Jump to content




Photo

Example of Kodak 7219 500t pushed one stop.

7219 500t super 16mm kodak 7219 5219 pushed @1000

  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 Drew Bienemann

Drew Bienemann
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 09 January 2015 - 10:28 PM

Hey,

 

I was digging through an old drive and found the original scan of some super 16mm I shot for a music video earlier this year. This is Kodak 7219 500T, rated at 800asa, with a one stop push.

 

We had planned on converting to black and white in the grade, so I the extra grain of the one stop push sounded great and worked out really well in the end.

 

It was telecined to HDSR on a Spirit 2k. We go an unsupervised "flat scan", that was then rendered out to a 1920x1080 prores 422HQ.

 

The vimeo compression really took a lot of the grain away, So I've included a few still frames as well. 

 

 

Photos are here:

https://www.dropbox....W2SvVAqgga?dl=0

 

I hope this is helpful to someone!


  • 0




#2 Karim D. Ghantous

Karim D. Ghantous
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 15 January 2015 - 10:43 PM

Drew, firstly, thanks for posting the stills. These are very, very helpful, believe me. BTW I created an account so I could post in this thread (this is my first post on this site). Just so you know where I'm coming from: I'm a photographer, shooting mainly digital, but I prefer film.

 

I've had a look at the stills and I'm amazed. This is 16mm, 500T, pushed one stop, and the results look about the same as a lot of 8-perf 35mm that I see - in fact, this looks better. A lot of photographers are shooting CineStill etc. and from what I've seen, the results aren't that good in terms of graininess. I have nothing against grain - far from it - but merely on technical grounds, I'm amazed that these 16mm frames exhibit less graininess than a lot of 8-perf stills. What the hell is going on?

 

I've seen medium format negs with graininess not that much less than what I'm seeing in your images. I don't understand it. I suspect it's the scanning - in photography, it's the weak link and quite laborious. From what I can see, the cine film scanners are amazing. And obviously, VISION3 is amazing - but photographers can't seem to get that stuff to work. I have not tried it myself, though, partly because I am not seeing good results.

 

Maybe the problem is that photography scanners are literally scanners, whereas cinema scanners are, if I infer correctly, single-shot. Scanning lights probably accentuate the grain while not pulling out any more detail than single-shot scanners are.

 

I'd really love some answers on this issue if you or anyone else has them. And thank you once again for posting these. It has been a revelation.


  • 0



Visual Products

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Pro 8mm

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

CineTape

Abel Cine

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Zylight

CineLab

The Slider

Zylight

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Pro 8mm