Jump to content




Photo

Kodak 500T vs 250D - Super 16

Film 500T 250D Kodak Super 16 Magic Hour

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Connor Adam

Connor Adam
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Student
  • London

Posted 18 January 2015 - 09:10 AM

Hi,

I'm a student cinematographer with a shoot coming up, on 16mm with the Arri SR3. I have a couple of shoots planned during the blue phase of magic hour (civil twilight and the blue hour), on a beach. I think I'm correct in saying that I need to shoot with daylight colour balance to match the blue tones in the sky as tungsten will make them even cooler?

I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the different aesthetics of 500T and 250D? (aside from the obvious sensitivity and colour balance differences). Is there any particular advantage (visual or otherwise) to shooting 500t with an 85 or 250d straight up?

All the best,
Connor
  • 0




#2 David Cunningham

David Cunningham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 976 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 18 January 2015 - 11:37 AM

Your 500T will be significantly more grainy than your 250 which won't matter much in 35mm but more so in 16mm and significantly in Super 8.

Otherwise, it's pretty much a wash. You don't really gain anything with 500T in that situation unless you are going to take that same camera into tungsten lighting without a film change just a filter change.

With the filter you'll basically have a 320 speed film with 500T so no major speed advantage over 250D.

So. If the entire roll will be shot in that same light I go 250D for sure. Keep in mind that as you get closer to sunset you basically get tungsten lighting.
  • 0

#3 Connor Adam

Connor Adam
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Student
  • London

Posted 18 January 2015 - 01:25 PM

David, thanks for your reply.

Sounds like 250D is the more logical choice, and most of the other scenes will also be shot with this stock anyway.

The colour change in light is my main concern, but I suppose that is just an issue that I'll always have shooting at that hour. Would shooting on tungsten stock during the golden part of magic hour yield a similar look to the blue hour? Or will it just look like it was shot on the wrong stock? I appreciate this might be hard to answer!
  • 0

#4 Josh Gladstone

Josh Gladstone
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Editor
  • Hollywood

Posted 18 January 2015 - 05:51 PM

Here's a little film with a bunch of stocks in it. Unfortunately, it's not labeled what is what, so probably not as helpful as it could be, but I think it's safe to assume the nighttime stuff is all 500T. And you can also see that either film stock will get you excellent results.

 


Edited by Josh Gladstone, 18 January 2015 - 05:51 PM.

  • 0

#5 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2264 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 18 January 2015 - 05:57 PM

Your 500T will be significantly more grainy than your 250 which won't matter much in 35mm but more so in 16mm and significantly in Super 8.

 

Just as a side note, "significantly more grainy" is not as significant as it used to be.  I had to push 500T two stops in order to achieve a fairly grainy look on a 16mm print.  Nowadays, all of Kodak's stocks are pretty fine-grained.


  • 0

#6 Connor Adam

Connor Adam
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Student
  • London

Posted 19 January 2015 - 12:22 PM

Thanks for all of your ideas and input, it's much appreciated.

I'm going to try and shoot some tests on both 500T and 250D, will update with the results!
  • 0

#7 Dirk DeJonghe

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

Posted 20 January 2015 - 02:51 AM

Daylight stock is always less grainy than the equivalent tungsten stock. 


  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 January 2015 - 09:59 AM

Well, mainly in the blue layer, since it can be much slower in speed.


  • 0

#9 Dirk DeJonghe

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

Posted 21 January 2015 - 06:22 AM

You are right David, but the blue layer is already the most grainy one to start with. To me a 250D looks similar to a 100T as far as grain is concerned (subjectively), 


  • 0

#10 Kalle Folke

Kalle Folke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Other
  • Stockholm

Posted 26 January 2015 - 04:22 PM

Here's a little film with a bunch of stocks in it. Unfortunately, it's not labeled what is what, so probably not as helpful as it could be, but I think it's safe to assume the nighttime stuff is all 500T. And you can also see that either film stock will get you excellent results.

 

Hi!

I can help with labeling, since it's my tests :) Don't know why I didn't label… well next time.

 

00.00-00.19: 250D 7207. First shots I didn't have my eye to the viewfinder, and that caused fogging. Only realized later after more testing. Film is still quite new to me and every roll is a great lesson!

 

00.19-00.36: 200T 7213. With 85B-filter.

 

00.36-end: 500T 7219. The first exteriors look more grainy then they originally where. I cropped the image from a quite low res original. Also it seems to me like gray overcast days shows the grain more. Dancing scene was with a Black Pro-mist 1/4 filter.

 

Since these tests I've done more and have come to a conclusion that what ever I do and how ever I expose I got usable shots :) It's also great to test the stocks in various lighting scenarios to help make a "preview in the head" of what the results will be. For me it's a great new experience since I started in the times of Beta-/DV-cameras with lcd's.

 

Also, I just shot a roll that was labeled wrong as a 250D, when it really was a 200T. I shot outside in overcast (Kelvin around 6600) but after the onlelight from the lab it still looked great! Now I'm sticking to 500T and 250D, when summer comes I'll try 50D also.

 

I think 85- and FLB/FLD-filters etc makes a difference, but that the results will be perfectly usable without them also if it's not possible to use.

 

Film is a joy!


  • 1

#11 cole t parzenn

cole t parzenn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 287 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 January 2015 - 05:49 PM

Well, mainly in the blue layer, since it can be much slower in speed.

 

How much slower? A color temperature filter's two stops, correct? Would that make the speed difference between the blue and red & green layers one stop or...?

 

You are right David, but the blue layer is already the most grainy one to start with. To me a 250D looks similar to a 100T as far as grain is concerned (subjectively), 

 

Why is the blue layer grainiest?


  • 0

#12 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 27 January 2015 - 06:55 PM

It may be the other correction filter's worth (the orange 85, not the blue 80A) so 2/3's of a stop, not 2-stops.

 

Anyway, in tungsten light, there is a lower level of blue wavelengths so the grains in that layer have to be larger (more sensitive, or actually, more efficient at capturing light) to compensate.


  • 1



Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Pro 8mm

The Slider

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Technodolly

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Zylight

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

CineTape

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Technodolly

Glidecam

Zylight

The Slider

CineTape

Tai Audio

Pro 8mm

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine