Kodak 65mm 1000 ASA Stock

[John Holland]

It seems that Kodak are going to make a 1000 asa 65mm stock for Chris Nolan for use on his next film "Dunkirk".

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

Where did you read?

[John Holland]

David Keighley of IMAX at the GSCA Expo in L.A. told the audience on 9th March . This was passed on by Tim Sassoon who was at this event .

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Why couldn't one just push 5219 1 stop?

[Bill DiPietra]

Why couldn't one just push 5219 1 stop?

 

I was thinking the same thing...

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

Matching other stocks photochemically with a push might be tricky?

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Matching to what though? we've often changed stockes sequence to sequence based on needs, for example, going from 50D to 500T for an ext to into transition, plus, I would think that a whole new, unheard of stock, formulated for the first time (as Kodak only ever really went up to 800T in MP stocks, if memory serves) is probably substantially more jarring than pushing 500T, which, when the '19 was marketed in the first place, was touted in their own videos as withstanding a 2 stop push without too much of a trade-off in look.

All in all; this just doesn't really seem to make too much sense. Cool and all, but I honestly question the validity of the statement.

Seems much more likely that one would just push the film 1 stop (which in 65mm probably wouldn't even result in too much of grain craziness as you'd get on 8 or 16mm, obviously) and the statement is a mis-quote or a misunderstanding of them rating the film at 1000, or pushing the film to 1000.

[John Holland]

Who knows 1000 asa pushed a stop = 2000 asa .

[Phil Rhodes]

Strikes me that this may end up in diminishing returns. Large negative demands a smaller stop for acceptable depth of field for a given field of view, so more light is required to create an otherwise equivalent situation. Given the increased speed of the stock, will resolution and grain be similar to 35mm a stop slower?

 

Will the results end up being similar, in any case?

 

P

[Tyler Purcell]

Can you imagine pushing 19' two stops on 15/70 and cropping down to 2.20:1 for standard 5/70? It would probably look friggen amazing still. Get crazy sensitivity without the crazy grain. I personally think that's their intention.

 

Still, it would be cool for Kodak to formulate a 1000 or even 1200 ASA stock that had smaller grain then 19'. Imagine that much sensitivity with the same grain level of 19'.

[Phil Rhodes]

I do wonder why they never did.

 

Sadly, right now, it would be a bit much to expect the development of new stocks, given the massively shrunken market, but it really did seem to stall at 500 or so. Yes, there was the 800, but I never heard good things about it. Perhaps they simply hit a natural limit on what that particular approach to recording light could do.

 

P

[Satsuki Murashige]

Sounds like a useful development. Being able to close down one more stop for increased depth of field in large format, or being able to eek out a little more shadow detail in natural light situations would be great. Hope it trickles down to 35mm and 16mm for the rest of us.

[Stuart Brereton]

Hope it trickles down to 35mm and 16mm for the rest of us.

 

I would imagine that the increased neg area in 65mm allows for an increase in grain that might prove objectionable in 35mm, and almost certainly would in 16mm

[Satsuki Murashige]

 

I would imagine that the increased neg area in 65mm allows for an increase in grain that might prove objectionable in 35mm, and almost certainly would in 16mm

Maybe, though as others have pointed out there must have been some room for improvement over 5219 Push1, otherwise why do it? Let's wait and see :)

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

Matching to what though? we've often changed stockes sequence to sequence based on needs, for example, going from 50D to 500T for an ext to into transition, plus, I would think that a whole new, unheard of stock, formulated for the first time (as Kodak only ever really went up to 800T in MP stocks, if memory serves) is probably substantially more jarring than pushing 500T, which, when the '19 was marketed in the first place, was touted in their own videos as withstanding a 2 stop push without too much of a trade-off in look.

All in all; this just doesn't really seem to make too much sense. Cool and all, but I honestly question the validity of the statement.

Seems much more likely that one would just push the film 1 stop (which in 65mm probably wouldn't even result in too much of grain craziness as you'd get on 8 or 16mm, obviously) and the statement is a mis-quote or a misunderstanding of them rating the film at 1000, or pushing the film to 1000.

Just pure speculation. Can't really speak to what or why, but it's all I could come up with. '19 pushed 1 stop is almost the same, but maybe it prints differently enough for Nolan to notice? Nolan is one of the few who has the weight to do this kind of thing. Edited March 13, 2016 by Kenny N Suleimanagich

[Adrian Sierkowski]

That's actually a good point-- the print-- something I forgot about, in this case, as one can assume a photochemical finish-- the print is very important and in that case I could see making it a "natural" 1000 -v- a '19 push and then a DI.

[Giray Izcan]

Are they going to be offering that stock for 35mm as well? I'm assuming Kodak will be manufacturing that particular film stock for only that movie instead of making it readily available for others in other formats besides 65mm. I looked at Kodak's website, and did not see anything regarding the 1000 asa film stock. I'm not going to get my hopes up much.

[Peter Phillips]

From how I understand the process, pushing only raises your midtones, so the shadows still fall off where they would on 500T. Having a truly faster stock would be a nice advantage, considering. Although pre-flashing the might lift the shadows, I'm not sure.

[Giray Izcan]

Yes it would be nice. I haven't seen anything regarding the 1000 asa stock on Kodak's website. I'm guessing they will manufacture however many Nolan needs and that's it - hopefully I'm wrong though.

[Stuart Brereton]

It seems unlikely that Kodak would create a completely new emulsion just for Chris Nolan. I'd take a guess and say that the emulsion for a 1000asa stock is something that Kodak already have ready to use, perhaps developed for 35mm stock and then shelved, maybe because of grain issues in these days of ultra clean images. Applying that emulsion to the larger neg area of 65mm would mitigate the grain, and make a 1000asa a realistic choice.

[Bill DiPietra]

From how I understand the process, pushing only raises your midtones, so the shadows still fall off where they would on 500T.

 

Pushing increases grain and contrast. I did a 2-stop push on 7219 on my last film and wound up with a nice amount of grain & deep blacks that I wouldn't have obtained had I rated the film at 500 and kept the same lighting set-up.

[Ari Michael Leeds]

Pushing 500 to 1000 you don't get a true one stop of extra speed.


Come on guys this is fiml school 101.

Great to have 1,000-speed true ISO film! They should make in 35mm too, even if grainy.

[Ari Michael Leeds]

TMax 3200 B&W had a true speed of around 1,000, so there should be a comparable limit for color. Makes sense they'd have the extra stop, even if it does get grainy.

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I've seen HD scans of 7219 frames pushed one stop and they looked great. The person who posted them eventually took them down, so I can't link to them. Take my word for it. :-)

 

Ari, as far as fast b&w films go, from what I've seen, it's better to rate T-Max 400 at EI 3200 than to use T-Max 3200. Those super-fast b&w films are quite useless unless you actually want that type of grain.

[Ari Michael Leeds]

T-Max 3200 has been discontinued, hasn't it? And, having used it myself, no, that's absolutely terrible advice. 400 film does NOT push to 3200 well (3 stops!) a 1,000 film pushed 1-2/3 stops is much better.

And, I assure you, 400 film pushed three stops will have plenty of grain, far more, in fact than the 3200, and shadows with almost no detail.

T-Max P3200 rated at 1000 and given normal processing actually has quite decent grain. It's a faster film with larger grain. More speed causes more grain. T-Max films all are modern, high-tech films that improved substantially upon the high-speed films they replaced, think there was a technical film that was 1250 or 2000, NOT pretty grain.


I talked to an FBI guy that says Kodak tested T-Max P3200 up to *250,000 when it came out, with usable images. That's the one you want to use in low light.