Kodak 16mm 500t

[Jeo]

I agreed to DP a student short. The director already has the film stock and it's 16mm kodak 500t. I haven't shot on it since my first project in college back in the day. I remember it being really flat and grainy and looking more like super8 than 16.

 

Any words of encouragement or advice.

 

The whole thing takes place in a motel room over the course of 1 day.

[Chris Burke]

I agreed to DP a student short. The director already has the film stock and it's 16mm kodak 500t. I haven't shot on it since my first project in college back in the day. I remember it being really flat and grainy and looking more like super8 than 16.

 

Any words of encouragement or advice.

 

The whole thing takes place in a motel room over the course of 1 day.

 

 

what stock is it? I know you said kodak 500T, but they make three currently and the 7218 just left, so there is probably a good deal of it around still. Are you using tungsten lights? I would rate it one stop over for it to look it's best.

[Jeo]

what stock is it? I know you said kodak 500T, but they make three currently and the 7218 just left, so there is probably a good deal of it around still. Are you using tungsten lights? I would rate it one stop over for it to look it's best.

 

 

I don't know which stock number. Are they much different?

Really rate it at 1000 and not push, wouldn't that make it flatter?

 

When I was in school the prof. was giving the original vision 500t to everyone because it was the most forgiving and required minimal light going through the old news zoom lenses that we had to use.

 

For this shoot, I don't know what lenses we will have. I think that I'll ND down as much I can.

 

I don't know what we have for lights, probably tungsten. I know that there will be daylight mixing in through the window and door. I might use 1/4 ctb on the interior lights and a half ctb on the lens ( i don't remember what this filter is called).

 

Any other thought?

[Mike Lary]

Really rate it at 1000 and not push, wouldn't that make it flatter?

 

Maybe he meant to rate it at 250 and pull? Underexposing will result in a grainier image, so that isn't going to give you the best image.

 

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that 500T is more forgiving than other stocks. It enables you to shoot in low light situations, but the image is going to look flat if it isn't lit well. Flat looking film is not indicative of a particular film speed; it has to do with how the set was lit.

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

1. I don't know which stock number. Are they much different?

 

2. Really rate it at 1000 and not push, wouldn't that make it flatter?

 

3. For this shoot, I don't know what lenses we will have. I think that I'll ND down as much I can.

 

4. I don't know what we have for lights, probably tungsten. I know that there will be daylight mixing in through the window and door. I might use 1/4 ctb on the interior lights and a half ctb on the lens ( i don't remember what this filter is called).

 

Any other thought?

 

1. There's a pretty big difference in grain structure between Vision and Vision2, and now Vision3 500T stocks. If it's 5218 I think you'll be more pleased with your results than you were back in your college years.

 

2. To overexpose by a stop, you'd rate it at 250 ASA, then print down. Most people like to rate it at 320ASA (2/3 stop) for richer blacks, less grain and to get more information burned into the negative. Rating at 1000 you would be underexposing by a stop, and when printed up you'll get more grain.

 

3. Shooting indoors, I wouldn't aspire to ND your lens if you're lighting equipment is limited. If it's blown out windows you're worrying about, try ND'ing the windows to the density you need to maintain detail outside while still maintaining a realistic overexposed look for what's outdoors.

 

4. To get the most efficiency out of your tungsten units, you probably won't want to throw any CTB on them. Just balance everything else to tungsten by placing Full CTO/ND combo gels on the windows. I don't know how large your windows will be, but if they're too big for gels, then yeah, you could throw some CTB on your tungsten units and an 85 filter on your lens to keep things balanced. And if you need that extra 2/3 stop, just shoot without an 85 filter and correct in post.

[Chris Burke]

I don't know which stock number. Are they much different?

Really rate it at 1000 and not push, wouldn't that make it flatter?

 

When I was in school the prof. was giving the original vision 500t to everyone because it was the most forgiving and required minimal light going through the old news zoom lenses that we had to use.

 

For this shoot, I don't know what lenses we will have. I think that I'll ND down as much I can.

 

I don't know what we have for lights, probably tungsten. I know that there will be daylight mixing in through the window and door. I might use 1/4 ctb on the interior lights and a half ctb on the lens ( i don't remember what this filter is called).

 

Any other thought?

 

 

Rating it 250 with normal processing will yield a one stop overexposure, which is ideal for this stock in 16mm. Gelling the lights is a good idea if there is lots of daylight coming in. In fact if there is loads of daylight in the shot, use an 85 filter on the lens and still rate it at 250 with normal processing. You won't need any ND as far as I can tell. What kind of look are you going for? Do you want grain and a flat look?

[Shubham Kasera]

Rating it 250 with normal processing will yield a one stop overexposure, which is ideal for this stock in 16mm. Gelling the lights is a good idea if there is lots of daylight coming in. In fact if there is loads of daylight in the shot, use an 85 filter on the lens and still rate it at 250 with normal processing. You won't need any ND as far as I can tell. What kind of look are you going for? Do you want grain and a flat look?

 

 

Hello,

i recently shot a short film using vision 3 500T. Well the results were good in most of the situations. i rated the stock 250 after putting 85 in front of the lens. the film was processed normally and looked good on screen.

Im loading a few stills from the project.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I normally rate my 500s (7218/19 ) at 320 to minimize grain.

[Jeo]

Thanks everyone. Very much appreciated.

 

Gelling the windows is out because I don't think we have the gell or some one to do it. It seems like I'm not only the DP but the AC and Gaffer as well! Also, the door will open and close to open and close the film.

 

I'm thinking that I will consider it to be 320 asa processed normal.

I think I will then shoot with a 1/2 85 at 250 asa. I will probably also gell the tungsten with 1/4 cto so they are only slightly warm. This way I can have a mixed light effect that is not drastic.

 

I'm probably thinking out loud too early because I'm meeting with the director in the morning and all of this could change.

I'll know more about the gear, location, and of course the directorial vision.

 

Thanks for all the tips!

Joe

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

I think I will then shoot with a 1/2 85 at 250 asa. I will probably also gell the tungsten with 1/4 cto so they are only slightly warm. This way I can have a mixed light effect that is not drastic.

 

With just a 1/2 85 (or 81EF filter) on, you'll already be warming up your image considerably. And your tungstens will become especially warm in color. If you are going for a drastic mixed light effect, then yeah, putting some 1/4 CTO is a good idea. But if it's a subtle warmth, I'd leave them ungelled.

 

I'd also shoot a quick 100' test if I were you, or just get a video camera and try out your setups on camera to get a non-subjective representation of what you're trying to do. Our eyes are tricky bastards.

[Edgar Dubrovskiy]

I normally rate my 500s (7218/19 ) at 320 to minimize grain.

 

When you are shooting at 320 do you ask lab to process and print as normal?

Or do you pull?

Thanks.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I tell the lab to process normal and then bring it down in the Telecine session.

[Rodrigo Silvestri]

When you are shooting at 320 do you ask lab to process and print as normal?

Or do you pull?

Thanks.

 

Since I first used Fuji Sper-F400T and it came out too grainy, I posted my results here and they told me that it's a good idea to always overexpose 16mm a bit, to get away from the grain. I did it once since then, and I think it's the way to go.

Then you bring it back to normal in the telecine (well, I've always scanned 16mm to 2K, so my "correction" stage is when converting DPXs to video), there's almost no difference, because you always use only a part (around 6 stops) of the negative's dynamic range (10 stops). Having a truly 10-stops image in a screen would result in a flat image with no contrast.

So, imagine that normally you would use the part of the negative that goes from "zone 2" to "zone 8". Now, you use from 3 o 9.

 

The only situation when I don't like to overexpose that 1-stop is when using B&W negative. B&W's grain behaves differently. Almost everything has grain, LOL.

 

About "using a stock that your friend already has": always test it. Mainly if it's high speed (500ISO).

 

Luck,

Rodrigo

[Jeo]

Thanks Jonathan. I meant to say gel the tungsten with 1/4 ctb not cto.

 

I'm thinking to have it be lite contrasty with narrow focus.

Mostly tight compositions.

[Edgar Dubrovskiy]

I tell the lab to process normal and then bring it down in the Telecine session.

 

Thanks, man.

I am just in pre-production of a short.

Thinking of using 7219, but expose for 1000 ASA (not enough light - shooting night exteriors with neons and billboards as light sources).

It's straight to HD transfer, no prints.

I think to rate at 1000, but not sure if it would be wise to develop as normal (and get that extra 1 stop in telecine), or push chemically and just telecine as normal.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Testing is always best... and it depends on how much grain you're ok with.. but I'd think maybe rate @800 and push process to 1000 if you really need it... it'll get grainy, though.... but contrast in the scene will help to mask that.

Might be wiser to just use some lights to punch up your on -location sources... 'course that's not always possible, I know.

How far can you open your lenses?

[Jeo]

Hello,

 

Thanks for all your replies, it gave a bit to think about.

 

I met with the student director this morning and I decided not to DP the project. He didn't tell me that he had already shot half of the one scene short and wanted me to match what he had already done. It looked like a typical student film which is too bad because it was a really good script.

 

Oh well, sorry to go on for nothing...

Joe

[Edgar Dubrovskiy]

Testing is always best... and it depends on how much grain you're ok with.. but I'd think maybe rate @800 and push process to 1000 if you really need it... it'll get grainy, though.... but contrast in the scene will help to mask that.

Might be wiser to just use some lights to punch up your on -location sources... 'course that's not always possible, I know.

How far can you open your lenses?

 

Shooting with Distagons, so it's 1.2

But want to give my focus puller some life - lots of handheld, so hope to shoot at around 2-2.8.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Shouldn't be impossible to get a T2 at night on '19 without a push and some small units here and there.

[Edgar Dubrovskiy]

That's what I hope for :)

 

One question:

why did you suggest rating at 800 and push process to 1000?

why not rating at 1000?

 

Thanks!

[Francis Kuhn]

That's what I hope for :)

 

One question:

why did you suggest rating at 800 and push process to 1000?

why not rating at 1000?

 

Thanks!

 

Hi Edgar,

 

Pushing the film will gain you very little in the darker areas of the frame, but it will proportionally raise the values of the brighter areas. Your pushed film will have more contrast because the highlights will more farther away from the shadows. The problem is, pushing will also emphasize the grain.

 

IMO it is best to NOT push this stock in 16mm unless you want more grain and greater contrast. Remember, you can easily boost the contrast in the transfer without the penalty of added grain from the push.

 

-Fran

[Edgar Dubrovskiy]

Thanks a lot for the advice, Fran!

Will shoot tests in couple weeks time, trying to find the best approach.