Jump to content


Photo

ETERNA 500T


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 J Costantini

J Costantini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 23 July 2005 - 12:19 PM

Hi
Have you guys tested the new FujiFilm stock ETERNA 500T?

I've watched a few tests and liked it a lot but haven't tested myself.

Any comments? In comparison to Kodak's 18 Vision2??

Thanks
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19761 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 July 2005 - 01:28 PM

By coincidence, I just screened at FotoKem a comparison test shot in 35mm 1.85 by Allen Daviau, ASC of Eterna 500T versus Kodak 5218.

Both were rated at 400 ASA by Daviau, a standard practice.

The Eterna 500T was actually slightly finer-grained; 5218 looked slightly "grittier" in comparison. But Eterna is also a little softer, more pastel, and lower in contrast than Kodak 5218, which some might not like since 5218 is already lower in contrast than the old Vision 500T 5279 is.

Overall, Eterna 500T 8573 and Vision-2 500T 5218 were darn pretty similar other than what I described. Skintones were good on both, with Eterna being mildy less saturated.

If Fuji had slightly upped the contrast, it would have been the same as 5218 for sharpness and saturation, but still be slightly finer-grained. But because of the softer contrast and sharpness of Eterna, some might still prefer Kodak '18, especially for 16mm work.

Everything was printed on Fuji 3513 D.I.

Fuji is going to obsolete their lower-contrast "normal" stock, 3510, and make the D.I. stock the "normal" stock and create a higher-contrast, higher D-max, higher saturation stock just a notch below Vision Premier called "XD" (extreme density?).

I also saw a test shot in Japan comparing the low-con F-400T to its replacement, and the new F-400T is slightly finer-grained and a little less low-con, but otherwise, not a major change.
  • 0

#3 J Costantini

J Costantini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 23 July 2005 - 04:13 PM

Do you think the finer grain found on ETERNA could be interesting for a super-16mm blow up?
Or could the pastel qualities of it affect my final sharpness on a 35mm copy?
  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19761 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 July 2005 - 07:21 PM

Do you think the finer grain found on ETERNA could be interesting for a super-16mm blow up?
Or could the pastel qualities of it affect my final sharpness on a 35mm copy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I think it would be a wash between 7218 and Fuji Eterna for a blow-up -- Eterna is barely finer-grained and '18 is barely sharper. I'd pick either based on the look you need because technically they are very similar. You might not want something more pastel, but then, you might.

When I say Eterna 500T looked finer-grained, I mean I had to stare for a long time to notice it because it is a subtle improvement compared to '18. It may be within a margin of error, meaning that how you expose it that day, or how the lab processes it, etc. may make '18 look finer-grained.
  • 0

#5 jeremy edge

jeremy edge
  • Guests

Posted 28 July 2005 - 12:46 PM

I thought I would post a still I got from the colorist.My tapes havent gotten back yet.

He said the footage was GRAINY! could I have gotten bad stock?

He said exposure was good ,except for one scene where we were way under.
This shot is actually slightly over exposed.I'll know more when I get the tapes but this frame scares me.
  • 0

#6 jeremy edge

jeremy edge
  • Guests

Posted 28 July 2005 - 12:48 PM

Sorry...didnt attach
here it is

Attached Images

  • shadowframefuji.jpg

  • 0

#7 scribe

scribe

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 28 July 2005 - 03:39 PM

It could be due to underexposure. I've tested Eterna myself and liked it alot. Also rating it at 400 it was very fine grained and as David mentioned low contrast. I found however that it doesn't deal quite as well with underexposure as the vision2 stocks.

I'd like to test pushing a stop to see where the grain and contrast go...

Oh- I shot on s16.
  • 0

#8 Travis Cline

Travis Cline
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 28 July 2005 - 04:19 PM

Has anyone tested the Eterna 400? I'm sort of forced into Fuji for my next show which is fine, but I would like a high speed stock, but low contrast is not my first choice. How does the 400 compare to the 500 in that regard?

Travis
  • 0

#9 Travis Cline

Travis Cline
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 28 July 2005 - 04:25 PM

I forgot to say, we're shooting 35mm. Thanks
  • 0

#10 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19761 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 29 July 2005 - 01:14 AM

400T is even lower in contrast than 500T.
  • 0

#11 jeremy edge

jeremy edge
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2005 - 12:01 PM

Here is some more frame grabs right from the dvcam...

http://extremesoundo...e.com/film1.jpg

http://extremesoundo...e.com/film2.jpg

http://extremesoundo...e.com/film3.jpg

Not quite as sharp as we expected ,but not bad.
  • 0

#12 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 01 August 2005 - 12:17 PM

Here is some more frame grabs right from the dvcam...

http://extremesoundo...e.com/film1.jpg

http://extremesoundo...e.com/film2.jpg

http://extremesoundo...e.com/film3.jpg

Not quite as sharp as we expected ,but not bad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Hi,

What was the telecine ?

Stephen Williams Lighting Cameraman

www.stephenw.com
  • 0

#13 jeremy edge

jeremy edge
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2005 - 12:44 PM

Hi,

What was the telecine ?

Stephen Williams Lighting Cameraman

www.stephenw.com

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Thompson Shadow
  • 0

#14 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 01 August 2005 - 12:48 PM

Thompson Shadow

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Hi,

Did they use any noise reducer ? The Shadow is a good machine.

Stephen
  • 0

#15 jeremy edge

jeremy edge
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2005 - 03:19 PM

Hi,

Did they use any noise reducer ? The Shadow is a good machine.

Stephen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, supposedly...he said he hid the grain the best he could.

I talked to fuji rep and he said it looks like an underexposure problem to him....but those outdoor shots were if anything over....eric did a little darkening for style.
  • 0

#16 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 01 August 2005 - 03:32 PM

Yes, supposedly...he said he hid the grain the best he could.

I talked to fuji rep and he said it looks like an underexposure problem to him....but those outdoor shots were if anything over....eric did a little darkening for style.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Try some 7218 under exactly the same conditions.
  • 0

#17 jeremy edge

jeremy edge
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2005 - 07:06 PM

Try some 7218 under exactly the same conditions. B)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


John that is exactly what i basically tried to imply! I told the fuji rep I had shot some 500 stock in available light indoors and it turned out fine and he's telling me that indoors with bright sun in the windows and 3 500 watt fresnels in a small room at 2.8 f stop: I am so undrexposed its grain city.I don't buy it.He was nice but basically like "It's probably your fault" in so many words.

Here is some small clips...I know its hard to tell with wmv.
Now we have the conflict of using the grainy film or using what we shot with the xl2 which we dont have as much coverage on.so its sharpness versus aesthetic and vibe.Thank god we shot both and have options though.

http://www.extremeso.../filmschool.wmv
http://www.extremeso...sl/filmsnow.wmv

here are some stills from the xl2
http://www.extremeso...epullsindex.htm

Only thing that sucks is the slo mo on the xl2 is at 24p givi
ng only 12 frames instead of the 24 we get on 16.

What would you guys do?
  • 0

#18 jeremy edge

jeremy edge
  • Guests

Posted 01 August 2005 - 08:35 PM

Hey John,
Come to think of it the only shots on their "lights 2" dvd that are in 16mm are sunny exteriors.If they had done some of their "Extinguishing light sources' shots in 16 based on what I've seen .....they would have looked absolutely awful.

Edited by jeremy edge, 01 August 2005 - 08:35 PM.

  • 0

#19 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19761 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 August 2005 - 01:04 PM

Well, all I can say is that I've been shooting Fuji for 15 years or more and haven't had exposure problems. If it looks murky & grainy, then it probably was underexposed too much.
  • 0

#20 jeremy edge

jeremy edge
  • Guests

Posted 04 August 2005 - 05:07 PM

Well, all I can say is that I've been shooting Fuji for 15 years or more and haven't had exposure problems.  If it looks murky & grainy, then it probably was underexposed too much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


How much underexposure does it take for it to fall apart like that?
Like I said this was a bright july day...outdoors I think the smallest f stop was f8.i was getting some clicks on the sekonic that were telling me f11 and f16 rating the stock at 250 and the reflected meter in the k3 was right in the middle or a touch over with setting its dial to line up with 250 at our shooting speed.so I figured rating it at 250 with both meters would put me in the safe to overexposed zone.

Indoors we rated the same but bounced some of the lights off the ceiling directly over the subjects and some right on the band's faces.Plus had the overhead flourescents on full and there were quite a few of them.That's the snow shot you see....we turned on an extra fill for all the 48fps scenes and always adjusted our shutter angle when metering ....24fps =1/60 48fps=1/120. Almost all indoor shots were at f2.8.

I thought if I gave a more detailed description of the lighting and conditions you might be able to make a better assesment of what happened....which i keep thinking more and more ....something went wrong...either bad stock...mishandling by the shipper etc.X-ray ...I mean ,something. This is really some of the worst grain I've seen in 16mm and we we're cooking pretty good.

In other words...if we did not have enough light to shoot with 500 asa then i would hate to see what it takes to shoot with 100asa. We started out with a cool ,shaded school basement and literally were about to pass out from the heat of the lights after them being on for a short time.

Not trying to be too pig-headed....I do get it: You underexpose, you get nasty grain.....But man I am telling you we we're shooting in anything but dim conditions.

Anyone seen "Lights 2"? They have her shutting off lights sometimes backlit by darkness.but the only 16mm examples they provide are outdoors in bright sun...which i find interesting since it is a high speed tungsten stock. I'm sure most experiences with fuji are positive but I am still scratching my head on this one.
  • 0


Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Glidecam

Technodolly

Opal

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Opal

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS