fattening up 500t or 200t?

Post by **francis** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:19 am

anybody shoot these two stocks a stop over? were the results much better?

Post by **audadvnc** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:33 pm

According to Kodak representative John Pytlak you can shoot negative up to 2 stops over to reduce grain and still be able to telecine/print the results. You may find contrast changes with exposure. Try it and see if it meets your needs.

Post by **Nigel** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:12 pm

I would say to always shoot them at least 1/2 over and 1 is no problem. 2 can be brought down in Xfer but that is where is starts be be noticable.

Shoot some tests and see where you want it.

Good Luck

Post by **matt5791** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:16 pm

I always shoot 1/2 over - you definitely don't want to underexpose.

Matt

Post by **Nigel** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:35 pm

I don't want to say that you DON'T want to underexpose. Without knowing what you are shooting it is hard to say...

That is why you need to do your own tests.

Then picking where in the latitude you want to be. If you need to be on the darker side then find that exposure.

Whilst 80-90% of the time I like to over expose slightly some of the best shots I have gotten were when I was about a stop under. Then again it fit for the work I was doing.

Good Luck

Post by **Mogzy** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:45 pm

So, what would the results be like if I shot it in a camera which will rate 200T at 100ASA with 85 filter? Hiow many stops over exposure does that work out at?

Post by **John_Pytlak** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:59 pm

Mogzy wrote:So, what would the results be like if I shot it in a camera which will rate 200T at 100ASA with 85 filter? Hiow many stops over exposure does that work out at?

Shooting Kodak VISION2 200T Color Negative Film 7217 with the recommended 85 filter in daylight illumination makes it equivalent to a EI-125 daylight balance film:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/produ ... 10.4&lc=en

Post by **mattias** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:09 pm

underexposing negative can create interesting looks in high brightness situations. you don't need to worry about getting a thin neg or shadow grain if you're shooting backlit and flared out snowboarding. a slight underexposure will make such scenes softer and more pastel. rating normal and pull processing would probably be better but just underexposing works too.

/matt

Post by **John_Pytlak** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:30 pm

mattias wrote:underexposing negative can create interesting looks in high brightness situations. you don't need to worry about getting a thin neg or shadow grain if you're shooting backlit and flared out snowboarding. a slight underexposure will make such scenes softer and more pastel. rating normal and pull processing would probably be better but just underexposing works too.

/matt

Underexposure pushes more scene information onto the lower contrast "toe" of a color negative film's sensitivity characteristic. So the shadows will have lower contrast with less detail. Black areas may become lower in density or "milky" in the final print or transfer. The larger, faster grains in the "toe" will be more visible.

Post by **francis** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:34 am

ok, but has anybody gone a stop over with these stocks and checked out the results?

Post by **John_Pytlak** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:33 am

francis wrote:ok, but has anybody gone a stop over with these stocks and checked out the results?

the woy from Germany posted a demo of Kodak VISION2 200T with a variety of exposure conditions in this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=12761&start=15

The outdoor scenes look very good with some overexposure. Here's the demo:

http://www.found-footage.de/muster2.mpg

Post by **mattias** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:12 am

francis wrote:ok, but has anybody gone a stop over with these stocks and checked out the results?

um, yes. to me it looks like your question has been more than answered = yes the results are better. what else do you want to know?

/matt

Post by **francis** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:26 pm

i was actually asking if anybody did it in the two s8 neg stocks...wanted to know what they looked like directly since i know it worked for 16mm. wanted an opinion.

but hey thanks mattias, you have been truely helpfull as you always are with many of your comments that you offer to the browsers of the site.

Post by **mattias** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:53 pm

i see. no, i haven't shot any tests of these stocks in super 8. the rolls i've shot i have overexposed but since i never exposed them normally i can't say what the difference is.

/matt

Post by **John_Pytlak** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:46 pm

The great latitude of all the Kodak VISION2 Camera Negative Films is such that they can tolerate considerable overexposure. As noted, increasing exposure places more scene information on the finer-grained mid and slow emulsions used in each film. The only issue is not to overexpose the the extent that the negative becomes so dense that it will not print within the normal range of printer adjustment, or is too dense to transfer without getting into electronic noise issues on older telecines. One stop of overexposure is almost always "safe territory" to reduce graininess without getting into other issues.