7219 OK for blue-screen work?

[Edgar Dubrovskiy]

Love new Vision3 line.

But is the new 16mm 500T tight enough in grain for blue-screen work in your opinion?

 

I have an option to choose between vision3 500T and older vision2 100T or 200T.

16mm option only.

Would you say that new 500T 16mm is clean enough in blues/grain for blue-screen work?

 

Will shoot tests next week, but some info beforehand would be nice.

 

Thanks a lot!

[Elliot Rudmann]

Well, I'd never say never, but the grain on its own would make it very difficult to key out the blue. Assuming you get the highest quality 2k pin-registered scans (arriscan, ps technik, etc) to ensure the most stable image, you will most likely need to have some grain reduction applied. Even the new 500T is still fairly grainy, and when I've applied grain reduction to it, it's mostly in the blue channel. 16mm just doesn't have enough resolution to professionally hold up to any blue screen work. But it doesn't mean it has never been done before.

 

Best practical solution: If you really can't afford to shoot 35mm, shoot a slow speed 16mm stock like 7212 100T - there is significantly less grain, and definitely don't skip out on a quality digital transfer. Good luck

[Robert Houllahan]

I am working on a spot for Davidoff Cigars right now which is mostly 7219 that I scanned on our P+S Steady-Frame at 2K from S-16 I would say a properly shot neg with a small amount of NR would make it an acceptable stock for green/blue screen. It is very low grain for a 500t there was some 7217 in the job and the 7219 is not really more grainy then the '17 at 2K.

 

-Rob-

[K Borowski]

I'd go with the 7212, assuming you have the wattage to get the T-stop you need.

 

 

While the V3 line features newer technology, 500T is a lot grainier than 100T film (that is 2-1/3 stops less speed), unless you're shooting some outdated ends of the latter from the year 1970 or something ;)

 

Even Vision [1] 200T would probably beat '19 for grain, though I haven't tested this. . .

 

 

Only instance where I'd recommend sticking with just '19 is if you are really tight on your shooting ratio. Shooting with fewer stocks will reduce your waste.

 

 

Anyway, can you give us more information? What are you shooting? Is it just blue-screen, or are you matching the blue-screen footage with location or studio work as well?

[Stephen Williams]

I'd go with the 7212, assuming you have the wattage to get the T-stop you need.

 

Ok I only tested the 35mm version but I found very little difference in the grain between 5212/17. 5212 was clearly sharper.

[Edgar Dubrovskiy]

Anyway, can you give us more information? What are you shooting? Is it just blue-screen, or are you matching the blue-screen footage with location or studio work as well?

 

Thanks.

Info-wise: it's stop-motion animation (30 sec). All in studio. Two main objects talking in foreground. Then putting background plates in blue-screen.

[Dan Salzmann]

Thanks.

Info-wise: it's stop-motion animation (30 sec). All in studio. Two main objects talking in foreground. Then putting background plates in blue-screen.

 

For that amount of work and that small amount of film stock it might be wise to consider shooting in 35mm.

[Edgar Dubrovskiy]

For that amount of work and that small amount of film stock it might be wise to consider shooting in 35mm.

 

Can't, unfortunately.

Part of uni project.