Jump to content


Photo

Using Kodak 500T 7230?


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 John Mackey

John Mackey
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 12 April 2012 - 07:11 AM

Has anyone used this stock? Advice? I'd like to shoot as much natural light as possible. Night exteriors under streetlights, Night interiors with fluorescent bulbs in table lamps.
  • 0

#2 Adrian Sierkowski

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

Posted 12 April 2012 - 07:21 AM

I'd recommend the '19 for it instead of the '30. The '30 wasn't bad when I used it; but it certainly didn't have the same dynamic range nor fine (for a 500t) grain of the V3
  • 0

#3 John Mackey

John Mackey
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 12 April 2012 - 07:30 AM

I'd recommend the '19 for it instead of the '30. The '30 wasn't bad when I used it; but it certainly didn't have the same dynamic range nor fine (for a 500t) grain of the V3


I was thinking going with the '30 mainly due to budget constraints. I don't mind the grainier image. But would you recommend overexposing it? Or set my meter to 320? How much artificial light would I need for closeups, mediums?
  • 0

#4 Adrian Sierkowski

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

Posted 12 April 2012 - 07:41 AM

Yes, I would rate it at 320. It reminds me a bit of the old '18 stock so often you treat it like that.
How much light you need will depend on the shot and what stop you want to be working at. All the information on the stock's lighting requirements are listed on the Kodak website as well

http://motion.kodak...._Films/5230.htm

You need 5 foot candles of light for a F1.4 (if rating at 500), so you don't need too too much light here. But a lot will depend on what you're shooting; and how you want it to look.
  • 0

#5 John Mackey

John Mackey
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 12 April 2012 - 08:42 AM

Yes, I would rate it at 320. It reminds me a bit of the old '18 stock so often you treat it like that.
How much light you need will depend on the shot and what stop you want to be working at. All the information on the stock's lighting requirements are listed on the Kodak website as well

http://motion.kodak...._Films/5230.htm

You need 5 foot candles of light for a F1.4 (if rating at 500), so you don't need too too much light here. But a lot will depend on what you're shooting; and how you want it to look.


I have an f 2.2 lens. How big of a difference if I rate it at 500 compared to 320? Obviously if I rate it at 320 that means a little more light is needed I presume? If at 500, less light? and I am converting the footage to black and white in post. so I'm not worried about colors.

Edited by John Mackey, 12 April 2012 - 08:43 AM.

  • 0

#6 Adrian Sierkowski

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

Posted 12 April 2012 - 09:12 AM

it's 2/3rds of a stop difference between 320 and 500t and normally done in order to get a litle bit less grain and more information in your shadows. The stop of your lens doesn't enter into it too much aside from needing a slightly larger light to get you to the stop your lens will open up to.
  • 0

#7 Chris Burke

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

Posted 12 April 2012 - 12:48 PM

A great thing about this stock as with all Kodak stocks is how clean it goes into the shadows/black. The grain is there, but it is sharp and pretty. What Adrian said about the '19 is true, but the '30 isn't bad at all, just different. I am thinking of shooting an entire sitcom on 7230. On video it looks fantastic, lots of character.
  • 0

#8 Adrian Sierkowski

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

Posted 12 April 2012 - 01:48 PM

Honestly, Chris, i wasn't that impressed with the '30 when I was out with her. Of course this was 72, so it's a lot different than had I been on 52, in which case I think I'd love the stock. In S16mm it was just a bit too grainy for my particular tastes--- though I also have to admit the post house production went with is probably my last choice and hasn't given me good looking footage once (-v- some other houses which I beg for!).

Still '30 is great and in the end I'd say most of the trade off -v- a '19 would be in the highlights and grain and even then, those are certainly not that bad ( i guess I just got spoiled recently, is all ;) )
  • 0

#9 John Mackey

John Mackey
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 12 April 2012 - 07:18 PM

Thank you guys for the help! Really appreciate it.

One last question. If I am going to convert my footage to black and white, do I need to use a filter if I am going to light with mostly fluorescent light bulbs either in chinese lanterns or in table lamps instead of using incandescents?
  • 0

#10 Chris Burke

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

Posted 13 April 2012 - 10:32 AM

Thank you guys for the help! Really appreciate it.

One last question. If I am going to convert my footage to black and white, do I need to use a filter if I am going to light with mostly fluorescent light bulbs either in chinese lanterns or in table lamps instead of using incandescents?


No, not really. 7230 looks pretty good as black and white. If that is your desired effect why not shoot real black and white, especially since you said you don't mind grain and budget constraints? Sadly, and added incentive might be to shoot black and white while you still can. Both 7222 and 7266 look great pushed one stop. 7266 may be a bit hard to expose, but is quite modern looking with modern lenses.
  • 0

#11 Adrian Sierkowski

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

Posted 13 April 2012 - 11:22 AM

There's also the Orwo stock which has been discussed recently and is rated at a 400T. Looks pretty good to me, and I believe Robert Houllahan posted up some tests of it pushed to 800!

it's all in there (and i hope Robert doesn't mind me sharing)
  • 0

#12 John Mackey

John Mackey
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 April 2012 - 06:28 PM

No, not really. 7230 looks pretty good as black and white. If that is your desired effect why not shoot real black and white, especially since you said you don't mind grain and budget constraints? Sadly, and added incentive might be to shoot black and white while you still can. Both 7222 and 7266 look great pushed one stop. 7266 may be a bit hard to expose, but is quite modern looking with modern lenses.


If I shoot the 7222 in lowlight at night, wouldn't it be best to rate it below 200? Or rate it at 400 and use more light?
  • 0

#13 Chris Burke

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

Posted 14 April 2012 - 01:51 PM

If I shoot the 7222 in lowlight at night, wouldn't it be best to rate it below 200? Or rate it at 400 and use more light?



I guess the question is how much contrast do you want? Lighting to a higher key light will give you lots of contrast. you might get away with keeping it at 250 depending upon your scene and how you want it to look. 7266 pushed one stop looks great. If you really want grain and contrast try pushing two stops. I have done this with Super 8 and I loved it. 16mm or Super 16 will looks great as well.
  • 0

#14 John Mackey

John Mackey
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 14 April 2012 - 04:45 PM

I am going to go with Double x instead of the Tri X. I hear Tri X is hard to expose in low light. What if I were to expose the double x at 200 instead of pushing it? Would it turn out muddy? What would you recommend for a sort of grungy look?
  • 0

#15 Chris Burke

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

Posted 15 April 2012 - 07:50 AM

I am going to go with Double x instead of the Tri X. I hear Tri X is hard to expose in low light. What if I were to expose the double x at 200 instead of pushing it? Would it turn out muddy? What would you recommend for a sort of grungy look?


What kind of light source are you using? Tungsten or daylight? 7222 is rated at 160 under tungsten, I believe, so if you want to over expose a bit, rate it at 125 or 100. do you want lower contrast with more detail in the shadows? Not really sure what you are going for in terms of looks. Here is a wedding video I shot many years ago. The interior black and white is 7266 super 8 pushed two stops.
  • 0

#16 John Mackey

John Mackey
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 15 April 2012 - 02:19 PM

What kind of light source are you using? Tungsten or daylight? 7222 is rated at 160 under tungsten, I believe, so if you want to over expose a bit, rate it at 125 or 100. do you want lower contrast with more detail in the shadows? Not really sure what you are going for in terms of looks. Here is a wedding video I shot many years ago. The interior black and white is 7266 super 8 pushed two stops.


7222 Double X is rated 200T/250D. I am shooting with CFLs but would like to use as much natural light as possible. I'm shooting night exteriors under streetlights and night interiors with desk and table lamps. Does it look good over exposed (rated below 200?) or I heard you get good results by pushing one stop (to 320) or two stops (400) then having the lab push process it. More contrast would be good.
  • 0

#17 Chris Burke

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

Posted 29 April 2012 - 07:50 AM

I would do a test if I were you. I guess, you have to decide how much grain you want. 7222 is rather grainy to begin with, so with push processing, it only gets grainier. The main reason to overexpose is to minimize grain, so if you don't mind grain, rate it at 200 through out your shoot. I am not really sure if 7222 benefits from overexposure like modern color negative does. A little bit perhaps.
  • 0


FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Technodolly

Visual Products

The Slider

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly