fuji super F 500 8672 and eterna 8673 in practice

[Thomas Cousin]

hello,

comparing these two stocks. i prepare myself finding the eterna : finer in grain, with better latitude both in shadows and highlights, best neutrality in colors, less contrast...

but this is all theory.

Now can anybody can me how is it in practice, in the real world ?

Does the new eterna really LESS contrast ? Is it as good as the kodak 7218 . the screening i saw seemed very convincing, but i essentially saw examples on 35mm.

What are your experiences around here with these fuji stocks. i am esentially eager to learn about the respectives latitudes and how well they see into the shadows.

thanks for helping !

 

bye

 

thomas

[John Pytlak RIP]

Compare them yourself, but from what I've seen, I still favor 7218. :)

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I'm dying to try the Eterna myself.

 

But, I'm just grading a short I did before Christmas shot on every stock there was - all the Fuji's and all the Kodak's. And as I've said many times again - nobody can tell the difference, not even the very experienced colorist at Moving Picture Company. Everything matches perfectly. So I ask myself again - why on earth not choose the cheapest stock there is within your sensitivity range? What extra value am I getting for spending more of the clients money?

 

I'm not saying this in favour of Fuji. In many places the deals prod. co's have with Kodak makes them much cheaper. The point is to not be anal about stocks - if a good deal on a stock can sway the production from 16mm to 35mm it's insane not to go for it.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think it matters more for projects going to print traditionally, where the subtleties between stocks contribute to the look.

 

But for stuff going to telecine or for a D.I., the look created with digital color-correction tools will tend to quickly overpower any inherent look to the stock, so small differences in color and graininess can be obliterated -- sometimes that's in your favor and sometimes it's a shame.

 

For scanning work, it seems that you mainly want a stock that has good latitude, is relatively fine-grain, and is sharp.

 

I have yet to see any Fuji Eterna footage, so I'll withhold final judgement, but I'm sure it's a fine stock and an improvement over the previous F-500T; that stock was already similar to 5279 so this new stock is probably similar to 5218. But I'm sure that the grain and sharpness differences are more pronounced in 16mm and Super-8 than in 35mm, so I'm not going to guess as to which is better (Eterna or 18) in those smaller formats.

 

Some people tell me that they have more problems with underexposure with Fuji, going more green and milky quicker, but since I rarely underexpose a stock deliberately or accidentally, I haven't really run into this problem when using Fuji. I'm not sure even why so many people seem to accidentally underexpose a stock anyway; reading a meter is not rocket science.

 

Shooting a test is always the best way to know for sure.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Yes, David. Time is running out for me - I'll probably never make it to features before analog is gone. Which is a pity, really. I would have liked to do that. And DI today is kinda stuck in the middle - not a full replacement when it comes to sheer resolution and "feel", yet so much more possibilites to control the image.

[Kevin Zanit]

A while ago I shot some side by sides of 5279 and 8572. I really like both stocks, but they each have different looks . . . depends what you are going for (as was said above).

 

I found the '79 to be a bit more "snappy". Higher contrast, more color saturation.

 

The '72 looked fairly similar to the '79. It was slightly (and I do mean slightly) more grainy. A little lower contrast, but mostly just less color saturation, that leaned towards the cooler tones.

 

They were both printed on Kodak 2383. I think if the '79 was printed onto 2393 it would have had too much red saturation in the skin tones, whereas with the '72 it probably would have resulted in something with a little more subtlety (granted one would test this, and adjust how they actually shot the film).

 

Primo lenses, both stocks seemed equally sharp. Printed in the high 20s - low 30s.

 

Nothing I am saying here brings much new information to the table, but these tests were done in a "real world" setting (a wide stair way with windows at the top and bottom with an actress descending). I have shot a fair amount of ?79 and I like it, it is a real versatile ?work horse? kind of stock. I have shot one project with ?18, very little. I like it for certain projects. Really impressed with its grain structure (or lack thereof ;) ).

 

 

Kevin Zanit