500T vs 200T S-16mm

Chris Lange · February 10, 2012

Hi,

I will be working on a student film on S-16mm. Trying to weigh my options in regards to differences between 200T and 500T Vision 3.

My lenses open to 1.2, so that's pretty wide. I have access to lights, so that's good too. However, most of the film is at night, interior and exterior. If I light my key to 2.8 in each film stock, what will the differences in drop-off if I am going for fairly contrasty lighting? I like the idea of a finer grain with 200T, but will my shadows look grainy if my lighting is uneven and contrasty? Would the drop-off into shadow be more natural with 500T? I just don't have enough experience to assess these things because I haven't shot at all with the new 200T. Thanks.

-Chris

Charles MacDonald · February 11, 2012

Hi,

I will be working on a student film on S-16mm. Trying to weigh my options in regards to differences between 200T and 500T Vision 3.

My lenses open to 1.2, so that's pretty wide. I have access to lights, so that's good too. However, most of the film is at night, interior and exterior.

You can't really light a very large exterior area - particularly on a student budget. 500 is almost enough to shoot with Practical lights in many places. "Hill Street Blues" was one of the fisrt projects taht took advantage of the (320 ISO at the time) faster films to use regular office lights instead of studio lights.

The same wattage (Number of Lights) will cover a larger area if lighting for the 500, OR the same light will let you use a smaller aperture - which gives you Greater Depth of Field - which may or may not suit your story.

jackson defa · February 11, 2012

really depends on the size of yur lights and how wide the shots are going to be. If you are okay with a lot of the area in the frame dropping off into black then I think you can sell the 200T just fine. this is an aesthetic question so you should discuss with the director. However 200 speed film is going to be a lot cleaner in the blacks when it gets under exposed, as opposed to the 500 which is really going to reveal its grain structure against those solid blacks. however, again, if you have good color timing and a noise reduction high res telecine planned, you can get away with the 500 for sure, and maintain a decent, noise-free (for the most part) picture while with a healthy amount of grain. If it were me, I'd shoot 200. but I know more people that would choose the opposite!! good luck~ :P

rob spence · February 11, 2012

Just to give you a guide we shot on S16 500T in a shopping street in the UK, the whole scene was lit by the shop windows and street lights only...so no extra

lights and no reflectors. We followed the actors very carefully to stay in focus , as we shot wide open at T1.3. The results were superb.

Phil Connolly · February 11, 2012

Its difficult to give an answer not knowing the size of the area or lighting package. 200T could be workable, but 500T is probably safer.

Night INT's are probably fine with 200T as you'd have access to power etc- but the EXT's can be an issue if you have to use a generator etc..

Most of the low budget night EXT shoots I've worked on, using small generators 2Kw to 5Kw. Have always needed at least 500ASA to get resonable exposure even with fast lens's. On digital shoots I'm normally working at 800 -1000ASA - so that I you can get good exposure off avalible lights. Any extra lighting is then just used to augment whats there, rather then trying to use it to light big spaces.

If it were me, I'd probably go for 500T - and if I had more light then I needed, it gives me the option to stop the lens down a bit: F1.2 is a pretty unforgiving stop focuswise, even on 16mm. I think faster stocks look more natural at night then slower stocks - since avalible light reads better. Slower stocks requiring more additional lighting and can result in a look thats a bit lit if your not careful.

It's really down to personal taste, personally I don't mind a bit of noise and grain. If I was going to shoot something on 16mm, it would because I wanted some grain and texture. If I wanted a cleaner look, I'd go for digital rather then struggling to achive it in 16mm.

You could always pre-scout the EXT locations with a lightmeter and DSLR at night and see what you get with avalible light.

Chris Lange · February 13, 2012

Well thanks for all the information and real senario examples. As the nature of the shoot is more spontaneous, I think I'll go 500T for more versatility at night.

Thanks,

Chris

Chris Burke · February 14, 2012

If you are lighting for higher contrast, the 7213(200T) will do just fine. the 7219(500T) will give you more detail in the shadows. The 200T with the same amount of light will be higher contrast. If you want a bit more grain try the 7230 (also a 500T) it is a bit cheaper and a great stock.