ETERNA 500T

[J Costantini]

Hi

Have you guys tested the new FujiFilm stock ETERNA 500T?

 

I've watched a few tests and liked it a lot but haven't tested myself.

 

Any comments? In comparison to Kodak's 18 Vision2??

 

Thanks

[David Mullen ASC]

By coincidence, I just screened at FotoKem a comparison test shot in 35mm 1.85 by Allen Daviau, ASC of Eterna 500T versus Kodak 5218.

 

Both were rated at 400 ASA by Daviau, a standard practice.

 

The Eterna 500T was actually slightly finer-grained; 5218 looked slightly "grittier" in comparison. But Eterna is also a little softer, more pastel, and lower in contrast than Kodak 5218, which some might not like since 5218 is already lower in contrast than the old Vision 500T 5279 is.

 

Overall, Eterna 500T 8573 and Vision-2 500T 5218 were darn pretty similar other than what I described. Skintones were good on both, with Eterna being mildy less saturated.

 

If Fuji had slightly upped the contrast, it would have been the same as 5218 for sharpness and saturation, but still be slightly finer-grained. But because of the softer contrast and sharpness of Eterna, some might still prefer Kodak '18, especially for 16mm work.

 

Everything was printed on Fuji 3513 D.I.

 

Fuji is going to obsolete their lower-contrast "normal" stock, 3510, and make the D.I. stock the "normal" stock and create a higher-contrast, higher D-max, higher saturation stock just a notch below Vision Premier called "XD" (extreme density?).

 

I also saw a test shot in Japan comparing the low-con F-400T to its replacement, and the new F-400T is slightly finer-grained and a little less low-con, but otherwise, not a major change.

[J Costantini]

Do you think the finer grain found on ETERNA could be interesting for a super-16mm blow up?

Or could the pastel qualities of it affect my final sharpness on a 35mm copy?

[David Mullen ASC]

Do you think the finer grain found on ETERNA could be interesting for a super-16mm blow up?

Or could the pastel qualities of it affect my final sharpness on a 35mm copy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think it would be a wash between 7218 and Fuji Eterna for a blow-up -- Eterna is barely finer-grained and '18 is barely sharper. I'd pick either based on the look you need because technically they are very similar. You might not want something more pastel, but then, you might.

 

When I say Eterna 500T looked finer-grained, I mean I had to stare for a long time to notice it because it is a subtle improvement compared to '18. It may be within a margin of error, meaning that how you expose it that day, or how the lab processes it, etc. may make '18 look finer-grained.

[Guest jeremy edge]

I thought I would post a still I got from the colorist.My tapes havent gotten back yet.

 

He said the footage was GRAINY! could I have gotten bad stock?

 

He said exposure was good ,except for one scene where we were way under.

This shot is actually slightly over exposed.I'll know more when I get the tapes but this frame scares me.

[Guest jeremy edge]

Sorry...didnt attach

here it is

[scribe]

It could be due to underexposure. I've tested Eterna myself and liked it alot. Also rating it at 400 it was very fine grained and as David mentioned low contrast. I found however that it doesn't deal quite as well with underexposure as the vision2 stocks.

 

I'd like to test pushing a stop to see where the grain and contrast go...

 

Oh- I shot on s16.

[Travis Cline]

Has anyone tested the Eterna 400? I'm sort of forced into Fuji for my next show which is fine, but I would like a high speed stock, but low contrast is not my first choice. How does the 400 compare to the 500 in that regard?

 

Travis

[Travis Cline]

I forgot to say, we're shooting 35mm. Thanks

[David Mullen ASC]

400T is even lower in contrast than 500T.

[Guest jeremy edge]

Here is some more frame grabs right from the dvcam...

 

http://extremesoundonline.com/film1.jpg

 

http://extremesoundonline.com/film2.jpg

 

http://extremesoundonline.com/film3.jpg

 

Not quite as sharp as we expected ,but not bad.

[Stephen Williams]

Here is some more frame grabs right from the dvcam...

 

http://extremesoundonline.com/film1.jpg

 

http://extremesoundonline.com/film2.jpg

 

http://extremesoundonline.com/film3.jpg

 

Not quite as sharp as we expected ,but not bad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi,

 

What was the telecine ?

 

Stephen Williams Lighting Cameraman

 

www.stephenw.com

[Guest jeremy edge]

Hi,

 

What was the telecine ?

 

Stephen Williams Lighting Cameraman

 

www.stephenw.com

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thompson Shadow

[Stephen Williams]

Thompson Shadow

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi,

 

Did they use any noise reducer ? The Shadow is a good machine.

 

Stephen

[Guest jeremy edge]

Hi,

 

Did they use any noise reducer ? The Shadow is a good machine.

 

Stephen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, supposedly...he said he hid the grain the best he could.

 

I talked to fuji rep and he said it looks like an underexposure problem to him....but those outdoor shots were if anything over....eric did a little darkening for style.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Yes, supposedly...he said he hid the grain the best he could.

 

I talked to fuji rep and he said it looks like an underexposure problem to him....but those outdoor shots were if anything over....eric did a little darkening for style.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Try some 7218 under exactly the same conditions.

[Guest jeremy edge]

Try some 7218 under exactly the same conditions. B)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

John that is exactly what i basically tried to imply! I told the fuji rep I had shot some 500 stock in available light indoors and it turned out fine and he's telling me that indoors with bright sun in the windows and 3 500 watt fresnels in a small room at 2.8 f stop: I am so undrexposed its grain city.I don't buy it.He was nice but basically like "It's probably your fault" in so many words.

 

Here is some small clips...I know its hard to tell with wmv.

Now we have the conflict of using the grainy film or using what we shot with the xl2 which we dont have as much coverage on.so its sharpness versus aesthetic and vibe.Thank god we shot both and have options though.

 

http://www.extremesoundonline.com/video/bsl/filmschool.wmv

http://www.extremesoundonline.com/video/bsl/filmsnow.wmv

 

here are some stills from the xl2

http://www.extremesoundonline.com/bslframe...epullsindex.htm

 

Only thing that sucks is the slo mo on the xl2 is at 24p givi

ng only 12 frames instead of the 24 we get on 16.

 

What would you guys do?

[Guest jeremy edge]

Hey John,

Come to think of it the only shots on their "lights 2" dvd that are in 16mm are sunny exteriors.If they had done some of their "Extinguishing light sources' shots in 16 based on what I've seen .....they would have looked absolutely awful.

Edited August 2, 2005 by jeremy edge

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, all I can say is that I've been shooting Fuji for 15 years or more and haven't had exposure problems. If it looks murky & grainy, then it probably was underexposed too much.

[Guest jeremy edge]

Well, all I can say is that I've been shooting Fuji for 15 years or more and haven't had exposure problems.  If it looks murky & grainy, then it probably was underexposed too much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How much underexposure does it take for it to fall apart like that?

Like I said this was a bright july day...outdoors I think the smallest f stop was f8.i was getting some clicks on the sekonic that were telling me f11 and f16 rating the stock at 250 and the reflected meter in the k3 was right in the middle or a touch over with setting its dial to line up with 250 at our shooting speed.so I figured rating it at 250 with both meters would put me in the safe to overexposed zone.

 

Indoors we rated the same but bounced some of the lights off the ceiling directly over the subjects and some right on the band's faces.Plus had the overhead flourescents on full and there were quite a few of them.That's the snow shot you see....we turned on an extra fill for all the 48fps scenes and always adjusted our shutter angle when metering ....24fps =1/60 48fps=1/120. Almost all indoor shots were at f2.8.

 

I thought if I gave a more detailed description of the lighting and conditions you might be able to make a better assesment of what happened....which i keep thinking more and more ....something went wrong...either bad stock...mishandling by the shipper etc.X-ray ...I mean ,something. This is really some of the worst grain I've seen in 16mm and we we're cooking pretty good.

 

In other words...if we did not have enough light to shoot with 500 asa then i would hate to see what it takes to shoot with 100asa. We started out with a cool ,shaded school basement and literally were about to pass out from the heat of the lights after them being on for a short time.

 

Not trying to be too pig-headed....I do get it: You underexpose, you get nasty grain.....But man I am telling you we we're shooting in anything but dim conditions.

 

Anyone seen "Lights 2"? They have her shutting off lights sometimes backlit by darkness.but the only 16mm examples they provide are outdoors in bright sun...which i find interesting since it is a high speed tungsten stock. I'm sure most experiences with fuji are positive but I am still scratching my head on this one.

[David Mullen ASC]

The old Fuji 8572 was very similar to 5279 and the new 8573 is very similar to 5218. Other than that, I have no idea what's going wrong with your footage.

 

Truth is that I've had more problems with 500T Kodak stock over the years than 500T Fuji stock, but I don't blame Kodak for that since these incidents happened with recanned / buy-back stock that either were too old or X-ray damaged.

 

Obviously things can go wrong with any stock, in any number of areas (manufacturing, shooting, processing, etc.)

 

But basically the Fuji and Kodak stocks are very similar. Kodak is a little sharper. I mean, in GROSS underexposure, Kodak handles horrible mistakes like that better than Fuji, which tends to go green in the blacks faster than Kodak. But since I don't accidentally underexpose, I haven't had that problem (it's not THAT hard to expose a shot correctly!) Intentional underexposure is different since that is usually for a shot that will be left dark-looking (like a twilight exterior) and not "lifted".

 

I don't expect a stock to be idiot-proof.

[Guest jeremy edge]

Obviously things can go wrong with any stock, in any number of areas (manufacturing, shooting, processing, etc.)

 

But basically the Fuji and Kodak stocks are very similar. Kodak is a little sharper.  I mean, in GROSS underexposure, Kodak handles horrible mistakes like that better than Fuji, which tends to go green in the blacks faster than Kodak.  But since I don't accidentally underexpose, I haven't had that problem (it's not THAT hard to expose a shot correctly!) Intentional underexposure is different since that is usually for a shot that will be left dark-looking (like a twilight exterior) and not "lifted". 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are there factors in processing that can affect grain?

 

Dont get me wrong some of the stuff looks....okay .some of it looks awesome except for ....It's just real real,grainy. But I would rule out GROSS underexposure in a 14 x 22 foot room full of hot lights and wide open apertures.That's the scenario in that blue/green clip with the snow.We had a room full of bright lights and a very flat soft lighting....not much shadows...so all our readings were very consistent in that room from different spots.I dialed 250 asa into the sekonic l398 and took a reading then interpreted from the appropriate shutter angle and got our f-stop. So I cant imagine I was more than a stop....2 at the most ,innacurate.

 

I have a second batch coming from the lab ...this time there are 2 rolls of vision 200t .Not vision 2. If its all grainy ,I know its me lol. if the vision 200 pops and the eterna doesnt we can rule out underexposure because i struggled to get enough light indoors for the 200t.

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm not saying that you underexposed it, just that it's not supposed to look like that, so clearly something went wrong somewhere. Maybe x-ray damage from shipping by air, maybe the lab screwed it up, maybe there was a camera problem, I don't know. I'm just telling you that the '73 stock is very similar to Kodak '18, if not slightly finer-grained. Certainly it's not more grainy than '18.

 

I just think you're off-track if you think something is wrong with the Eterna stock, but you'll never know unless you shoot more controlled side-by-side tests.

 

Make a print, time it to look normal, and see what your printer lights are. That would tell you if the negative is too thin, if it prints at very low numbers. If it prints at normal lights (normal density) but the blacks are fogged & grainy, then the film was either rapidly aged somehow (improper storage in a hot environment) or x-rayed, or misdeveloped somehow.

 

You just don't know how many times film students have posted here about getting grainy, murky images and blaming Kodak or Fuji for it, or the lab, yet for some reason, most of the professional shooters seem to have fewer incidents of this...

 

I mean, is it possible that you set the wrong f-stop? Or your camera speed was off? Or you left the shutter in some non-standard position? If you're sure that's not possible and your meter was working properly, and you were using factory-fresh stock and not leaving it in the sun or something, and processing it promptly, then perhaps it got screwed up in processing or something. Of course, there is a very tiny chance that you got some defective stock, but that's pretty low on the list of possibilities.

[Guest jeremy edge]

I'm not saying that you underexposed it, just that it's not supposed to look like that, so clearly something went wrong somewhere. Maybe x-ray damage from shipping by air, maybe the lab screwed it up, maybe there was a camera problem, I don't know.  I'm just telling you that the '73 stock is very similar to Kodak '18, if not slightly finer-grained. Certainly it's not more grainy than '18.

 

I just think you're off-track if you think something is wrong with the Eterna stock, but you'll never know unless you shoot more controlled side-by-side tests.

 

Make a print, time it to look normal, and see what your printer lights are. That would tell you if the negative is too thin, if it prints at very low numbers. If it prints at normal lights (normal density) but the blacks are fogged & grainy, then the film was either rapidly aged somehow (improper storage in a hot environment) or x-rayed, or misdeveloped somehow.

 

You just don't know how many times film students have posted here about getting grainy, murky images and blaming Kodak or Fuji for it, or the lab, yet for some reason, most of the professional shooters seem to have fewer incidents of this...

 

I mean, is it possible that you set the wrong f-stop? Or your camera speed was off? Or you left the shutter in some non-standard position? If you're sure that's not possible and your meter was working properly, and you were using factory-fresh stock and not leaving it in the sun or something, and processing it promptly, then perhaps it got screwed up in processing or something. Of course, there is a very tiny chance that you got some defective stock, but that's pretty low on the list of possibilities.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks David,

I will look into doing a print from a snip of the negative. it is July/August and a hot fed ex trip or warehouse was a possibility.That batch came from burbank...so that was a far trip.The batch that's coming back soon I got fom NY and i do think I should always get fom the east coast so the stock has a shorter time to travel.i'll know soon.

 

I know the stock itself has to be good...Otherwise it would not be so widely accepted...i was just starting to wonder if it was not all that fine grain as they made it out to be or perhaps if i was say one stop under...I think that would be pretty extreme results from just being a tad under.

Edited August 5, 2005 by jeremy edge

[Charles Haine]

Maybe I'm interpreting this thread incorrectly, but did you mention that you were exposing at 250ISO for a 500T stock, and sometimes when your meeter would read 11 or 16 you would set the fStop to 8? At that point you are three stops OVER exposed, and while the grain problmes of overexposure aren't as dramatic as they are with underexposure, is it possible that you consistently overexposed and that caused the grain?

 

The footage looks more underexposed than overexposed, but a lot can be done with either phenomenon in telecine to correct to closer to normal and make it harder to judge where it went rong, and from the way you describe it that seems like a more likely error that you are over.

 

I mean, if it's hot enough in your shooting space that you are close to passing out, and you're rolling 500T, you might have too much lighe.

 

chuck haine