Kodak hi-speed stocks - 7218 vs 7279

Sarah Hamblin · November 17, 2005

I'm shooting a project next weekend and need to choose a stock. I'd be shooting at a fairly low f-stop, since it's indoors and I don't have access to too many lights.

I'd like to have as much color saturation as possible, and I don't care too much about graininess. Someone posted earlier that the Vision2 stocks (ie 7218) have lower saturation than the older Vision stocks (ie. 7279). Is this a very noticable difference? What are the other differences?

This is for a class, so I'm going to experiment with some special processing, since I'm not the one paying for it. :) I'd like to overexpose by one stop and print down. On the camera report, should I write "print down", "print down one stop", or is there different terminology altogether?

John Pytlak RIP · November 17, 2005

I'm shooting a project next weekend and need to choose a stock. I'd be shooting at a fairly low f-stop, since it's indoors and I don't have access to too many lights.

I'd like to have as much color saturation as possible, and I don't care too much about graininess. Someone posted earlier that the Vision2 stocks (ie 7218) have lower saturation than the older Vision stocks (ie. 7279). Is this a very noticable difference? What are the other differences?

This is for a class, so I'm going to experiment with some special processing, since I'm not the one paying for it. :) I'd like to overexpose by one stop and print down. On the camera report, should I write "print down", "print down one stop", or is there different terminology altogether?

The color difference between the equivalent Kodak VISION and VISION2 stocks is subtle, and most consider it more "natural", especially for mixed flesh tones. The tone scale of the VISION2 films is much more neutral up and down the scale. And the image structure is better, especially for having lower granularity.

If your dailies or transfers are being timed or graded, the timer/colorist will normally correct per your instructions.

Laurent Andrieux · November 18, 2005

Recently saw again the 35mm demo comparing the two stocks. The fleshtones are a bit more redish with the 79 and the colors are a bit more saturated. But also, the definition is a bit lower than with the vision 2 18.

79 is a bit more grainy, and it sounds like you're looking forthat, but, on the other hand, as you plan to overexpose and pull process, that wiould reduce grain.

Reading what you say, it sounds like the 79 would be fine for the look you are looking for. You can also consider two parameters : Vision 2 is more expensive, and you could also consider achieving the look your looking for by filtering or in post, if you go DI post production...

I think I would specify pull one stop on the cans, though in France we don't do that, we write "fine grain" what means "pull process" and don't specify "one stop", but the more information you give, the more comfortable you feel, hey... in case there could be any doubt, it only uses a bit more room on the can, no more...

Sam Wells · November 18, 2005

If you're just 'printing down' I would NOT NOT write pull process on the can !!

Printing down from a dense negative is not "special processing" in fact it's pretty common.

NB be careful with local terms; someone on CML recently had a bunch of neg they wanted pull processed in fact pushed processed at Technicolor Rome (I think) through a languge misunderstanding.

Printing instructions go on the camera report or sheet for the timer/grader.

-Sam

Stephen Williams · November 18, 2005

NB be careful with local terms; someone on CML recently had a bunch of neg they wanted pull processed in fact pushed processed at Technicolor Rome (I think) through a languge misunderstanding.

-Sam

Hi,

They wrote instructions in Italian, that was the problem! The lab would have understood correctly had the instructions been in English! I always telephone and warn if I want special processing.

Stephen

Laurent Andrieux · November 18, 2005

Yeah, right, sorry, read the firts post too quickly, sorry, you didn't say pull process one stop, only print down... It's so common to overexpose 1 stop and pull process that it was what I had in mind after reading...

One thing you can do is to have a grey card shot in the same conditions ie overexposed 1 stop (for each sequence or at least each roll, ask your lab if they like it better in head or at the end) so they have a reference and they will them print it correctly without problem.

Sorry again.

Joseph White · November 19, 2005

didn't kodak discontinue the 16mm versions of the 79 and the 74? i love 5279 very much and have had great results with it in the past even in its 16mm incarnation, but i believe it's gone now.

maybe you can find short ends of it somewhere, but i don't believe those stocks are being made anymore.

David Mullen ASC · November 19, 2005

Last I talked to a Kodak rep a few days ago, they decided to keep '74 and '79 going for now. '45, on the other hand, may be on the chopping block since it never was a big seller to begin with.

Joseph White · November 19, 2005

Last I talked to a Kodak rep a few days ago, they decided to keep '74 and '79 going for now. '45, on the other hand, may be on the chopping block since it never was a big seller to begin with.

well thats certainly good news as i tried ordering some 7274 for a short i just shot last week and they said it was no longer being made (they had a bunch of a-minima loads around but nothing in 400' cans). we ended up shooting on the 7217 which is nice, but i would have liked the pop of 7274 on this particular show.

David Mullen ASC · November 20, 2005

well thats certainly good news as i tried ordering some 7274 for a short i just shot last week and they said it was no longer being made (they had a bunch of a-minima loads around but nothing in 400' cans). we ended up shooting on the 7217 which is nice, but i would have liked the pop of 7274 on this particular show.

Perhaps they are only keeping '74 & '79 available in the 35mm format. If you are shooting Super-16 for telecine transfer, you can color-correct '17 to look more like '74 anyway.

Edited November 20, 2005 by David Mullen

Joseph White · November 20, 2005

yes indeed, kodak has discontinued the 16mm versions of 74 and 79. the 35mm versions are still in production. i do like the 17 quite a bit and will definitely be upping the contrast a bit in telecine to more closely approximate the look of 7274.