Jump to content

Kodak 500T vs 250D - Super 16


Connor Adam

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I'm a student cinematographer with a shoot coming up, on 16mm with the Arri SR3. I have a couple of shoots planned during the blue phase of magic hour (civil twilight and the blue hour), on a beach. I think I'm correct in saying that I need to shoot with daylight colour balance to match the blue tones in the sky as tungsten will make them even cooler?

 

I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the different aesthetics of 500T and 250D? (aside from the obvious sensitivity and colour balance differences). Is there any particular advantage (visual or otherwise) to shooting 500t with an 85 or 250d straight up?

 

All the best,

Connor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your 500T will be significantly more grainy than your 250 which won't matter much in 35mm but more so in 16mm and significantly in Super 8.

 

Otherwise, it's pretty much a wash. You don't really gain anything with 500T in that situation unless you are going to take that same camera into tungsten lighting without a film change just a filter change.

 

With the filter you'll basically have a 320 speed film with 500T so no major speed advantage over 250D.

 

So. If the entire roll will be shot in that same light I go 250D for sure. Keep in mind that as you get closer to sunset you basically get tungsten lighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, thanks for your reply.

 

Sounds like 250D is the more logical choice, and most of the other scenes will also be shot with this stock anyway.

 

The colour change in light is my main concern, but I suppose that is just an issue that I'll always have shooting at that hour. Would shooting on tungsten stock during the golden part of magic hour yield a similar look to the blue hour? Or will it just look like it was shot on the wrong stock? I appreciate this might be hard to answer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a little film with a bunch of stocks in it. Unfortunately, it's not labeled what is what, so probably not as helpful as it could be, but I think it's safe to assume the nighttime stuff is all 500T. And you can also see that either film stock will get you excellent results.

 

Edited by Josh Gladstone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Your 500T will be significantly more grainy than your 250 which won't matter much in 35mm but more so in 16mm and significantly in Super 8.

 

Just as a side note, "significantly more grainy" is not as significant as it used to be. I had to push 500T two stops in order to achieve a fairly grainy look on a 16mm print. Nowadays, all of Kodak's stocks are pretty fine-grained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a little film with a bunch of stocks in it. Unfortunately, it's not labeled what is what, so probably not as helpful as it could be, but I think it's safe to assume the nighttime stuff is all 500T. And you can also see that either film stock will get you excellent results.

 

Hi!

I can help with labeling, since it's my tests :) Don't know why I didn't label… well next time.

 

00.00-00.19: 250D 7207. First shots I didn't have my eye to the viewfinder, and that caused fogging. Only realized later after more testing. Film is still quite new to me and every roll is a great lesson!

 

00.19-00.36: 200T 7213. With 85B-filter.

 

00.36-end: 500T 7219. The first exteriors look more grainy then they originally where. I cropped the image from a quite low res original. Also it seems to me like gray overcast days shows the grain more. Dancing scene was with a Black Pro-mist 1/4 filter.

 

Since these tests I've done more and have come to a conclusion that what ever I do and how ever I expose I got usable shots :) It's also great to test the stocks in various lighting scenarios to help make a "preview in the head" of what the results will be. For me it's a great new experience since I started in the times of Beta-/DV-cameras with lcd's.

 

Also, I just shot a roll that was labeled wrong as a 250D, when it really was a 200T. I shot outside in overcast (Kelvin around 6600) but after the onlelight from the lab it still looked great! Now I'm sticking to 500T and 250D, when summer comes I'll try 50D also.

 

I think 85- and FLB/FLD-filters etc makes a difference, but that the results will be perfectly usable without them also if it's not possible to use.

 

Film is a joy!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, mainly in the blue layer, since it can be much slower in speed.

 

How much slower? A color temperature filter's two stops, correct? Would that make the speed difference between the blue and red & green layers one stop or...?

 

You are right David, but the blue layer is already the most grainy one to start with. To me a 250D looks similar to a 100T as far as grain is concerned (subjectively),

 

Why is the blue layer grainiest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It may be the other correction filter's worth (the orange 85, not the blue 80A) so 2/3's of a stop, not 2-stops.

 

Anyway, in tungsten light, there is a lower level of blue wavelengths so the grains in that layer have to be larger (more sensitive, or actually, more efficient at capturing light) to compensate.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 years later...

If you had to shoot an interior daylight scene on 16mm could you get away with just shooting on 500T and then correcting for it in post (shiftinf the WB to daylight) rather than putting on an 85B and loosing 2/3 of a stop?

 

My main question is if you had to compare 16mm 500T (shot in daylight and corrected for in post) and 16mm 500T + 85B (shot in daylight) will there be a difference? What would the disadvantages to this be apart from the loss of sensitivity?

thanks!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you'll see extra blue in the film grain if you dont do some optical filtration, even after your correction. I've used an LLD filter in the past to take the harshness off those tiny blue grain bits when I dont want to use the 85, since LLD doesnt loose any light.

That being said, 500T with the 85 filter looks really good, and brings out a warmth to it you'd otherwise not get. Much better IMO than a corrected, unfiltered 500T.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
23 hours ago, Robin Phillips said:

That being said, 500T with the 85 filter looks really good, and brings out a warmth to it you'd otherwise not get. Much better IMO than a corrected, unfiltered 500T.

Yep, 100% agree. It's a lot warmer with an 85 than without. 

If you want a cooler look, than go without and correct in scan or in post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...