Jump to content



Photo

Stills Stocks Film Stocks Equivalence

stocks still photography

  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos

Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 471 posts
  • Student
  • Athens

Posted 22 March 2018 - 11:51 AM

Is there somewhere that I can find perhaps a table which would give me which still-photography stocks correspond,closely resemble, or are equivalent to certain film stocks used for motion pictures?

 

Or perhaps you could tell me some well-documented facts or your impressions.

 

:)


  • 0

#2 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2836 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 22 March 2018 - 12:00 PM

They don't correspond. The two disciplines are very different. Stills are printed, films are projected. You're more likely to get close with an emulation filter for digital images.


  • 0

#3 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3432 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 22 March 2018 - 12:27 PM

Years ago, I was told by a Kodak trainer that Kodacolor Gold was pretty close to their motion picture stocks. This was back in the late 90's, so we would have been using the last of the EXR stocks and Vision 1. He wasn't suggesting that they were identical, but that they were close enough for casual tests. These days, I'd probably use Kodak Portra, even though it doesn't come in equivalent speeds.


  • 1

#4 Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos

Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 471 posts
  • Student
  • Athens

Posted 22 March 2018 - 01:57 PM

I remember finding out about these “approximate equivalences”, to put it that way, around here.
 
For example, here:
 
http://www.cinematog...ndpost&p=386059
 
Daniel Klockenkemper said that “Ektar 100 is probably the closest equivalent to 50D”.
 
Anthony Schilling said the same here
 
http://www.cinematog...ndpost&p=467070
 

The new Ektar 100 still film was derived from Vison3 I believe, real nice colors, finest grain film ever


I think I’ve also bumped onto certain mentions of Portra in this regard, and now I’m a bit surprised by Mark’s comments.


Edited by Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos, 22 March 2018 - 01:57 PM.

  • 0

#5 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3432 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 22 March 2018 - 06:02 PM

You're not going to find an exact match. Portra and Ektar are both based on the same T grain technology as the Vision motion picture stocks, but they're not designed to be identical.

 

I assume you've heard of the CineStill line?

 

https://cinestillfilm.com/


  • 0

#6 Edgar Nyari

Edgar Nyari
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Other

Posted 29 March 2018 - 08:24 AM

This is a really interesting topic. It seems to me that you can probably draw a parallel between various generations of technology they used, rather than actual emulsions. For example, when T-grain came out, it was probably use in the Kodacolor emulsions of the early 90s. Some of the advances in "Vision" stocks were probably also reflected in the Gold films of 2000s, and also Portra and Supra. Then came the two-electron sensitization inovation of Vision2. Some time after that Kodak came out with a brand new generation of Portra films and Ultra Color. I suspect they intergrated some of the advancements of V2 in those new still emulsions.

 

As far as the general "flavour" goes of each emulsion, I think they are quite different. Portra has an odd color palette, which renders skintones in a certain pleasing way, but looks a bit "thin" in the exteriors. Ultra Color is on the other end of the spectrum, and also has no parallel in MP world, except maybe Eterna Vivid. Gold was I guess "normal", but still more contrasty than a MP emulsion I think.

 

That all being said, I plan to play a bit with still films in my movie camera soon. I ran some tests last night (coincidentally), to see how still film behaves in a motion picture camera. I made some measurements, and concluded that I can get about two and a half seconds from a roll of 36 exposure still film. It could make for an interesting (and cheap) hobby. I suspect there might be some problems like pressure plate reflections due to the lack of rem-jet, but we'll see.

 

I do remember that someone used Kodak Gold 1600 in the early 90s for some nature documentary footage shot in low light. This is the only instance that I know of where someone used still film in a motion picture camera.


  • 0

#7 Edgar Nyari

Edgar Nyari
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 April 2018 - 06:11 AM

Here is some Kodacolor 200, developed in the local photo minilab, and scanned on a really cheap flatbed. Hand-registered. Didn't use sharpening because of the noise. Makes for a really interesting hobby. :)

 


Edited by Edgar Nyari, 21 April 2018 - 06:12 AM.

  • 0

#8 Bernhard Kipperer

Bernhard Kipperer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Other
  • Graz, Austria

Posted 21 April 2018 - 01:41 PM

Nice, I like it.

Which camera did you use?


  • 0

#9 Edgar Nyari

Edgar Nyari
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 April 2018 - 02:01 PM

Arri 35-III MOS camera.


  • 0



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: stocks, still photography

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC