Jump to content

Example of Kodak 7219 500t pushed one stop.


Recommended Posts

Hey,

 

I was digging through an old drive and found the original scan of some super 16mm I shot for a music video earlier this year. This is Kodak 7219 500T, rated at 800asa, with a one stop push.

 

We had planned on converting to black and white in the grade, so I the extra grain of the one stop push sounded great and worked out really well in the end.

 

It was telecined to HDSR on a Spirit 2k. We go an unsupervised "flat scan", that was then rendered out to a 1920x1080 prores 422HQ.

 

The vimeo compression really took a lot of the grain away, So I've included a few still frames as well.

 

 

Photos are here:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/b66wby9zoaro0zx/AACshQrxKQuknafW2SvVAqgga?dl=0

 

I hope this is helpful to someone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drew, firstly, thanks for posting the stills. These are very, very helpful, believe me. BTW I created an account so I could post in this thread (this is my first post on this site). Just so you know where I'm coming from: I'm a photographer, shooting mainly digital, but I prefer film.

 

I've had a look at the stills and I'm amazed. This is 16mm, 500T, pushed one stop, and the results look about the same as a lot of 8-perf 35mm that I see - in fact, this looks better. A lot of photographers are shooting CineStill etc. and from what I've seen, the results aren't that good in terms of graininess. I have nothing against grain - far from it - but merely on technical grounds, I'm amazed that these 16mm frames exhibit less graininess than a lot of 8-perf stills. What the hell is going on?

 

I've seen medium format negs with graininess not that much less than what I'm seeing in your images. I don't understand it. I suspect it's the scanning - in photography, it's the weak link and quite laborious. From what I can see, the cine film scanners are amazing. And obviously, VISION3 is amazing - but photographers can't seem to get that stuff to work. I have not tried it myself, though, partly because I am not seeing good results.

 

Maybe the problem is that photography scanners are literally scanners, whereas cinema scanners are, if I infer correctly, single-shot. Scanning lights probably accentuate the grain while not pulling out any more detail than single-shot scanners are.

 

I'd really love some answers on this issue if you or anyone else has them. And thank you once again for posting these. It has been a revelation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...