Shooting Kodak Vision 3 500T Super 16mm

[Nick Sempos]

First of all this is my first post on this forrum and i wanted to say thanks for all the shared knowledge.

I'm shooting a personal project on Kodak 500T and i'm planning some really contrasty shots, I've worked with this film stock mostly as an AC so i'm not sure how the film behaves under really contrasty enviroments. Most of the DPs i've worked with used fill light and never underexposed.

Is it a safe bet to shoot it at a 320ASA rating and then bring the blacks down in post after the scan (4k Scan at Prores4444 Lasergraphic Scanstation 6.5K motion picture film scanner.) even if threy are crushed or should i use some room tone to lift them on set?

And also I was wandering what should the stop difference be from middle gray to black for that to not be clipped.

Thank you a lot in advance, happy to be a part of this community.

[Uli Meyer]

If you are metering for 320 instead of 500, you won't be crushing the blacks. You'll be overexposing, not underexposing.

[Tyler Purcell]

If you mean contrasty, do you mean just big patches of black area? Do you want to see into that area or do you want it to be very contrasty on purpose? Also what format? 8mm, 16mm, 35mm? What stop range can you be in? Can you light or are you using natural lighting only? 

[Phillip Mosness]

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Also what format? 8mm, 16mm, 35mm? 

Looks like Super 16mm 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Of course I do not know exactly what you want here, but I though I would think aloud a little bit. Have you considered using Ektachrome for this project? You do have to be spot-on with metering and it's only 100ASA. But, you did say you wanted contrast!

[Chris Burke]

Post a photo of the look you want. That will help people here give you advice. Keep in mind that 500T in it's latest formula '19, has enormous amount of latitude in both the highlights and especially the shadows. I wouldn't stress about it too much though. All Kodak color negative stocks are very easily manipulated in post. It is probably going to be a combination of both lighting and color grading. Do not over expose highlights and do not fill your shadows, you should be close enough to a high con scene, then just tweak it in post. 

[David Mullen ASC]

It's easy to time a scan to be contrasty.

If you are going something like a skip-bleached print look where the blacks really look crushed, oddly enough you do have to think about fill light because of the drop in shadow detail. For the most part, of course, you want that look, but when you need to see something in the shadows, you have to add some light there. Eyelights are also helpful.

[David Mullen ASC]

Here’s an example I pulled from my own work. The middle frame is how the final image looked on home video. Above it is a lower-contrast attempt and at the bottom is a high-contrast version. You see that when a lot of contrast is added you start to need to add light to areas that you don’t want to drop out. Originally shot on Kodak 5219 500T rated at 320 ASA.

[Karim D. Ghantous]

7 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

Eyelights are also helpful.

I dare say they are virtually necessary!

[Nick Sempos]

On 3/24/2023 at 4:26 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

If you mean contrasty, do you mean just big patches of black area? Do you want to see into that area or do you want it to be very contrasty on purpose? Also what format? 8mm, 16mm, 35mm? What stop range can you be in? Can you light or are you using natural lighting only? 

Yes I mean exactly that, big patches of black area. I'm shooting 16mm. I would try to light for about a T/2.8 (if by stop range you're reffering to that. Also I will have the abillity to light, in mind that the scene is going to be on a theater stage.

[Nick Sempos]

On 3/24/2023 at 8:10 PM, David Mullen ASC said:

It's easy to time a scan to be contrasty.

If you are going something like a skip-bleached print look where the blacks really look crushed, oddly enough you do have to think about fill light because of the drop in shadow detail. For the most part, of course, you want that look, but when you need to see something in the shadows, you have to add some light there. Eyelights are also helpful.

On the contrary i'm looking to enhance saturation and make the skintones pop, if i were to do a skip-bleach by pass would that mean a lack of those? Your images are really helpful and now that you mention eyelight it would be something i really need to think about.

[Nick Sempos]

On 3/24/2023 at 11:27 AM, Chris Burke said:

Post a photo of the look you want. That will help people here give you advice. Keep in mind that 500T in it's latest formula '19, has enormous amount of latitude in both the highlights and especially the shadows. I wouldn't stress about it too much though. All Kodak color negative stocks are very easily manipulated in post. It is probably going to be a combination of both lighting and color grading. Do not over expose highlights and do not fill your shadows, you should be close enough to a high con scene, then just tweak it in post. 

I think of this as a main referrence

[Tyler Purcell]

5 hours ago, Nick Sempos said:

Yes I mean exactly that, big patches of black area. I'm shooting 16mm. I would try to light for about a T/2.8 (if by stop range you're reffering to that. Also I will have the abillity to light, in mind that the scene is going to be on a theater stage.

Got ya, so if it's theater lighting, then yea you'd be ok. I'd push for 8 stops difference between what you want black and what you want to see. 500T has this uncanny ability to capture blacks WAY under the exposure range, especially in a properly lit scene, where the bleed is not controlled. Getting silky smooth blacks will require a considerable amount of lighting and good control for areas you don't want to see on stage.