We recently conducted some (rough) tests on some expired (2008) Fuji Reala 500D.
It had been in cold storage for 8 years and in a kit cupboard in an unheated studio for 6 months.
Had it clip tested with Idaillies (now Kodak) who recommend rating the stock at 125 ASA (2 stops over).
Here are the test results (500 ASA stock, rated at 125 ASA with global 2 stop pull):
pass = test
What we were trying to test:
- Latitude of the film when rated at 125 ASA
- Performance in daylight dusk situations.
- Characteristics of different lenses wide open (or near)
- Whether shooting Anamorphic helped negate some of increased graininess from pulling expired sensitive stock.
Things to bear in mind:
- Only had small tungsten fixtures inside (rebalanced after transfer)
- Had to move lights at points rather than opening up
- Using old anamorphic glass (Cineovisions) for interior/exterior tests.
We're going to load it up in Resolve in January and see what's there in a DPX.
But I'm curious as to whether any one has any suggestions for why T 2.8 @ 3.5+ stops looks better than T 1.6 @ 3.0 stops .We're wondering whether it's blooming from the lenses or a higher reflective quality from the skin due to increased proximity to the light? It's not 'blowing out' but it's certainly on the edge of usable.
Also - we're wondering whether we're better rating the stock at 125 ASA and pulling it chemically OR rating it 500 and pulling it digitally? And whether each of those processes would have their own merit for different situations (day vs. dusk).
Thanks in advance!
Edited by Joshua Lipworth, 29 December 2016 - 10:34 AM.