Rating 5219

[Tim Carroll]

In the past, when shooting 7218 I have rated it at 320 like everyone recommends to tighten up the grain and give a slightly denser negative. I always thought this was so that if I decided to try to blow it up to 35mm for a release print, it would not look so grainy.

 

I will be doing a test with the new Vision3 5219 stock with a 35mm camera. This is my first experience shooting 35mm and my first experience shooting the new Vision3 stock.

 

What I am wondering is first, since this is 35mm, and won't need to be blown up to create a 35mm release print, is overexposing it by 2/3 of a stop necessary (it sure would be nice to have the whole ASA 500 to work with, instead of the ASA 320)?

 

And second, is overexposing the new Vision3 stock giving similar results to what we got overexposing the Vision2 stock (7218 & 5218)?

 

Thanks for any and all input.

 

Best,

-Tim

[Adrian Sierkowski]

It has been my understanding that over-exposing always helps tighten up the grain structure regardless of format. I think a lot of this depends, of course, on personal concepts of "too grainy," as well as whether or not the scene/film should have a good amount of grain.

That being said, as the '19 is less grainy to begin with, and you're on a larger format (35 as opposed to 16) I would say you should be alright rating @500. However, if you want it super crisp and clear, and have the ability to over-expose by 2/3rds my first instinct would be to do that. If you need the extra 2/3rds of a stop, though, of course you'll have to go for it at 500.

[David Mullen ASC]

Or split the difference and rate it at 400 ASA...

[rohtash chandel]

Or split the difference and rate it at 400 ASA...

how do we do that?

[John Holland]

Set your light meter to 400asa.

[Phil Savoie]

In the past, when shooting 7218 I have rated it at 320 like everyone recommends to tighten up the grain and give a slightly denser negative. I always thought this was so that if I decided to try to blow it up to 35mm for a release print, it would not look so grainy.

 

I will be doing a test with the new Vision3 5219 stock with a 35mm camera. This is my first experience shooting 35mm and my first experience shooting the new Vision3 stock.

 

What I am wondering is first, since this is 35mm, and won't need to be blown up to create a 35mm release print, is overexposing it by 2/3 of a stop necessary (it sure would be nice to have the whole ASA 500 to work with, instead of the ASA 320)?

 

And second, is overexposing the new Vision3 stock giving similar results to what we got overexposing the Vision2 stock (7218 & 5218)?

 

Thanks for any and all input.

 

Best,

-Tim

 

I'm with David and John. In my experience going to tape Kodak 500asa transfers better when shot at 400asa. I too prefer a deeper negative for telecine.

 

As your testing you may want to do a true asa test of the emulsion batch your working with. When the first 500asa Kodak cine stock came out it tested at 320 in asa tests (it was discontinued due to problems in the blue emulsion layer). I've seen stock vary by almost a stop from batch to batch and from published asa. Due to the nature of film every emulsion batch is a different mix. If you want to be sure of your own exposure tests when working @ 1/3 to 2/3rd's a stop you have to start with confirming the true asa of your emulsion batch.

 

This is very easy to do, just shoot a grey card with a number in frame at different asa settings. I don't label it with the asa because I don't want to prejudice the lab - use the number 1, 2, 3 and so on at 1/3 a stop settings over/under by a stop of the published asa. I'll call the lab after it goes in the dip and ask them to examine the neg image of the grey card with a densitometer, or if your close by to a lab look at the neg yourself, when the 18% grey card reads correctly that's the true asa of your emulsion batch. Once you start doing this you'll be surprised at the variations you may discover.

 

In practice today I rarely do this but if I was shooting something where I wanted to insure exact exposure (like your overexposure tests) or consistent flesh tones or if I was working with a brand new stock (like in your case), I'd do it to establish a common baseline. In these days of DI one could also argue all of this is unnecessary but I'm sleepless in Wales with jetlag and felt like yaking. And at the risk of sounding like an old man I was taught that seemingly small details, like testing asa, are what make you a director of photography.

 

The daffodils are out beckoning Spring. It's almost 3am. Good night.

[Serge Teulon]

Or split the difference and rate it at 400 ASA...

 

 

I always rate 500 asa stock as 400 asa as it renders a lovely density.

 

S

[Hal Smith]

The daffodils are out beckoning Spring. It's almost 3am. Good night.

And I saw the first ones of the spring here in OKC yesterday. But back to the thread: Since 5219 is said to have a stop or two more latitude, testing is probably the order of the day as you suggest.