Vision2 500T - Normally grainy??

[Peter Anderson]

The problem is there are so many variables that contribute to the images you've posted. Initial exposure, age of film, lenses, flaring of lenses, processing, telecine machine, telecine format, amount of noise reduction. Is this 16mm or super-16mm?? Vision 2 500T is a remarkable film stock, w/ much finer grain than older high-speed stocks.

 

Just consider that the "richest and most crisp image possible" is not a function solely of the grain of the film. That said, use fresh film, overexpose a little, protect the lens from stray light, process normal ... then "grain" or "noise" becomes a function of the telecine machine, and tape format.

 

Good Luck!

 

Its super16. I was more interested in knowing whether i could get a better quality image (in terms of grain) out of 500T or whether i should switch to a slower stock.

[Freya Black]

Its super16. I was more interested in knowing whether i could get a better quality image (in terms of grain) out of 500T or whether i should switch to a slower stock.

 

Newer film = less grain.

Slower film also = less grain.

I'm not sure how you exposed the existing film but if you rate it 2/3 of a stop higher (i.e. slower) then that should help tighten the grain a bit too!

 

You could also shoot on more than one filmstock as long as you seperate the stocks across different scenes. The idea behined the VisionII family is that you are supposed to be able to intercut the different stocks to some extent. However this obviously leads to more tricky budget decisions but basically you could use 200T for the scenes with more light and 500T for the scenes with less. I think it's still sensible to try and rate the stock a little higher than the factory label.

 

I too think you are being too hard on yourself.

I think we all have ideas about how we would like things to come out and then they are never quite as perfect as we would like, and I suspect that only gets worse as you get more experienced because you will end up trying to reach higher and higher. The trick is to try your very best and to accept what you manage to achieve at the end.

 

Something went weird with your shoot, it was either the film or the telecine or maybe a combination of both, the colourist compensating for the film that had gone a bit bad.

I actually really like the effect in the first shot. It's less pronounced on a real monitor I discovered this morning but I actually really like the painting like effect.

 

Don't be disheatened I'm sure you will work it out and learn loads more in the process! :)

 

love

 

Freya

[Peter Anderson]

I too think you are being too hard on yourself.

I think we all have ideas about how we would like things to come out and then they are never quite as perfect as we would like, and I suspect that only gets worse as you get more experienced because you will end up trying to reach higher and higher. The trick is to try your very best and to accept what you manage to achieve at the end.

 

Thanks Freya! I always appreciate your input :)

[David Rakoczy]

So would it be better to choose 500T rated at 320 or 200T rated at 160 to get better quality images? I shouldnt have a problem re-planning my lighting setups but i would be shooting at fairly low f-stops on the 200T

 

I, personally, stay away from 500t... at all costs. I prefer a cleaner, less grainy image. I (try) to make my S16 look like 35mm so the fastest I go is 200t. I always rate it to overexpose one stop (100asa). I prefer to push 200t (1 - 1 1/2 stops) if absolutely necessary before going to 500t.. but let's face it.. there can be a time when in a large dark interior or exterior and there simply is not enough illumination so 500t or 500d is the call... better to have grainy information than none at all in the dark details.

 

Keep rolling Film! Keep it alive!

[Peter Anderson]

So would it be better to choose 500T rated at 320 or 200T rated at 160 to get better quality images? I shouldnt have a problem re-planning my lighting setups but i would be shooting at fairly low f-stops on the 200T

 

 

I, personally, stay away from 500t... at all costs. I prefer a cleaner, less grainy image. I (try) to make my S16 look like 35mm so the fastest I go is 200t. I always rate it to overexpose one stop (100asa). I prefer to push 200t (1 - 1 1/2 stops) if absolutely necessary before going to 500t.. but let's face it.. there can be a time when in a large dark interior or exterior and there simply is not enough illumination so 500t or 500d is the call... better to have grainy information than none at all in the dark details.

 

Keep rolling Film! Keep it alive!

 

From the advice I've gathered I think ill be shooting on 200T and 250D for the majority of the scenes and only use the 500T for a nightime exterior. Lighting for 100, 160 and 250ASA (respectively) will definately prove problematic so expect a lot more posts from me as principal photography looms...

Edited January 27, 2008 by Prokopi Constantinou

[John Brawley]

Lighting for 100, 160 and 250ASA (respectively) will definately prove problematic so expect a lot more posts from me as principal photography looms...

 

 

Goodluck ! I'm sure we'd all like to hear how you go and see some screenshots. Have a great shoot.

 

jb

[diego vazquez]

So would it be better to choose 500T rated at 320 or 200T rated at 160 to get better quality images? I shouldnt have a problem re-planning my lighting setups but i would be shooting at fairly low f-stops on the 200T

 

 

I, personally, stay away from 500t... at all costs. I prefer a cleaner, less grainy image. I (try) to make my S16 look like 35mm so the fastest I go is 200t. I always rate it to overexpose one stop (100asa). I prefer to push 200t (1 - 1 1/2 stops) if absolutely necessary before going to 500t.. but let's face it.. there can be a time when in a large dark interior or exterior and there simply is not enough illumination so 500t or 500d is the call... better to have grainy information than none at all in the dark details.

 

Keep rolling Film! Keep it alive!

 

i thought that 500D didnt exist. does it? where??

[John Holland]

Yes it does exist . Fuji Reala 500D

[David Rakoczy]

Here is a still from a S16 Project shot on 200t rated at 100. There is a bit of noise in the blue scrubs but when picture is rolling it is hardly noticeable. My advice, shoot longer lenses to limit the expanse you need to light unless you absolutely need to establish a location. Shoot at a low f-stop and get some soft fore and background and don't be afraid to pound light. It is fun! The hot spots on the equipment in the background where 1ks full spot just out of shot and were (incident) an 8 - 11. I believe we rolled at 2.8 but I may have dropped a ND3 and gone at a 2. You received a lot of great advice from a lot of talented folks in this thread.. go knock em dead!

[Peter Anderson]

Here is a still from a S16 Project shot on 200t rated at 100. There is a bit of noise in the blue scrubs but when picture is rolling it is hardly noticeable. My advice, shoot longer lenses to limit the expanse you need to light unless you absolutely need to establish a location. Shoot at a low f-stop and get some soft fore and background and don't be afraid to pound light. It is fun! The hot spots on the equipment in the background where 1ks full spot just out of shot and were (incident) an 8 - 11. I believe we rolled at 2.8 but I may have dropped a ND3 and gone at a 2. You received a lot of great advice from a lot of talented folks in this thread.. go knock em dead!

 

Thats brilliant. I feel more confident knowing that images that great are achievable. The lenses I have available do get a bit mushy at low f-stops though - After a buget hiccup I had to down grade from zeiss super primes and a cooke 10.8 - 60 zoom to arriflex primes and a zeiss 12-120 zoom. Bit of a kick in the teeth...

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

For 16mm work, you might try rating the stocks at 320 ASA.

 

You gave me this advice once and I've done it ever since. Also, a good tip from my personal experiences, rate the blacks at a lower ISO and you'll get interesting(and in your case, nicer) results, because the latitude is so great with 7218 it gives a really clean image where everything holds up fairly well.