Jump to content


Photo

Rating 7205


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Mark Lyon

Mark Lyon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Director
  • Solana Beach, CA

Posted 28 September 2005 - 01:23 AM

Hi all--

I know it's officially ISO250D, but I've seen comments lately about rating it at ISO500. We've used it once before, and rated it at ISO 200 in bright sun with good results (with appropriate ND). We're shooting in a dark forest setting next week (exposures in the F2.0 range at ISO 400), and would appreciate comments from anyone experienced with this stock. We're trying to decide between 7205 and 7218.

This is for SD telecine for a commercial only--no film finish.

Thanks in advance--

Mark Lyon
Mighty Max Films
  • 0

#2 Dimitrios Koukas

Dimitrios Koukas
  • Sustaining Members
  • 569 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Athens, Greece, London UK

Posted 28 September 2005 - 02:56 AM

Hi all--

I know it's officially ISO250D, but I've seen comments lately about rating it at ISO500. We've used it once before, and rated it at ISO 200 in bright sun with good results (with appropriate ND). We're shooting in a dark forest setting next week (exposures in the F2.0 range at ISO 400), and would appreciate comments from anyone experienced with this stock. We're trying to decide between 7205 and 7218.

This is for SD telecine for a commercial only--no film finish.

Thanks in advance--

Mark Lyon
Mighty Max Films

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


If it's for commercial reasons I would suggest that u rate it at 160 ASA ,
It will give you more bright highlights and some more details in the blacks, wich u can adjust in the telecine afterwards. With the assumption that u are using a CCD telecine and not a tube one.
Dimitrios Koukas
  • 0

#3 Aleksandar Bracinac

Aleksandar Bracinac
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Director
  • Belgrade, Serbia

Posted 01 October 2005 - 06:52 PM

Here you can see the 7205 rated at 250 ASA. I did metering with my Nikon D70 and 50mm/1.8 Nikkor Lens.Most of the shoots done with available lights. Some of them with aditional HMI. Transfer was not so good because of bad telecine. Anyway... take a look.

www.artvark.co.yu/client_area/nana/nanometar_54secs.zip

mpeg1 file

Edited by Aleksandar Bracinac, 01 October 2005 - 06:54 PM.

  • 0

#4 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 01 October 2005 - 07:23 PM

Here you can see the 7205 rated at 250 ASA. I did metering with my Nikon D70 and 50mm/1.8 Nikkor Lens.Most of the shoots done with available lights. Some of them with aditional HMI. Transfer was not so good because of bad telecine. Anyway... take a look.

www.artvark.co.yu/client_area/nana/nanometar_54secs.zip

mpeg1 file


Your seemingly "radical" idea of actually using this stock at the very speed it was intended for (250ASA) seems to have worked out just fine. You've got plenty of exposure. So much for the tendency of so many of us to shoot at anything BUT the rated film speed. I wonder if Kodak has altered the sensitivity between '46 and '05? My own tests between 5246 and 5205 have been inconclusive. Then again, they were telecined at best light, not one light, which would probably have made for a better test. Keep up the good work.
  • 0

#5 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 06 October 2005 - 05:20 PM

If it's for commercial reasons I would suggest that u rate it at 160 ASA ,
It will give you more bright highlights and some more details in the blacks, wich u can adjust in the telecine afterwards. With the assumption that u are using a CCD telecine and not a tube one.


For telecine I prefer to NOT overexpose the neg too much, usually only about 1/3 stop beyond the normal ASA. With too much density the telecine has to "gain up" to push through the neg and you get noise in the signal, especially in saturated colors.

I haven't shot the 7205, but with the newer, slower Kodak stocks you should still get excellent results under a variety of exposures.
  • 0

#6 Joseph White

Joseph White
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 06 October 2005 - 05:57 PM

yeah i'd definitely say just got with rating '05 at 250asa - ive shot it in bright sun in snowy climate and as day interior on a cloudy day with only a couple of 1,200w hmis coming in through the windows with a little hampshire frost and it always looked pretty great. and since you're shooting in a forrest, you'll probably need the full 250asa to get your stop.

the '18 with an 85 looks fine, but with 16mm i'd generally say use the slowest stock you can and don't go wider than 25mm-ish.

best of luck tho
  • 0

#7 Dimitrios Koukas

Dimitrios Koukas
  • Sustaining Members
  • 569 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Athens, Greece, London UK

Posted 07 October 2005 - 08:35 AM

For telecine I prefer to NOT overexpose the neg too much, usually only about 1/3 stop beyond the normal ASA. With too much density the telecine has to "gain up" to push through the neg and you get noise in the signal, especially in saturated colors.

I haven't shot the 7205, but with the newer, slower Kodak stocks you should still get excellent results under a variety of exposures.


Gain up?
For 1/2 a stop?
I am not so sure about this.
I use to overexpose a lot and always worked fine.
No grain, no pain.
Dimitrios Koukas
  • 0

#8 Andy Sparaco SOC

Andy Sparaco SOC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 203 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Chicago and most airline lounges

Posted 07 October 2005 - 08:53 AM

For me 1/3 stop over is SOP but no more then 1/2 stop over. Grain from overexpose can look worse then grain from underexposure. Crawlie hi-lights get worse and worse as you move thru post
  • 0

#9 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

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

Posted 07 October 2005 - 10:30 AM

Shooting at the rated exposure index provided by Kodak will produce excellent results for most scenes. It's a good "starting point".

As you increase exposure on a color negative film, you will generally get more detail in the shadows and "richer" blacks, and some reduction in graininess. Gross overexposure may start to affect highlight detail, and the very dense negative may be out of the normal range of printer or telecine adjustment. As mentioned, gross overexposure may produce noise in the highlights, as the gain of some telecines is increased well beyond the normal range for a really dense negative.

Underexposure tends to reduce shadow detail and increase graininess. Rating 7205 at EI 500 is underexposing the film by one stop, but may still produce results that you like for the "look" you are trying to achieve. Rating the film at EI 1000 will definitely produce increased graininess and more "milky" shadows, yet may be a "look" some want.

(I recall that Allen Daviau shot a very interesting exposure series out to -3 stops underexposure, which is in the Kodak demo of the film).
  • 0

#10 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 10 October 2005 - 04:19 PM

Gain up?
For 1/2 a stop?
I am not so sure about this.
I use to overexpose a lot and always worked fine.
No grain, no pain.


It depends on the film stock, the processing and the telecine. In general 1/3-1/2 stop over is no problem, but one stop or more can cause noise in some situations.

And of course there's a difference between the film grain and telecine noise. With a fine grained film a tiny bit of noise may not be all that noticeable, but with a grainier neg AND a little noise it can start to show up.
  • 0

#11 Dimitrios Koukas

Dimitrios Koukas
  • Sustaining Members
  • 569 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Athens, Greece, London UK

Posted 11 October 2005 - 01:13 AM

It depends on the film stock, the processing and the telecine. In general 1/3-1/2 stop over is no problem, but one stop or more can cause noise in some situations.

And of course there's a difference between the film grain and telecine noise. With a fine grained film a tiny bit of noise may not be all that noticeable, but with a grainier neg AND a little noise it can start to show up.


New telecine mahcines, usually have the sensitivity on the ccd's to ''see'' overexposed areas (dark on the negative) and handle them really well.
Dimitrios Koukas
  • 0

#12 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 11 October 2005 - 06:18 PM

New telecine mahcines, usually have the sensitivity on the ccd's to ''see'' overexposed areas (dark on the negative) and handle them really well.


Exactly -- that's why I said it depends on the telecine (among other things). Just a word of caution, not an absolute rule. First time it bites you you learn the difference! ;)
  • 0

#13 Dimitrios Koukas

Dimitrios Koukas
  • Sustaining Members
  • 569 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Athens, Greece, London UK

Posted 12 October 2005 - 03:40 AM

Exactly -- that's why I said it depends on the telecine (among other things). Just a word of caution, not an absolute rule. First time it bites you you learn the difference! ;)


Sorry Michael,
I ve missed that part.
Dimitrios
  • 0


Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

The Slider

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Visual Products

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

CineLab

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio