Shubham Kasera Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 hello i am about to shoot a film on monday and i did order for 5279 stock since we are looking for a grainier look. moreover this is to shoot a sequence which is from the past, which requires a grainy look how is this emulsion? is it grainy naturally? or should I push process it one stop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Compton Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 It's grainy already. But if you really like grain - PUSH it. I've shot music videos and television commercials with. I like it better than all the curent Vision stocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shubham Kasera Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 It's grainy already. But if you really like grain - PUSH it. I've shot music videos and television commercials with. I like it better than all the curent Vision stocks. hey is there any work online? any work which have been shot on 5279? thanks shubham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarin Blaschke Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Generally, I don't think you'll be able to tell the difference in stocks online - there are too many steps and variables between the emulsion and your computer screen. I've shot many things on '79 since it came out (1997 I believe?)and was recently sad to see it go. The difference isn't only in grain, but in contrast and color saturation, which constitutes the majority of its look in my opinion. 5279 is notably more saturated than Vision 2/3 stocks, and this difference will become even more prominent when you push the film. If a saturated and contrasty look also suits the look of the film, great. If not, I think you'd be better off using a newer low-contast stock like 5229 and underexposing and pushing that. Low contrast stocks tend to be a bit grainier than usual anyway, as it needs bigger, more sensitive grain to add more detail to/soften the shadow areas. If you then rate 5229 at 1000 or 1200 and push +1 or +1 1/2, you'll get plenty of grain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny N Suleimanagich Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Do a few tests and see what you like most, because you may end up with something you didn't intend on getting. Furthermore, are you shooting 16mm or 35mm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Furthermore, are you shooting 16mm or 35mm? Kenny, the "52-" designates a 35mm stock with Kodak products. "72-" would be used instead were it 16mm. Fuji has something comparable "8" and "6" I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomas Koolhaas Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I used 5279 a bunch of times when I was a student because we got good deals on it at my school, I liked it so much I shot with it after I graduated on a few projects too. It is pretty grainy though, test it before you decide to push it, as I recall the colors arent too saturated which is a look I like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I used 5279 a bunch of times when I was a student because we got good deals on it at my school, I liked it so much I shot with it after I graduated on a few projects too. It is pretty grainy though, test it before you decide to push it, as I recall the colors arent too saturated which is a look I like. The grain is all relative, the 35mm version won't be that grainy if you're shooting for TV. It doesn't look like the high speed 16mm reversal stocks that were used in the 1970s & 80's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Compton Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 heyis there any work online? any work which have been shot on 5279? thanks shubham Here are frame grabs from 2 things that I shot on 5279. A staged baptism for a church program video and a music video. There was VERY LITTLE adjustments made to the baptism footage. The music video had the shadow detail crunched, slighty. The moves images had a nice grainy texture. http://www.flickr.com/photos/35930836@N02/3331839074/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/35930836@N02/3331839100/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now