How far can you push Eastman 7222 and Kodak 7219?

[Kai Zeger]

I'm looking to shoot nighttime on 16mm and was wondering what the furthest you can push XX 7222 and vision 3 7219 while still maintaining a useable-ish image. I don't mind high amounts of grain, or loss of detail, but am mostly curious if anyone has any examples of these stocks pushed past 1600.

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I found a couple of useful links about 5219. 

https://www.35mmc.com/27/09/2023/5-frames-of-kodak-vision3-500t-pushed-to-1600-at-

home/https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/vision-3-500t-pushed-one-or-two-stops.202264/

This video has been posted here a lot, and it's worth examining:

 

 

[Tyler Purcell]

7 hours ago, Kai Zeger said:

I'm looking to shoot nighttime on 16mm and was wondering what the furthest you can push XX 7222 and vision 3 7219 while still maintaining a useable-ish image. I don't mind high amounts of grain, or loss of detail, but am mostly curious if anyone has any examples of these stocks pushed past 1600.

16mm? I wouldn't push it unless you want a pile of grain. It's already borderline too grainy for me. I shoot most of my tungsten stuff in 200T unless I need for some reason, to have the extra speed due to lack of lighting control. One stop push is only 3/4 of a stop anyway, so we're not talking MUCH difference. With fast lenses, you can get away with quite a bit as well. 

7222 is pretty much mud in the blacks anyway, you really have to light it well to get anything. I would over light it if possible. Unlike color film, which has a more defined look due to it being color, with negative, there is no detail in the blacks unless there is SOME light to augment. I shoot 7222 with a 4 stop range maximum (2 stops under, 2 stops over). This means, everything in frame, should be within the 4 stops if you really want it to be exposed properly. 

With 500T, you can get away with 3 stops under and 3 stops over (6 stops total) which is very nice. Much under 3 stops under and you're getting into "mud" territory. You don't change that with a push. You're still in that 6 stop range and all you really gain is more grain honestly. The down side is that you create more contrast. Which can be a detractor if you're looking for details in the blacks. The only added detail you'll get is just off middle gray, so maybe 2 stops under? You may see slightly more detail there, but anything that's under that, there won't be any difference. 

Turning 500T black and white digitally in post, is a far better option than using 7222. It's what I have done for years on my films if I need a high speed stock. Plus the color stocks, allow you to adjust which colors you're representing in post, which means in really dark moments, you can accentuate certain aspects directly when you turn it black and white, which kinda gives you a tool which doesn't exist in the black and white negative world. 

[Kai Zeger]

2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

16mm? I wouldn't push it unless you want a pile of grain. It's already borderline too grainy for me. I shoot most of my tungsten stuff in 200T unless I need for some reason, to have the extra speed due to lack of lighting control. One stop push is only 3/4 of a stop anyway, so we're not talking MUCH difference. With fast lenses, you can get away with quite a bit as well. 

7222 is pretty much mud in the blacks anyway, you really have to light it well to get anything. I would over light it if possible. Unlike color film, which has a more defined look due to it being color, with negative, there is no detail in the blacks unless there is SOME light to augment. I shoot 7222 with a 4 stop range maximum (2 stops under, 2 stops over). This means, everything in frame, should be within the 4 stops if you really want it to be exposed properly. 

With 500T, you can get away with 3 stops under and 3 stops over (6 stops total) which is very nice. Much under 3 stops under and you're getting into "mud" territory. You don't change that with a push. You're still in that 6 stop range and all you really gain is more grain honestly. The down side is that you create more contrast. Which can be a detractor if you're looking for details in the blacks. The only added detail you'll get is just off middle gray, so maybe 2 stops under? You may see slightly more detail there, but anything that's under that, there won't be any difference. 

Turning 500T black and white digitally in post, is a far better option than using 7222. It's what I have done for years on my films if I need a high speed stock. Plus the color stocks, allow you to adjust which colors you're representing in post, which means in really dark moments, you can accentuate certain aspects directly when you turn it black and white, which kinda gives you a tool which doesn't exist in the black and white negative world. 

Got it, this makes a lot of sense. I’m looking to shoot a scene that is lost highway-esque ideally on celluloid but am limited to 16mm because of budget. I also would ideally like to stick with mostly practical lighting in this scene. Do you think it’s possible to achieve enough light through car headlights so that at least the subject is properly exposed?

[Brian Drysdale]

I shot a film, which had a lot of night street scenes, which used 7222 and Ilford Mark V B & W negative. At the time, I could only get 7222 in 100ft rolls, so only got used on a limited number of night shots, which were lit, but it was quite grainy. Most of the night shots were on  Ilford Mark V, I tested forcing one stop, but there didn't appear to be any advantage over just printing it up. Having recently had a 2k scan of the film, the grain on the poor street lighting shots was very grainy, brighter street lighting held up much better, but still had noticeable grain. 

The lenses used were f1.4 and 0.95, the camera for the night shots had a mirror shutter and was run at 18fps (both for pacing and the extra exposure).   

[Robert Houllahan]

This is 5222 pushed +1 and +2 we ran in F76:

 

[Robert Houllahan]

We are doing some tests for a film and ran some push +3 and +4 for 7222 but I cannot show that, it looks ok but obviously grainy which is what they wanted.

We regularly run 500t to +2 and have done +3 but going beyond +3 is a bit tricky because you really have to slow the processor down allot and possibly add heat to the developer which can have unintended color shifts which have to be compensated for with a different repo on the developer chems.

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

On 2/26/2024 at 12:19 AM, Robert Houllahan said:

We are doing some tests for a film and ran some push +3 and +4 for 7222 but I cannot show that, it looks ok but obviously grainy which is what they wanted.

We regularly run 500t to +2 and have done +3 but going beyond +3 is a bit tricky because you really have to slow the processor down allot and possibly add heat to the developer which can have unintended color shifts which have to be compensated for with a different repo on the developer chems.

You should just do the tests...to show. That is your biz! Breastfeed the info to them. Your website does a pretty good job at it already...but go the distance, Robert!

Cine' / photo deals in images, not in words or charts.

[Robert Houllahan]

7 hours ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said:

You should just do the tests...to show. That is your biz! Breastfeed the info to them. Your website does a pretty good job at it already...but go the distance, Robert!

Cine' / photo deals in images, not in words or charts.

We did the tests to show.

The client.

Who we did the tests for.

And who paid for them.

[Stephen Perera]

Eastman Double X is a 'special' film, I love it in 16mm. Beautifully exposed / treated in 'Poor Things' - the best I have seen this stock look for years, even more pleasing to my eye than in Oppenheimer. Thus I would never shoot Vision3 and turn it to BW unless its for financial reasons as it costs more for labs to process/scan it in my experience. The greyscale on this film is special to my eyes

[Robin Phillips]

having done evening available light tests with 16mm 7219 before, IMO you can push one stop so long as you rate at 800. It will be grainy, but still usable and even can be digitally cleaned up without much effort. 2 stops is an unrecoverable mess of confetti. in 35mm you can get away with more due to the extra negative size and the relative reduction in grain size.