7218 overexposed or 7217?

Diego Lazo · September 22, 2007

Hi,

I`m shooting a short in a few weeks and I don`t have any money for testing (I live in Chile, South America, and shooting 16 mm is a bit expensive). I`ve had a previous experience with Fuji Reala 500D and the results were really bad. Too much grain. This time I`m thinking about using Kodak 7218 because I have a lot of interiors and my lighting kit is mainly composed by tungsten fresnels (650 W, 1 KW and 2KW) and some practicals. Also, I have limited power because the house where I`m filming has only 25 amps. I don`t want to commit the same mistake with the Reala (i didn`t overexposed the negative), so I`m thinking in setting my lightmeter at 320 ASA (2/3 stop over) or 250 ASA (1 stop over). Now, is this a good decision or should I change my mind and go for Kodak 7217 instead? The short is about skin, sexual tension, desire and that kind of stuff so I really want the best stock for these concepts.

Saludos y Muchas Gracias ;)

Diego.

Chris Keth · September 23, 2007

Hi,

I`m shooting a short in a few weeks and I don`t have any money for testing (I live in Chile, South America, and shooting 16 mm is a bit expensive). I`ve had a previous experience with Fuji Reala 500D and the results were really bad. Too much grain. This time I`m thinking about using Kodak 7218 because I have a lot of interiors and my lighting kit is mainly composed by tungsten fresnels (650 W, 1 KW and 2KW) and some practicals. Also, I have limited power because the house where I`m filming has only 25 amps. I don`t want to commit the same mistake with the Reala (i didn`t overexposed the negative), so I`m thinking in setting my lightmeter at 320 ASA (2/3 stop over) or 250 ASA (1 stop over). Now, is this a good decision or should I change my mind and go for Kodak 7217 instead? The short is about skin, sexual tension, desire and that kind of stuff so I really want the best stock for these concepts.

Saludos y Muchas Gracias ;)

Diego.

I like 2/3 overexposure with 7218. You're still going to have a rough time with onle 25 amps of power total.

Chris Walters · September 23, 2007

Personally I like the 18 stock but always overexpose by at least 2/3 - stop over just to get tighter grain structure and bring it back down in post to get nicer blacks. Always safe to overexpose than underexpose too. All thats my opinion and it really matters how you want it to look. I think the skin tone would be better with less grain and with the amount of lights and power you say you have its better to overexpose 18.

Chris Walters

Diego Lazo · September 23, 2007

I like 2/3 overexposure with 7218. You're still going to have a rough time with onle 25 amps of power total.

Yeah, I know I`m very limited with 25 amps. My producer is trying to get some Kinos and some other low-power lights.

Has anyone work with 7217 before?

Kevin Zanit · September 23, 2007

I have shot plenty of 5217 and 5218, not a lot in 16mm though. That said, use the '18 - Shooting 5217 at 160 (over exposing by a 1/3 of a stop) or at 200 is not very viable with the amount of light you have unless its all close ups. There is not a huge difference in grain between the two to be honest, not as much as you would think.

Anthony Schilling · September 23, 2007

There is not a huge difference in grain between the two to be honest, not as much as you would think

I agree, 7218 in 16mm is not that grainy. If you can overexpose it 2/3rds, would be a world of difference than underexposed 200T.

Diego Lazo · September 23, 2007

Will go for the 18 then.

Thank you guys for the quick response.

Adam Thompson · September 23, 2007

For safety maybe going over by a stop is a good idea for telecine, but if everything is known and controlled, rating it at 500 works perfect for me and if your sets are small, that kit sounds like it could work with fast lenses. I've had to do with less once or twice.

To quote something I just read in AC:

"I used to rate the Kodak's 500T 5218 at 320 or 400... but with the Vision 2 stocks I don't need to get quite such a thick negative to get the same result so I actually rated them at what was written on the can." Oliver Wood -shooting The Bourne Ultimatum

Rick Shepardson · September 23, 2007

Hi,

I`m shooting a short in a few weeks and I don`t have any money for testing (I live in Chile, South America, and shooting 16 mm is a bit expensive). I`ve had a previous experience with Fuji Reala 500D and the results were really bad. Too much grain. This time I`m thinking about using Kodak 7218 because I have a lot of interiors and my lighting kit is mainly composed by tungsten fresnels (650 W, 1 KW and 2KW) and some practicals. Also, I have limited power because the house where I`m filming has only 25 amps. I don`t want to commit the same mistake with the Reala (i didn`t overexposed the negative), so I`m thinking in setting my lightmeter at 320 ASA (2/3 stop over) or 250 ASA (1 stop over). Now, is this a good decision or should I change my mind and go for Kodak 7217 instead? The short is about skin, sexual tension, desire and that kind of stuff so I really want the best stock for these concepts.

Saludos y Muchas Gracias ;)

Diego.

It may be that the transfer house you are going to only uses something like a one k transfer. I say this only because I've had a similar experience. I shot 16mm 500t and transfered it using the one k process we have where I go to school. It ended up looking very grainy and flat like video. However, I have heard of students getting a two k transfer with the same stock and getting much more satisfying results.

I hope this helps

-Rick Shepardson

Edited September 23, 2007 by Rick Shepardson

Diego Lazo · September 24, 2007

For safety maybe going over by a stop is a good idea for telecine, but if everything is known and controlled, rating it at 500 works perfect for me and if your sets are small, that kit sounds like it could work with fast lenses. I've had to do with less once or twice.

Well, I know that 16 mm has more grain and less definition than 35 mm. So, it is better to overexpose the negative when you work with a faster negative in 16 mm and you don`t want too much grain in your image.

It may be that the transfer house you are going to only uses something like a one k transfer. I say this only because I've had a similar experience. I shot 16mm 500t and transfered it using the one k process we have where I go to school. It ended up looking very grainy and flat like video. However, I have heard of students getting a two k transfer with the same stock and getting much more satisfying results.
I hope this helps

-Rick Shepardson

This makes sense. The Reala stuff was transfered in an old machine. This time I`m going for a URSA Diamond Y Front with a Da Vinci DUI Color Corrector. Now, I think that the URSA is not 2K but I`ve seen really good results with this machine.

Michael Nash · September 24, 2007

This time I`m going for a URSA Diamond Y Front with a Da Vinci DUI Color Corrector. Now, I think that the URSA is not 2K but I`ve seen really good results with this machine.

It's neither 1K nor 2K -- it's a video telecine, not a data scan.

http://www.cintel.co.uk/products_ursa.html

http://www.cintel.co.uk/products_creality.html

Chris Keth · September 24, 2007

To quote something I just read in AC:

"I used to rate the Kodak's 500T 5218 at 320 or 400... but with the Vision 2 stocks I don't need to get quite such a thick negative to get the same result so I actually rated them at what was written on the can." Oliver Wood -shooting The Bourne Ultimatum

That may be for 35mm but for 16 I would still overexpose to tighten up the grain. It's not such a big deal in 35.

Adam Thompson · September 27, 2007

That may be for 35mm but for 16 I would still overexpose to tighten up the grain. It's not such a big deal in 35.

If you can do it, it probably is a good policy overall, but I wouldn't not shoot if I couldnt get over due to lack of lighting, etc.. I did a short a couple years ago on Reala and had to wait out part of the morning until a room got to a 2.8 via sunlight bouncing in through two windows. There were no lights at all. Since I had an old Ang. zoom I was worried since it was so slow, but it all came out fine. I guess if you really need the clean, no grain look, then that's not the best route, but it fit that project well. Though Reala seems to be a little overly grainy no matter what you do.