Vision2 250D S16

[ryan knight]

Starting prep on a project shooting largely with 250D S16.

 

Searched a fair bit on this forum and found tons of posts about 500/100/200 tungsten stocks but not too much on 250D.

 

Just wondering if the same approach to those stocks would apply to ours...

 

Trying to get the cleanest, tightest grain image, should I also overexpose by 2/3 to 1 whole stop, process normal and then pull in the one-light or telecine to a normal exposure?

 

Planning on doing a lot of slow-mo too, 60fps +, anything else to be aware of with this stock when overcranking?

 

Thanks,

 

RK.

Edited February 28, 2009 by ryan knight

[David Mullen ASC]

Searched a fair bit on this forum and found tons of posts about 500/100/200 tungsten stocks but not too much on 250D.

 

Just wondering if the same approach to those stocks would apply to ours...

 

Trying to get the cleanest, tightest grain image, should I also overexpose by 2/3 to 1 whole stop, process normal and then pull in the one-light or telecine to a normal exposure?

 

Yes, it works the same for any negative stock, some mild overexposure helps tighten up the grain structure. 1-stop over may be a bit excessive though.

[ryan knight]

Yes, it works the same for any negative stock, some mild overexposure helps tighten up the grain structure. 1-stop over may be a bit excessive though.

 

thanks david. i'll go with 2/3 of a stop.

 

if i can get some cookes (35mm lenses of course), will the effort of blacking it out be worth the increase in apparent sharpness?

 

thanks,

 

rk.

[David Mullen ASC]

thanks david. i'll go with 2/3 of a stop.

 

if i can get some cookes (35mm lenses of course), will the effort of blacking it out be worth the increase in apparent sharpness?

 

thanks,

 

rk.

 

I don't know what you mean by blacking out Cooke lenses.

[K Borowski]

thanks david. i'll go with 2/3 of a stop. [ . . . ]

 

Yeah, I'm confused too. Are you referring to shooting at a lens's "sweet spot" 2-3 stops down from wide-open? Are you referrring to shooting 16mm with a 35mm lens on an adapter because of shooting on the "sweet spot" in the optical center of the glass?

 

Honestly, I don't buy it that 35mm lenses render sharper 16mm images, so if that is what you are referring to, I'd recommending just sticking with sharp 16mm primes, possibly shot 2-3 stops down from wide open for optimal sharpness.

[David Rakoczy]

Karl, they are talking about over-exposing by 2/3s of a stop to tighten up the grain.. but if Ryan wants a clean 35mm like image he should be rolling 100t whenever possible and 200t when rolling those over-cranked shots.... all rated to over-expose 2/3s of a stop. I would not be shooting 250D based on what Ryan says he wants.

[K Borowski]

Karl, they are talking about over-exposing by 2/3s of a stop to tighten up the grain..

 

It wasn't that I was referring to. It was "blacking out the lens", that neither David Mullen nor myself understand.

 

 

Lol. David, you should put together a 100T club. I would certainly join it!

 

100T and 50D are the two stocks I would use exclusively in 16mm, unless of course I was making a doc.

[David Rakoczy]

I see.. ok.

 

 

But let's not neglect the versatile and not to be forgotten 200t.... lest Mr. Sierkowski swoop in and remind us! :lol:

[K Borowski]

Actually, one of my biggest gripes about film manufacturers is that they seem to always rate the fast films a little faster than they really are. I wish we had an equivalent of a test like this for all of the current movie stocks that are made:

 

http://www.filmscan.ru/articles/article07.html

 

While, obviously, you can get away with several stops of overexposure, I've always wanted some sort of scientific test like this done to show what the true speed of each film is. No sense in rating a stock too slow (like a stop under box speed) just to always be on the safe side.

 

Then again, I heard once that they have B&W films available for still photographers that have the same names (Plus-X negative being one) but are rating faster because I guess there is even more leeway printing onto paper than onto another piece of film for projection.

 

All the test I see in magazines like ASC seem more subjective than scientific, which may be more practical, but avoids actually answering questions about how fast certain films *really* are.

[David Rakoczy]

This is true. When I tested 800t (and all other 35mm and S16mm negative stocks) for a Fotokem DP dinner, we found that 800t was really like a 720t... maybe.

 

I agree doing a blanket overexposure to be safe is not healthy for any DP. Test. Test. Test. Because it all depends on how you meter.... how you evaluate your readings.

 

Figure out what works for You!

 

Ultimately, the test described by Satsuki in the Chart Test thread is the best... that alone will tell you where you are at.. what you are doing... what is being translated.. what you need to do.

[ryan knight]

It wasn't that I was referring to. It was "blacking out the lens", that neither David Mullen nor myself understand.

 

precisely, in case there's any extra light bouncing around in there.

 

but if as one of you says, using 35mm lens, doesn't render sharper images, then i'll put the extra cash else where.

 

the sweet spot on 16mm lens is 2 to 3 stops closed down, not 1 and a half to 2?

 

i'm shooting 250D because it is a stock i already have. i also have 500T but i figured 250D would be a better option.

[David Mullen ASC]

precisely, in case there's any extra light bouncing around in there.

 

I still don't understand what you mean by blacking out the lens. Do you mean simply putting a sunshade / mattebox on the lens to keep stray light from hitting it? Because you should be doing that with any lens. And why would that increase sharpness? Because the lens isn't getting flared?

[ryan knight]

I still don't understand what you mean by blacking out the lens. Do you mean simply putting a sunshade / mattebox on the lens to keep stray light from hitting it? Because you should be doing that with any lens. And why would that increase sharpness? Because the lens isn't getting flared?

 

sorry for this misunderstanding. i've always been told that using 35mm lenses when shooting with 16mm can yield a sharper image. is this a misconception?

 

blacking out: i'm not entirely 100% sure of the process of this (i've never done it myself), but i've heard it must be done when you use 35mm lenses on a 16mm body. blacking out the gate or the back of the lens because of the size of the rear element of the lens in relation to the gate allows for excess light to possibly hit the stock. is this wrong, is what i've heard completely incorrect (i hope not).

[David Mullen ASC]

I've heard of blacking the edges of the gate or the back pressure plate to reduce flare though I'm not sure that's a 35mm vs. 16mm lens issue. Doesn't affect sharpness.

 

The only reason why a 35mm lens may be sharper on a 16mm camera is that it might be a newer design, a better lens, because it is more recent -- a lot of 16mm optics date back to the 1970's. So if you are comparing a 16mm-format Zeiss Super-Speed compared to a 35mm-format Zeiss Master Prime, you're talking about a thirty-year difference in lens design and construction.

 

In theory, in fact, it should be the opposite -- a lens designed for a smaller format should be made sharper, with a higher MTF, to compensate for the smaller negative and thus greater degree of enlargement. But the truth is that lenses are generally made to be as sharp as the designer could get away with at the time.

[Satsuki Murashige]

blacking out: i'm not entirely 100% sure of the process of this (i've never done it myself), but i've heard it must be done when you use 35mm lenses on a 16mm body. blacking out the gate or the back of the lens because of the size of the rear element of the lens in relation to the gate allows for excess light to possibly hit the stock. is this wrong, is what i've heard completely incorrect (i hope not).

Cooke makes black mattes for their S4s that fit over the rear element just for this purpose. Don't know where you can find them, but I saw an article about them in an AC issue maybe a year or two ago. IMO it's not necessary; most 50mm primes that you get in a Super 16 lens set cover 35mm, and those shots look no different than the wider-lensed shots in terms of contrast or exposure.

 

But if you want the best Super 16 lenses, then Cooke makes a set of Super 16 primes called SK4s that match the 35mm S4s, I think the focal lengths are something like 8, 9.5, 12, 16mm. You'd use the 35mm S4s after that. Zeiss also makes a Super 16 primes set that complements their Ultra Primes called the Ultra 16s. However, these lenses are T1.3 and have the same modern coatings as the Master Primes. The focal lengths are: 6, 8, 9.5, 12, 14, 18, 25, 35, 50mm. IMO they are the best Super 16 lenses available today - the 6mm is especially impressive.

[Chris Burke]

Cooke makes black mattes for their S4s that fit over the rear element just for this purpose. Don't know where you can find them, but I saw an article about them in an AC issue maybe a year or two ago. IMO it's not necessary; most 50mm primes that you get in a Super 16 lens set cover 35mm, and those shots look no different than the wider-lensed shots in terms of contrast or exposure.

 

But if you want the best Super 16 lenses, then Cooke makes a set of Super 16 primes called SK4s that match the 35mm S4s, I think the focal lengths are something like 8, 9.5, 12, 16mm. You'd use the 35mm S4s after that. Zeiss also makes a Super 16 primes set that complements their Ultra Primes called the Ultra 16s. However, these lenses are T1.3 and have the same modern coatings as the Master Primes. The focal lengths are: 6, 8, 9.5, 12, 14, 18, 25, 35, 50mm. IMO they are the best Super 16 lenses available today - the 6mm is especially impressive.

 

 

why do the Ultra 16s and SK4s cost so much? Compared to their 35mm cousins, they sure are dear.

 

 

Satsuki,

 

have you used them before? could I see an example if you have?

 

chris

[David Mullen ASC]

Cooke makes black mattes for their S4s that fit over the rear element just for this purpose.

 

Learn something new every day! Too bad I don't shoot much Super-16...

[ryan knight]

Learn something new every day! Too bad I don't shoot much Super-16...

 

thanks guys, much appreciated!

 

anything to be known for shooting 250D at high speeds, 60fps +? someone mentioned that 250D may not the right choice for this, but did that comment derive mostly from preference for another stock?

 

thanks,

 

rk.

[Satsuki Murashige]

why do the Ultra 16s and SK4s cost so much? Compared to their 35mm cousins, they sure are dear.

Don't know, maybe because they're rarer, so rental houses that have them don't need to compete for the best price? I'm surprised that they rent for so much more than Ultra Primes or S4s, I would have thought they'd be about the same. They're still less than Master Primes, though.

 

Satsuki, have you used them before? could I see an example if you have?

I've used the Ultra 16s before, but not the Cookes. This was a few years ago when they only had 6, 8, 9.5, 12, 14mm. I was not the DP on this particular shoot, I was the 1st AC so I don't own the footage. I'll ask the producers if I can post a few frame grabs (SD res, unfortunately - they've only done an offline telecine).

 

David, hey just glad I could contribute. :)

[K Borowski]

Satsuki, is "blacking out" the correct terminology though? I'd think you'd call that "matting out" or "vignetting out".

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

hi i used the 7205 for exterior day on a car comercial with panavision primos on an SRIII (yes) and rated it normaly.

i had absolutly no grain issue as i wasn't going to a 35 print but a TV broadcast.

 

here is the result :

 

soon on vimeo

[David Auner aac]

hi i used the 7205 for exterior day on a car comercial with panavision primos on an SRIII (yes) and rated it normaly.

 

Hi Jean-Mare!

 

tres bien. I really like to clip. Nice to see too, that ads with good stories are extinct yet!

 

Cheers, Dave

[David Auner aac]

Hi Jean-Mare!

 

Sorry for not spelling your name correctly, Jean-Marie!

 

Regards, Dave