500T rated at 320 vs 200T at box speed

[Raymond Zrike]

Does anyone have any examples of 500T rated at around 320 versus 200T at box speed on super-16?

I’m going to be shooting about 7000’ in a small interior soon. I’ll have a set of Arri tungstens (a couple 1ks, 650Ws, 350Ws, and 150Ws). I expect to be shooting in the 150-400 ASA range most of the time, so I’m wondering which of these two options to pick. I have Ultra 16s, so I’m comfortable going down to T1.3/T2.

I see some other threads about this, but the videos that people link to are almost all 720p videos from a decade ago.

We don't have the budget for tests. In my head, I slightly prefer 500T, but my reasons don't make any sense, so I'm looking for opinions. Sharpness and saturation are paramount.

I was planning on just going ahead with an order of a bunch of 200T, but our provider is out of stock, so it's making me reconsider. We can delay the production if 200T is truly what we need.

Planning on a 4K HDR DI.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Raymond Zrike

[Giray Izcan]

I would stick with 7213 for maximum sharpness and clarity. Every feature I see that is shot on 7219 looks soft and grainy. I don't think s16 needs the extra grain to feel organic as it is an inherently grainy format.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Giray Izcan

[Robin Phillips]

IMO if you want the 7219 look, shoot 7219. I normally shoot that at 400 and find it fine, 320 should give you more small grain response and a little more perceived sharpness. I would light a little more contrasty though on 19, not just to lean into its native properties but to add even more perceived sharpness. Remember we also live in a world where you can do subtle sharpening in Resolve without making the grain pop too much. Hell, if you really want you can use neat video to degrain, sharpen, then mix back in with the source. That method works great too, but boy its a resource hog. 

If you need a reference, check out "the wrestler", which was mostly 19. it looks great. 500T is perfectly sharp when done right.

That being said, make absolutely sure your camera is as sharp as it can get. On the Aaton XTR series its FFD is 52.00mm dead nuts. My SR3 Advanced is sharpest at 51.99mm for whatever reason (differences in pressure plate tension between the two systems?). Make sure your lenses are also collimated to the sharpest possible. I've seen professional stuff, usually ads, where its clear they used 16 and its was a little soft, and to my surprise they are often shot on the 416. My best guess on these is that they're out of spec, or the flange depth is technically within tolerance so the camera still goes out, even though its not dialed in optimally. 

If you do go 200T, TBH I shoot that at 160 for best results. 

[Giray Izcan]

Of course, 7219 is a great stock, but 7213 would easily out perform 19 in terms of clarity and sharpness - if one aims to make it look like 35 on big screen. You will have to add more light on 13 as one would expect. Granted, s16 will never look as sharp as 35 but I am the type of dp who tries to shoot s16 as clean and sharp as possible to mimick 35 as much as possible. "Carol" looked great on 7219 - albeit somewhat soft - would have looked much sharper on 7213 for instance. Good luck with your shoot.

[Tyler Purcell]

19 hours ago, Raymond Zrike said:

I was planning on just going ahead with an order of a bunch of 200T, but our provider is out of stock, so it's making me reconsider. We can delay the production if 200T is truly what we need.

You should have no problem ordering from Kodak directly. 

We also offer stock, processing and scan deals, which will save you several thousand dollars if you're looking at shooting THAT much film. Feel free to shoot me a PM and we can discuss. I can get you film right away.