comparing stocks

J. Scott Portingale · December 29, 2006

Is there a website that compares the unique look each different stock has to offer? MAybe with comparison sample stills of what the film looks like after proccessing? If so could someone send me a link. Thanks.

Jon Kukla · December 29, 2006

There's no easy way to do this, since there are so many factors involved - what you are lighting, what the dynamic range of the shot is, what colors are being used, what you are exposing for, whether or not you are under or overexposing, what your development process is, what your printing process is, etc...

Fuji and Kodak do both offer some test shorts which were designed mainly to show some degree of comparison, but ultimately what you need to do is narrow your choices down somewhat and then test, test, test. It can't be overstated - testing is everything. No two projects will have the exact same approach, so figure out the look you want, and try to create it.

The other thing to keep in mind is that as far as each of the "families" - Vision2 and Eterna - are concerned, the object has been to keep them closely calibrated to each other for contrast and color rendition. While there are certain exceptions, like the Expression stock or the Fuji low-con 400T, generally this means that your main concern for shooting will be picking a stock with an appropriate EI for your needs. But again, testing between a few similar possibilities will be the best way to figure out what approach works for your intentions.

David Mullen ASC · December 29, 2006

Yes, the majority of Vision-2 stocks, or Fuji Eterna stocks, are designed to NOT look different but to be intercuttable as much as possible, varying only by speed and thus graininess. They were designed to work as a series. Only a few have unique looks built into them, mainly the low-con stocks and the few color reversal ones.

I once shot a comparison test between 5217 (200T) and 5218 (500T) and projected the results in a movie theater and the director couldn't tell a difference between them and truthfully, I was hard-pressed to see a difference other than a slight reduction in graininess in the 200T.

Jon Kukla · December 29, 2006

The Kodak V2 test film even has a split screen of a girl on the phone, shot simultaneously on 100T, 200T, and 500T, and it's completely astounding how close they all look.

David Mullen ASC · December 30, 2006

The Kodak V2 test film even has a split screen of a girl on the phone, shot simultaneously on 100T, 200T, and 500T, and it's completely astounding how close they all look.

I remember Kodak playing that demo on a 22" HD monitor at some expo booth and I couldn't tell them apart even on that unless I put my face against the glass of the monitor... so imagine how useless some quicktime files on a website would be for comparison. You'd need 4K scans of individual frames to download to really be able to study the differences in grain structure.

It's always best to shoot your own test and project it at the lab.

Dan Goulder · December 30, 2006

I once shot a comparison test between 5217 (200T) and 5218 (500T) and projected the results in a movie theater and the director couldn't tell a difference between them and truthfully, I was hard-pressed to see a difference other than a slight reduction in graininess in the 200T.

Did you light both stocks to the same T-stop, or did you use the same lighting with a different T-stop for each stock? Thanks.

David Mullen ASC · December 30, 2006

Did you light both stocks to the same T-stop, or did you use the same lighting with a different T-stop for each stock? Thanks.

I think I adjusted the level so that it was the same f-stop and contrast ratios. But it was a couple of years ago so I'm not sure. Basic stuff, face plus a MacBeth chart, etc.

J. Scott Portingale · December 31, 2006

I think I will rent the cam for a day and test test TEST. I can change the varibles in as many ways as I can think of until I reach a result that matches the look I have in my head. Thanks guys....

Jon Kukla · December 31, 2006

Keep in mind that you don't necessarily need to rent the camera just to test - if you are already planning to rent with a particular company for the actual shoot, then just ask them if you can come in to shoot some on-site tests. As long as it's obvious that you are shooting tests (ie charts and the like) and not actual footage for the film, and as long as you don't take the equipment further than just outside the site's premises, they very likely will allow you to do it gratis. (Of course the film still will cost you.) I've found that most places are happy to let you test to your heart's content, provided that you are going to rent with them for the shoot and as long as the equipment is available.