end up being re-edited or cut apart into sections between scenes shot with the newer stock.

But, financially it may help us free room in the budget to do more if we take both the 7217 and the 7213. How subtle do you think the difference would be? Have you ever seen films that did something like this and can provide examples? Films that mix stocks that come to mind are HAPPY TOGETHER and was done to great effect, but this film is not that raw in terms of feel.

Any input will be much appreciated.

Best,
Eric Lin
DP
NYC
  • 0

#2 Charles MacDonald

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

Posted 21 August 2011 - 05:26 PM

One of the clasic ways arround that sort of situation is to shoot each stock at a different logical location in your plot (city vs Cottage, home vs Work, etc)
  • 0

#3 K Borowski

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

Posted 21 August 2011 - 05:27 PM

Well, why not try to confine each to different parts of the shoot?

I wouldn't recommend cutting together a scene with different emulsion batches, let alone different stocks if you want a consistent look. For instance you are doing a dialogue scene in a shed, shoot that on '17, and then use the '13 to shoot the car chase and gunfight that follow. . .


There'd probably be a smaller difference than you would think, though.




Of course, you make a good point about editing changes, but as long as you aren't shooting coverage of the same scene with different stocks, I doubt even a trained eye would notice it unless you pointed it out to them.
  • 0

#4 Eric Lin

Eric Lin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 21 August 2011 - 05:41 PM

Hi Charles and K. Thanks for the suggestions. Compartamentalizing the stocks for certain sequences may be the way to go. It is a road trip film with a loose plot but I think there are scenes that are self-contained that I can switch to the other stocks based on different locations. I guess I'm looking for assurance about how subtle the jump will be between the two stocks.

We are doing DI finish so I know I can control contrast and color to get it where I want. I'm just worried about the grain difference. Different locations can help hide that difference maybe. I just wanted to hear how pronounced the difference might be in people's experiences.

Best,
Eric Lin
NYC
DP
  • 0

#5 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 21 August 2011 - 05:53 PM

I think the grain of '17 is just halfway between '13 and '19, not a big leap -- I'd be tempted to use the '17 instead of the '13 in situations where contrasty lighting will hide the grain better, the theory being that grain is always most visible in midtones and flat lighting, so save the '13 for those scenes. Also I think '13 is a bit sharper so again, contrastier shots look sharper and will help the '17 match the '13 better.
  • 0

#6 Eric Lin

Eric Lin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 21 August 2011 - 06:01 PM

Thanks Dave. This is great advice and makes a lot of sense. I'm thinking of saving the '17 for an Arizona section which will dovetail with both the emotional tone of the film as well as with your advice of saving it for contrasty situations.

Placing the '17 grain between '13 and '19 gives me a good picture of what to expect. Thanks again! Much appreciated.
  • 0


Wooden Camera

CineTape

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

The Slider

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Opal

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Abel Cine

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

CineLab

FJS International, LLC