Jump to content

Pushing Kodak Vision3 200T/7213 ?


david jenewein

Recommended Posts

hi there, i am about to shoot a short film and unfortunately the kodak vision3 500T, which i intended to use, is sold out in london.

as the 200T is still available, i am thinking about using this one.

there are quite a few low light situations within this film, so probably would need to push the film.

thats why i wanted to ask if anybody has experience in which direction the film will change in regards to contrast, saturation, grain and the look in general?

how does it change pushing +1stop and +2stop?

would be great to get some advice on that.

thanks so much,

david

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Yea I've shot and pushed 200T a stop, it's perfectly fine. It has smoother blacks than the 500T does. It's a very different stock than the 500T, I really like it. Just remember, one stop ain't much. You're talking about preserving detail in the blacks mostly. Where with 500T, you don't NEED to do that, the blacks detail is higher no matter what. But I don't push 200T like I do 500T in the blacks. I find it becomes undefined. Here is a shot we pushed a bit over 1 stop, maybe 2? Don't know because we did 1 photochemically and I pushed it further in the scan. I'll say this much, it was F.7 on the meter and I shot it at F2 lol It's 5213 3 perf 35mm. 

EOL_COLOR_TEST_1_52.1.thumb.jpeg.eac2970f34b4c22e2979a949feeeb0ab.jpeg

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Just keep in mind that pushing a stock doesn't increase its sensitivity, you are just taking information that got captured and increasing its density, so the contrast increases as you sort of stretch out the information you have by making the highlights brighter.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

Just keep in mind that pushing a stock doesn't increase its sensitivity, you are just taking information that got captured and increasing its density, so the contrast increases as you sort of stretch out the information you have by making the highlights brighter.

thanks for letting me know david, i didn't look at that like this before. definitely good to know

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Yea I've shot and pushed 200T a stop, it's perfectly fine. It has smoother blacks than the 500T does. It's a very different stock than the 500T, I really like it. Just remember, one stop ain't much. You're talking about preserving detail in the blacks mostly. Where with 500T, you don't NEED to do that, the blacks detail is higher no matter what. But I don't push 200T like I do 500T in the blacks. I find it becomes undefined. Here is a shot we pushed a bit over 1 stop, maybe 2? Don't know because we did 1 photochemically and I pushed it further in the scan. I'll say this much, it was F.7 on the meter and I shot it at F2 lol It's 5213 3 perf 35mm. 

EOL_COLOR_TEST_1_52.1.thumb.jpeg.eac2970f34b4c22e2979a949feeeb0ab.jpeg

thanks for sending the still of your film, looks great. and yeah pretty good that it still works when reading f7 but shooting on f2. also interesting what you say about pushing the 200T and the differences to the 500T, will keep that in mind. cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
14 hours ago, david jenewein said:

thanks for sending the still of your film, looks great. and yeah pretty good that it still works when reading f7 but shooting on f2. also interesting what you say about pushing the 200T and the differences to the 500T, will keep that in mind. cheers

F point 7 (F.7) So shooting at F2 is a bit over a stop under exposed. Plus we weren't very cautious about background lighting. This was a re-shoot and we had no crew, no budget, no resources. My gaffer used 2 LED panel's to light a scene that was originally lit with a 4k HMI from 100ft way using bounce light. Mind you, if you watch the final movie, the average audience would never notice the difference because all that actress's coverage is missing the street light. To me it's "odd" but hey, most movies have odd shit like that in them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
22 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

f/0.7… f/1.0… f/1.4… f/2.0, so that’s 3-stops underexposed if your meter said f/0.7 and you shot at f/2.0

Ah got ya, I thought for some reason it was .7 straight to 1.4. Didn't know about the 1.0 step between them.

Thanks for the correction. 

Honestly I think it was below .7 anyway, the meter doesn't go below that. Usually it says "under" but it didn't this time, it just said .7. I'm sad I had no 500T at the time and my actors were in a rush to shoot it that moment, oh well. It's not the end of the world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2021 at 11:01 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

F point 7 (F.7) So shooting at F2 is a bit over a stop under exposed. Plus we weren't very cautious about background lighting. This was a re-shoot and we had no crew, no budget, no resources. My gaffer used 2 LED panel's to light a scene that was originally lit with a 4k HMI from 100ft way using bounce light. Mind you, if you watch the final movie, the average audience would never notice the difference because all that actress's coverage is missing the street light. To me it's "odd" but hey, most movies have odd shit like that in them. 

oh, got that one completely wrong initially then which f stops you were reading. thanks for explaining again though

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...