Jump to content


Photo

35mm anamorphic - Kodak 5213


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Ben Brahem Ziryab

Ben Brahem Ziryab
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 126 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 21 November 2016 - 06:02 AM

Hello all,

 

Would any of you know if shooting 5213 inside over 5219 is worth the improvement in grain and sharpness when contact printed?

 

Shooting 35mm anamorphic and contact printing directly from OCN to create anamorphic showprints (as well as a 4K scan for DCP).

 

Thank you.

 

Ben


  • 0




#2 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2574 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 22 November 2016 - 01:13 AM

I've done quite a bit of work print's with 16mm 7213 and 7219 sources. Honestly, the 13 is more fine grained, but the 19 looks totally fine if you expose properly. It falls apart when you try to push the stock too much in how you light and expose. I've pushed 19 two stops before and it wasn't nearly as bad as I expected it to be.

At the same time, I've been working quite a bit with 7203 recently and I'm not enamored by the difference between it and the 19. The prints appear to be just as grainy, it's only when you digitize that things look crisper on the 03.

Point being... the added grain from the print really changes everything. I use to get work prints from my 35mm commercial work, but we'd use a flatbed to view them, so it's hard to know what they'd look like on a big screen.
  • 0

#3 Karim D. Ghantous

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

Posted 22 November 2016 - 01:28 AM

Hmm, 7203 is grainier when printed than when scanned? I am surprised. Would the printer light be the problem, i.e. not diffuse enough? In any case, pushed 7219 looks really good.


  • 0

#4 Ben Brahem Ziryab

Ben Brahem Ziryab
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 126 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 22 November 2016 - 09:26 AM

I've done quite a bit of work print's with 16mm 7213 and 7219 sources. Honestly, the 13 is more fine grained, but the 19 looks totally fine if you expose properly. It falls apart when you try to push the stock too much in how you light and expose. I've pushed 19 two stops before and it wasn't nearly as bad as I expected it to be.

At the same time, I've been working quite a bit with 7203 recently and I'm not enamored by the difference between it and the 19. The prints appear to be just as grainy, it's only when you digitize that things look crisper on the 03.

Point being... the added grain from the print really changes everything. I use to get work prints from my 35mm commercial work, but we'd use a flatbed to view them, so it's hard to know what they'd look like on a big screen.

 

What about 35mm? Is the difference negligible?

 

Interesting enough I once pushed 5213 two stops (rated at asa 500) and brought it back to normal in the lab. The print looked great and not grainy at all. Then I did a 2K transfer on a Spirit and it looked quite grainy and the black were a bit milky.


  • 0

#5 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18958 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 22 November 2016 - 12:26 PM

The gamma / contrast of print stock hides a certain amount of grain.  A scan captures all the grain in the original at maximum sharpness (and electronic sharpening, if applied, would make the grain more obvious) and since most scans are in log gamma, the low contrast makes the grain very easy to see until some sort of display gamma is applied.  But with printing and projecting, there is some softening going on that makes some of the grain less obvious.

 

The print stock itself has its own grain but it should be quite low, being such a slow speed.

 

As you'd expect, the slower speed negative stocks are less grainy than the higher speed ones, but the jumps are not extreme, which is why they are intercuttable by design.

 

When I shot film regularly, I always got into the dilemma of whether 200T exposed regularly would look better than 500T overexposed.  There is no clear answer, I think you have to consider your lighting needs and whether you want to carry both stocks or just one, and if you only carry one, can it be limited to 200 ASA.  One thing you do discover is that the slower stocks are more tolerant of exposure mistakes in that the grain does not get too objectionable if you underexpose by mistake.


  • 0

#6 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2574 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 22 November 2016 - 12:52 PM

Hmm, 7203 is grainier when printed than when scanned? I am surprised. Would the printer light be the problem, i.e. not diffuse enough? In any case, pushed 7219 looks really good.


Yea, we just did a film with brand new Vision 3 7203, exposed perfectly and the print had actual noise, but the 2k scan was practically noise free. I know the scan was RAW and colored by some bloke over at FotoKem, so maybe they applied some NR? I can usually see that, but I didn't see any signs of noise reduction.

We also shot 13' and 19' on the same show, all of it looked pretty much the same when printed. The 19' stood out on the digital scan because it was slightly under exposed, but you couldn't tell the difference between the 03' and 13', they were nearly identical on the scan. Probably thanks to proper exposure... something a lot of people these days don't understand.

I've got some 35mm stuff, but no way to project it. My flatbed is down for the count and I don't have a projector locally I can throw stuff up on. I will at some point soon though, I'm looking high and low for a portable 35mm projector for my school.
  • 0

#7 Kenny N Suleimanagich

Kenny N Suleimanagich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 880 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 22 November 2016 - 02:26 PM

I personally find 7213 to be extremely flexible, though I have never printed it, it holds really well at the toe of the curve. This was available light in Chinatown NYC, wide open on super speeds (16mm and 12mm). Almost every reading I took had us under by 1/2 stop. There was way more footage that didn't make it into the cut in even riskier situations that look great. In fact, I would be curious to see how a one-light at 25-25-25 of this would print. 

 


Edited by Kenny N Suleimanagich, 22 November 2016 - 02:27 PM.

  • 0

#8 Miguel Angel

Miguel Angel
  • Sustaining Members
  • 589 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Spain / Ireland / South Africa

Posted 22 November 2016 - 07:13 PM

Kenny, that looks brilliant.

Just wondering if you pushed 7213 1 stop or you rated it normally at 200ASA? :) 

Thank you! 


  • 0

#9 David Cunningham

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

Posted 22 November 2016 - 09:13 PM

I'm Surpirsed to read someone say 7203 doesn't look much different than 7219 when printed. My 7203 source material looks almost 35mm when printed unlike my 7219 which is sharper than super 8 but looks almost as grainy. I think the difference is quite extreme. It could be the way I expose things I suppose.

For me though, I try to shoot as much 7203 as possible. I do find the difference between 7219 and 7213 to be pretty negligible, so I almost always just shoot 19.
  • 0

#10 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2574 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 22 November 2016 - 09:20 PM

If you shoot the same thing with all 3 stocks, you'll notice the very subtle difference. The problem is that most people who shoot 500, tend to push it a bit more then the other stocks. This is why people -myself included- always say the 500 is the grainiest of stocks, where it's really not that bad in the long run.

I wonder if I scanned the print, would it be enough to show this, or would the digital scan negate the subtle differences by showing more of the grain then simply projecting on a screen.
  • 0

#11 Kenny N Suleimanagich

Kenny N Suleimanagich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 880 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 23 November 2016 - 12:47 PM

Kenny, that looks brilliant.
Just wondering if you pushed 7213 1 stop or you rated it normally at 200ASA? :) 

Thank you!

 
Glad you liked it! 
 
It was rated normally. 
 
Here's another example of 7213, rated at 150, processed normal. Mostly lit with a 1K fresnel and 2K zip light, at T2/2.8 The part where she's laying down in the white room on the windowsill are two bare Kino Flo daylight edison fluorescent bulbs. The artist and director wanted less grain and very little (if any) tones above the mids. So I exposed and lit for a dark falloff to mitigate the risk of low-contrast graininess. This is normally a video I would have used 7219 on in the past. No sharpening in post.

 


  • 0


Paralinx LLC

Zylight

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

The Slider

Glidecam

CineLab

Quantum Music Works

Pro 8mm

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

Tai Audio

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Pro 8mm

Quantum Music Works

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Zylight

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies