7218 with ND vs. 7201/45

Louis · November 7, 2005

Hi, I'm prepping a project to shoot next weekend, and it consists of entirely day exteriors, and yesterday I shot test rolls for both 7201 and 7245, to compare and contrast them. Only after we shot the test did I find out from my producer that we can get a spectacular deal for a bunch of 7218, basically enough for our whole shoot, for free, along with a series of 85 ND filters (85 ND3 through 85 ND9), and it looks like we'd be crazy not to go with it. My question is: what would be the main difference in look between the slower speed stocks and the 7218 with ND filters? I would probably overexpose to reduce the grain, but would that be enough? Can I assume that the 7218 will behave more like the 7201 than like the 7245? Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Mike Williamson · November 7, 2005

A professional DP once advised me that he had switched to using high speed stocks for day exteriors (with piles of ND of course) because these stocks were often lower contrast and could see further into the shadows than the slower speed daylight stocks. If you think about it, day exteriors can really benefit from low-con stocks because of the extreme difference between sun and shade that you can encounter during the day. The trade-off is that you'll have more grain and looking through the viewfinder is a real pain.

So my prediction is that using 7218 would give you a lower contrast image with more grain than you'd get with either 7201 or 7245. If you're working in areas that try to balance sunny and shaded areas or you don't have much grip gear to work with, 7218 might work out better for you if the grain isn't a big problem. While 7201 is being touted as a lower contrast stock for daylight exteriors, the people I've talked to who have tested it say that they found it more contrasty than expected. My guess is that '18 will be somewhat similar to '01 in terms of color rendition and skin tones, but probably the contrast and latitutde will look different.

How did the '01 look in your test? Did you think it looked a lot different from the '45? I'm curious to hear what your thoughts on the two are. Good luck with the project!

Laurent Andrieux · November 7, 2005

How did the '01 look in your test? Did you think it looked a lot different from the '45? I'm curious to hear what your thoughts on the two are.

So am I ! You see, we don't have the 01 in France yet...

I was actually thinking of comparing to the 05 as well as to the 45, since they both are vision 2... and it's always interesting to know if the 2 sensitivity match together.

I think the 12, 17 and 18 match so well together, I was curious to know if it's as true for daylight stock?...

Louis · November 7, 2005

In my limited experience shooting 7218, I found it to be fairly fine-grained for a faster stock. How much of an issue do you think the grain will be after partial overexposure? Do you think that shooting another test would be necessary?

I haven't gotten my test of the 7201 back from the lab yet, but I'll let you guys know how it compares to 7245.

David Mullen ASC · November 7, 2005

Whether 7218 will look too grainy outdoors is almost entirely subjective. One person will say it looks fine, another will say that it looks grainy. Personally, I'd avoid it unless you are shooting in low daylight levels anyway, like in the forest under heavy shade. Besides, have you ever tried operating while looking through an ND1.2?

Dirk DeJonghe · November 7, 2005

I saw the first results of 7201 and it looks much more low-con than the 7245. Nice balance between sunlit areas and shadows. Very neutral in shadows. Will shortly do a direct blow-up and 2K scan/shoot to 35mm for Kodak demo film;

A LOT of image quality is lost by using high-speed films outdoors, not because of the film but because of the lens and everything in front of it. Same camera, same lens, same stock but why are the interiors and night shots sharper than sunny exteriors? Only one reason: whatever is in front of the lens (including F-stop).

Joseph White · November 7, 2005

Roger Deakins just shot all of "Jarhead" on 5218 - desert day exteriors and all - for a uniformity of grain throughout the picture and for presumably lower contrast. And it looks fantastic - but mainly because it's apropriate for the film. Mr. Mullen is correct - its subjective - there's really no right or wrong way to do it. If shooting allows you to get your hands on some more equipment that will benefit your ability to control whats in front of the camera, it might not be a bad idea. But yeah post some stills of your results of the 01 as it seems like we're all dying to see something!

I'm shooting a short film starting next week on super 16mm and super 8mm, and all of the 16mm portions will be shot on fuji f-500t to maximize grain - we're even going to push a stop here and there. Is it what I'd normally do? Hell no. But its the look the director wants, so its right for the movie. Yeah operating that one is going to be a REAL treat - even though we're only shooting during "nice" light times of day (thank you production) i anticipate not being able to see a damn thing for a week. Great :) We'll be cross-processing 8mm color reversal though - the new 64t - so that should be fun at least. Except for, of course, estimating 1.85:1 on the GG the entire time. Always a good time :)