problems with 7229

[Thomas Cousin]

hello,

not really a question.

juste to know if someone already encounters some problems concerning grain while shooting with 7229.

i shot it for a few night scenes on a film (first time for me using this stock) and i just saw the telecine.

the result is very very grainy. i am ready to expect a little grain from a super 16 500 stock especially in dark moody night scenes. but this time it was extremly grainy. even in normal processing, normal exposure.

i know better the 7218, and i was expecting the same kind of grain structure or almost the same.

plus, the footage appears to be darker than i expected and as i said very grainy. i try to be pretty accurate concerning my exposure while filming, so i can say i didn't underexpose accidentaly the footage.

could it be a problem with processing ? or something else concerning the stock itself ?

thanks

 

thomas

Edited January 23, 2006 by Thomas Cousin

[Dan Goulder]

The '29 stock does appear to have more grain than '18. It also has the properties of lower contrast. It was never designed to replace '18, but rather to augment it. There is a substantial difference in look between the two stocks, and your preference for the shooting that you're doing may just well lend itself toward going with the '18.

[John Pytlak RIP]

hello,

not really a question.

juste to know if someone already encounters some problems concerning grain while shooting with 7229.

i shot it for a few night scenes on a film (first time for me using this stock) and i just saw the telecine.

the result is very very grainy. i am ready to expect a little grain from a super 16 500 stock especially in dark moody night scenes. but this time it was extremly grainy. even in normal processing, normal exposure.

i know better the 7218, and i was expecting the same kind of grain structure or almost the same.

plus, the footage appears to be darker than i expected and as i said very grainy. i try to be pretty accurate concerning my exposure while filming, so i can say i didn't underexpose accidentaly the footage.

could it be a problem with processing ? or something else concerning the stock itself ?

thanks

 

thomas

 

Much depends upon how your colorist graded the images. Even with similar graininess, a lower contrast film can appear grainier because the shadow (dark) areas of the image may be transferred with less "blackness", so the larger grains are more visible than if they had been transferred with "blacker blacks".

 

The only other "problem" I could envision is that the stock had not been stored properly, or had been subjected to low intensity x-ray exposure during shipping, either of which could increase the graininess.

[David Mullen ASC]

'29 shouldn't be significantly grainier than '18, only mildly so. But it IS grainier, no doubt.

 

The only problem I have with Expression showed itself in the answer print to "Akeelah" -- I rated it at 320 ASA and it looked great, but the smallest variations of printer lights to brighten shots that were only a half-stop too dark, let's say, caused a visible shift in the black levels. This seems to be true of all low-con stocks going back to '77.

[Jamie Metzger]

'29 shouldn't be significantly grainier than '18, only mildly so. But it IS grainier, no doubt.

 

The only problem I have with Expression showed itself in the answer print to "Akeelah" -- I rated it at 320 ASA and it looked great, but the smallest variations of printer lights to brighten shots that were only a half-stop too dark, let's say, caused a visible shift in the black levels. This seems to be true of all low-con stocks going back to '77.

 

Doesn't hurt to over expose the night stuff by atleast 1 1/2-2 stops, just to have that lattitude. The Vision 2 stocks have a 7 stop lattitude, so you would have been safe.

 

Now deciding if you had enough light to overexpose 2 stops is the other question.

Edited January 23, 2006 by Jmetzger

[David Mullen ASC]

My feeling tends to be that once you are overexposing by a full stop, you probably should consider just using a slower-speed stock, unless it is a unique-look stock like Expression for which there is no slower speed version.

 

Plus there is the practicality issue -- sometimes I have to push-process 500T stock for night work, so rating it below 250 ASA isn't really an option.

[Oron Cohen]

My feeling tends to be that once you are overexposing by a full stop, you probably should consider just using a slower-speed stock, unless it is a unique-look stock like Expression for which there is no slower speed version.

 

I think David is right, if you want less grain just go for a lower asa stock (7217), but it also gave me to think on another thing, why, why Kodak stopped producing the 7277(320T)? I recently do a blow-up from R16 to 35mm to a short film I shoot and the grain structure was very good, and the stock gave the film that was mainly in day interiors very beautiful look the night scenes shoot on 7218 and they intercut very good, grain wise also.

If someone gets the chance you can see this film in the Berlin film festival in two weeks time or so, the name of the film is "vika".

I think Kodak need to understand that there are filmmakers that don't have any money to do a DI.

And all the V2 films is very good films but look the same and that doesn?t give you so much creative choices to work with. In the V1 if I chosen the 7274 or 7277 or 7246 I was actually changing the look of the film and for poor filmmakers like me this is very impotent. I hope Kodak are going to make at least one more stock and it will be different from the normal stocks and have lower asa from the 7279 (expression).

[David Mullen ASC]

The reason for obsoleting 5277 320T was pretty simple: 5229 (Expression 500T) had the same low-con look, was faster, but just as fine-grained, if not finer-grained, and it was slightly sharper. So there really wasn't a reason to keep '77 anymore and probably the drop in sales confirmed that.

 

The Vision-2 line-up as a whole is slightly low-contrast, so while I agree that there should be a slow-speed version of Expression as a companion film (or a slow-speed version of '99 to complement that stock), one could probably getaway with just pull-processing something like Vision-2 100T to have a match to Expression when you wanted less grain and slower speed.

 

I feel the same way about Fuji's low-con F-400T, that they should have a 100T or so version to complement it, because it's borderline too soft & grainy for day exterior work.

 

If Kodak & Fuji wanted to help us folks not using a DI, I think they should release one super-saturated hi-con color neg stock for those of us who want that look, maybe in the middle 250 ASA range if there would be only one speed. Sort of like a negative version of Fuji Velvia / Kodak Ektachrome HC, although not quite THAT contrasty just to be practical.

[Paul M. Sommers]

I agree with David. Though the new 50D is supposed to have amazing saturation, it would be nice to have a higher ASA option with the same level of saturation. I'm wondering if anyone has tested pushing this film 2 or 3 stops?

 

Paul M. Sommers

[David Mullen ASC]

I agree with David. Though the new 50D is supposed to have amazing saturation, it would be nice to have a higher ASA option with the same level of saturation. I'm wondering if anyone has tested pushing this film 2 or 3 stops?

 

Paul M. Sommers

 

If by "50D" you are referring to Vision-2 50D 5201, the color saturation (and contrast) is the same as for the rest of the normal-contrast Vision-2 line for intercutability. The old EXR 50D stock, 5245, has more saturation.

 

I'm more suggesting is that Kodak and Fuji could come out with two more stocks: one is a slow-speed version of the low-con Expression, or even of '99; the other is a super-saturated higher-contrast color neg stock, maybe in the 200-320 ASA range.