16mm 200T v 500T

Gareth Munden · November 7, 2006

Hi

I'm shooting a short at the weekend, I did some tests with Kodak 16mm 200T, which looked great. But with the style and lighting set-up I'm using I'm having problem getting the 'stop' I need for depth of field with 200asa, I was thinking that the extra 'stop' of Vision 2 500T maybe helpful. How do they compare?. In terms of grain?. in terms of colour and tone?.

Thanks

Chance Shirley · November 7, 2006

7218, Kodak's "regular" Vision2 500T stock, is a little grainier than the Vision2 200T. Also, a friend of mine who shoots more than me says that the contrast of the 500T is visibly lower than the 200T.

All that being said, I actually prefer the 7218. I like the grain, and the contrast is easy enough to adjust in telecine.

Francesco Bonomo · November 7, 2006

Gareth, obviously the 500T has less contrast and slightly more grain than the 200T, but it retains very good details in the shadows and the differences in color and tonality are not huge. If you absolutely need that extra stop I would use the 500T (7218). It'd be better to overexpose it a little, though.

Tim Carroll · November 7, 2006

Hi

I'm shooting a short at the weekend, I did some tests with Kodak 16mm 200T, which looked great. But with the style and lighting set-up I'm using I'm having problem getting the 'stop' I need for depth of field with 200asa, I was thinking that the extra 'stop' of Vision 2 500T maybe helpful. How do they compare?. In terms of grain?. in terms of colour and tone?.

Thanks

Not to contradict what the above post say, I really love the look of 200T, and when I have compared the same scene shot with 200T and 500T, both Vision2, and cropping 16:9 from a Standard 16 neg, I have been much happier with the look of the 200T. If you are shooting Super 16, and therefore can get a 16:9 image with less magnification, then I think the 500T would be acceptable.

To give you an idea, both of these were shot Standard 16 and cropped 16:9, this one was shot on Vision2 500T:

Trailer shot with Kodak Vision2 500T(7218)

This one was shot on Vision2 200T:

Clip shot with Kodak Vision2 200T(7217)

-Tim

David Sweetman · November 7, 2006

In my limited film experience, I have compared vision 2 500T and vision 1 200T, and I've seen 500T to have a "softer" look than 200T. This is probably caused by the lower contrast, but it also seems like the 200T colors are more saturated.

I agree with Tim, I like the look of 200T a lot. I think I'd use 200T if possible and practical for the project. Though perhaps a long depth of field is more important.

Vincent De Paula · November 7, 2006

Hey Gareth,

I've been filming with 7218 in my last 2 jobs and I am very happy with the results. Nowadays all film stocks tend to have a pretty low contrast, and although it is true that you can alter this in post, the contrast is mainly achieved when lighting. You can find examples of different stocks in the kodak website.

Maybe you could elaborate more the kind of set up you are planning.

If you want to gain that extra stop, I'd suggest go with 7218.

my 2 cents...

Thanasis Diamantopoulos · November 8, 2006

Hi

Why dont you try 320T? It is the most closer to 200T.

Will Montgomery · November 10, 2006

Hi
Why dont you try 320T? It is the most closer to 200T.

The 320T is from the previous Vision series and would have a slightly different character than either Vision2 200T or Vision2 500T.

Michael Collier · November 10, 2006

on my last short I shot 200T and couldnt have been happier. It was not too difficult to get to the stop I wanted, but it was designed as a darker film, so there were larger areas of shadow. It really helped though to be able to get the right light level both indoors and out (at a 100D) so I think, even on a low-light budget project, 200T is doable and not to hard to light for. Now if you have a big feild, well then math takes over at that point and you may need more money to light than 500t. On the project I had we had 2 totas (1K) 1 omni (500) and an arri kit with 2 650 fressnals (w chimera) and 2 150 fressnels. We had no problem lighting even large areas.

Tim Terner · November 10, 2006

To give you an idea, both of these were shot Standard 16 and cropped 16:9, this one was shot on Vision2 500T:
Trailer shot with Kodak Vision2 500T(7218)

Really liked the look of this one Tim. What lens was used ?