7289

[Thomas Cousin]

hello,

i enjoy so much this forum since i discovered it that i can't stop myself from asking questions !! :-)

last time, i tested 7289 for shots intented to be "rough". i wanted to test this stock because of its grain texture. . . . the shoot is in exterior daylight but i wanted to test it however. i filmed some shots of someone in exterior. with and without a 85. and also with some under and overexposure.

i shot with zeiss t1.3 lenses and we see the test scanned on spirit.

the reason i am talking about this, it's because of course we did have "grain" but it was HUGE !! i intented to have a bit of texture on the video screen at first with this stock, but it happened to be enormous !! and not the kind of "rough quality" that would have given an interesting look to the pictures. it was a large presence of grain and more, we seemed to lose a lot of sharpness. and it was very disturbing and unpleasing.

with the 85, the results was very grainy also. and with the stock rated at 400 asa , it was a little less grainy, apparently, but not much.

the subject was not "too" contrasty, a little 3/4 backlight by the sun (approx. 2 and a half stop over), buildings behind in midtones, foliage behind, and i exposed for the face toward us.

there was no diffusion, but a pola and neutral densities according to what i needed. and my stop was beetwen T 4 and T 5,6 all the time.

Did i do something wrong with these tests ? why was it so grainy ? Is the 89 like that all the time in super16, or my roll maybe (i don't think so ...) ? maybe you can help me figure out ....

 

thank you.

thomas cousin

[John Pytlak RIP]

Certainly an EI800 film used for 16mm will be more grainy than a slower film. Underexposure or push processing will accentuate that graininess even more.

 

Another factor that can lead to more grain is the age and keeping of the stock. High speed films are especially sensitive to improper storage, and exposure to radiation (either long-term exposure to natural radiation like cosmic rays, or short term exposure during accidental x-ray security inspection). Any chance your stock is old, or stored for a long time without refrigeration, or has been through an x-ray inspection?

[Thomas Cousin]

hi,

i don't exactly know about storage of the roll before we had it.

But it was a new roll. We just took it from kodak, here, and shot the test a couple of days after. and it was kept in normal condition between. the film was develop normally.

and our roll didn't go through x rays.

before seeing the results, i asked the lab to do a sensitometric curve from the same emulsion. and it seemed to me, according to the datas and E.R, that it was less sensitive than e.i 800. Is there a relation between these ?

thanks

thomas cousin

[Filip Plesha]

I think you should expect large film grain from a negative so fast

in s s16 format,there is nothing strange about it.

 

By the way i think this film stock screams for 2-electron technology,

maybe Kodak is going to make a new version of 800 ASA stock

[John Pytlak RIP]

...I asked the lab to do a sensitometric curve from the same emulsion. and it seemed to me, according to the datas and E.R, that it was less sensitive than e.i 800. Is there a relation between these ?

 

What did they compare the sensitometry to? Normally you would compare the log exposure required to obtain a density of 0.20 above the D-min of the film ("speed point"). So an EI800T film should be 0.20 log Exposure (2/3 stop) faster than an EI500T film, as measured by the sensitometric curve shift at the speed point. If the film had been stored improperly or exposed to radiation, the fog level would be elevated and graininess would increase because the largest grains had been fogged.

 

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...tructureP.shtml