Jump to content

Does 500T stock make sense given that there are daylight LEDs?


Recommended Posts

To the best of my knowledge, 500T film needs an 85b filter to warm up a daylight source. That's at a cost of 2/3 of a stop. So in that case, the ASA comes down to 320, which is 1/3 of a stop faster than 250. Given that Kodak makes a 250D stock, is there room in modern productions for a 500T stock?

I suppose that a lot of LED panels have a variable temperature, and that's another thing to think about. But, if it's just easier to standardise to daylight, maybe productions will eventually just do that.

The counterpoint would be that Kodak could tweak 5219 and make it daylight balanced, thus giving it relevance again. Also, 500T might push better than 250D. But I don't have any idea about that.

What are your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that there are still tungsten light sources and sources warmer than daylight it is very nice to have the option of 500T and 200T in order to start closer to the intended balance without loosing stops. Looking at the number of productions using 500T and 200T I really wouldn't say they are irrelevant at all. And not everyone even uses a 85B filter when shooting under daylight with tungsten balanced stock.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

500T is the most versatile film stock ever made.  It's regularly over exposed for increased density. Its pushed past 1250 iso, and it just keep going.

There have always been lamps near a color temperature of 5600K.  There has not been a "standard".  Why do you feel tungsten is not worthy of keeping around?  LED's make horrid tungsten lamps.   I personally don't like HMI lighting. I like the fact that I can utilize LED's for a daylight source, but then these manufacturers also need to realise I don't want to carry around 17 pieces to make a lamp work.

500T has been tested in every conceivable way, and has proved its value.

In my opinion, LED manufacturers should stop trying to make Tungsten colors and focus on daylight, what they are good at. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It costs a lot of money to develop and produce new film stocks, so I doubt Kodak will be doing that any time soon.

5219 500T is great as-is. Personally, I liked the higher contrast of 5218 better, but ‘19 scans are cleaner. Since playing with warm/cool white balance is one of the basic key looks in cinematography, tungsten stocks are very useful. Most cinematographers still shoot at 3200K white balance quite often for dusk/night scenes on digital cameras. 

Fujifilm used to make a 500D stock, but it wasn’t very popular.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Variable temperature leds have the highest output when adjusted to intermediate temperatures around 4300K. If adjusted to either end the theoretical maximum output is much lower. 

So if going for a cold look with vari temp leds it would make sense to use the tungsten stock so that you dont need to have too high color temp on the led and can thus get higher output from it. 

If using a fixed temp daylight led then it would not matter that much. But most people go for the varitemp ones so it does make a difference if wanting to have as high output as possible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The vari temp led light have half of the leds daylight balanced and half of them tungsten balanced. When changing the temperature one changes the dimming of the daylight ones vs tungsten ones. On tungsten setting the daylight ones are completely off and on daylight setting the tungsten balanced leds are off. This means that you can only get about half of the maximum output unless using the intermediate temperature where both of the leds are fully on. That is somewhere around 4300K.

This is why I preferer daylight balanced led lights: they have about double the light output compared to a similar wattage variable temp light. Led lights are low power anyway so it does not make sense to waste half of the output just to enable a feature which is relatively rarely needed on higher power lights (on low power ones it is useful but on the 200-600w range it is complete wasting by my opinion)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

Shot on 200T, no filter: If you are scanning the negative and grade digitally, no need to use 85B filters.

 

Very nice images! This just blew my mind! So you're telling me I don't need to worry about that annoying 2/3 stop of light anymore because I never had the balls to use tungsten film during the day in fear that it might be a waste of film?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Uli Meyer said:

The look of 200T graded for daylight is different to 250D. 

That's what I suspected. So it's an aesthetic choice in that case. I see the colors with 200T (shot in daylight) being a little more "muted" and less "in your face" as opposed to the 50D or 250D would render. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

Shot on 200T, no filter: If you are scanning the negative and grade digitally, no need to use 85B filters.

 

I really wasn't prepared for the ending! Very well made, very well written. Quite haunting, too - I guess that's kind of the point of the story, right?  ? 

So this was 2-perf S35? Anyway, it looked damned, damned good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
46 minutes ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

I really wasn't prepared for the ending! Very well made, very well written. Quite haunting, too - I guess that's kind of the point of the story, right?  ? 

So this was 2-perf S35? Anyway, it looked damned, damned good.

3-perf, cropped to 2.39.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
16 hours ago, Matthew J. Walker said:

Very nice images! This just blew my mind! So you're telling me I don't need to worry about that annoying 2/3 stop of light anymore because I never had the balls to use tungsten film during the day in fear that it might be a waste of film?

You still have to worry about the 2/3 compensation if wanting the same shadow detail. And you will lose a little bit of highlight detail because the blue is always overexposed when shooting without the filter. 

The point was that it may be more practical to shoot without needing to worry about the correction filters and the colors can be corrected to look very similar if grading digitally. They are not exactly the same but will totally work for the audience

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...