Low-con stock shoot-out

[Curran Rowe]

Has anyone tested the 3 major low-con negative stocks (Kodak 320T 5277; Kodak 500T 5229 'Expression'; Fuji 400T 8582) in a direct comparison test?

 

How do they compare in terms of latitude, color rendition, saturation and granularity?

 

I've seen a few previous posts discussing the qualities of the stocks individually, and was wondering if anyone had tested them side by side.

 

Also: could it be said that Kodak Vision2 5229 is intended to "supplant" Kodak Vision 5277 in the same way some of the old Visions are being phased out in favor of the Vision2 stocks? How exactly are the qualities of '77 and '29 different (as they are both marketed as pastel, low-con, stocks)?

 

Thanks!

[David Mullen ASC]

I haven't tested them against each other. I have shot '77, F-400T, and the old Expression '84 on past projects.

 

I would guess the following: 320T '77 and Expression '29 now match each other in terms of graininess and contrast; Expression may be slightly sharper now. Fuji F-400T will be slightly grainier, softer, more pastel, and lowest in contrast overall (that distinction previously belonged to '63.)

[Curran Rowe]

Thanks David.

 

I really love the '77 - I shot a S16 short film with '77 rated and developed normally and also pushed it one stop (and rated it 500 ASA) and was very happy with how the stock responded on both counts.

 

In the recent book 'New Cinematographers' I think Lance Acord, Harris Savides and Darius Khondji all give '77 a mention.

 

But maybe it's time for me to give Expression '29 a try - if some extra speed can be gained without an increase in grain, why not?

 

Regarding the Fuji 400T, I thought the look Roger Deakins achieved with flashing '82 with yellow light in the Princeton segment of 'A Beautiful Mind' was amazing. Great method to establish period.

 

Other low-con stock comparison insights/experiences?

Edited November 20, 2004 by curranrowe

[Curran Rowe]

Mr. Pytlak?

 

Any Kodak inner circle insights into the differences and quality (subtle or otherwise) between '77 and Expression '29?

 

Thanks!

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I have shot the old '77 and the 400T only and tended to favour the 400T because I thought it just looked better. It had a nice pastel look that didn't drift into the looks-like-I-forgot-the-85-filter-on sludge that old Kodak sometimes had a tendency to do.

 

The problem us telecine-kids all have is that it's very, very hard to gage and compare filmstocks to eachother in a suite. It would be so much more easy on the big screen, but the days of the photochemical finish seem to be over. Can't say I'm sorry - the more control one haves, the better I'd say.

 

But it raises a interesting question: If almost any look can be matched or achieved in TK, why bother making film stocks at all with such small and minute differences? I wonder if there REALLY is a visible difference between a low con 400T and a regular 500T with a low con filter or a VariCon on?

[David Mullen ASC]

Because some of us still have to shoot for print, not a DI... Even the next 35mm feature I will be starting in January is for direct print.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Because some of us still have to shoot for print, not a DI... Even the next 35mm feature I will be starting in January is for direct print.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

At the prices that facilities want for a DI, which is a process that in many cases looks less sharp and filmlike than the direct print (at least in my opinion), the direct print still seems a very attractive option. Of course I'm hoping that shortly prices for DI's will fall while quality goes up, which it will (I don't know how shortly this will be, though!)