Hi and Marry Christmas,
I got some roll's of Kodak Vision 1 250D film, Im not the sharpest guy on what ASA/film type to use in what conditions. Specially for 16mm. I know 50D is great for those sunny days, but then I guess 250D is good for overcast days? Like, it's good if its not sunny and not dark, am I right? Can the 250D be used in any other conditions? How will the picture be on a non-sunny day? Does the film grain alot? Please tell me all about it, love to learn this stuff=)
Sorry If im asking pretty basic questions still, Im just little new on the 16mm film area. Just been shooting 500T inside one time, thats about what Ive shot so far. Cant wait to shoot some outdoor things and see the result. I shoot with a Scoopic 16M so I hope that will give me a desent picture.
Oh, Ive also just bought a circular polar-filter to the Scoopic, that will work good under any weather conditions right and any film type? Love how it gives the image some much more contrast/saturation. Looks really good I think. Then Im aslo a sucker for good colors, like color:)
Hoping for some replays!
Kodak 16mm film use question's!
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
-
Scotness
- Senior member
- Posts: 2630
- Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 8:58 pm
- Location: Sunny Queensland, Australia!
- Contact:
Hi Marius - I'm not an epert - I only have limited experience with 16mm - but I've used 250D indoors and outdoors - and the results were fine in each - just measure it well with your light meter and light/set the camera accordingly -- you will get alot of exposure lattitude out of it which is good
Scot
Scot
Read my science fiction novel The Forest of Life at https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01D38AV4K
well...it depends
I'm a grain hater, so I really can only see one use for 250D: daylight slow-mo.
If you're picking a high speed stock to keep grain consistent during indoor shots, why not use Vision 200T with a filter? Because 250 with a tungsten filter isn't going to give you the high ISO for your indoor shots, which is where you always need the sensitivity.
And for most daylight shots, 50D is usually fine. In bright light, you're still going to be at the top of your exposure range and have excellent depth of field (assuming you want it wide). And the 50D is going to give you a much better image (assuming you are not searching for grain for effect.) Of course with 250D you'll have wide depth of field even in shadowy shots.
But for my tastes, I'd make every attempt to use 50D in daylight. You'll have to be okay with a change in grain structure though if you're going to mix it with another stock for your indoor shots (assuming there are daylight shots). If you're hung up on consistent grain structure, then I'd say use Fuji's 125 tungsten.
ummm...actually....it's probably good if other people comment too because this topic requires a whole disseration about grain, aesthetics, depth of field, exposure changes during tracking blah blah blah....
If you're picking a high speed stock to keep grain consistent during indoor shots, why not use Vision 200T with a filter? Because 250 with a tungsten filter isn't going to give you the high ISO for your indoor shots, which is where you always need the sensitivity.
And for most daylight shots, 50D is usually fine. In bright light, you're still going to be at the top of your exposure range and have excellent depth of field (assuming you want it wide). And the 50D is going to give you a much better image (assuming you are not searching for grain for effect.) Of course with 250D you'll have wide depth of field even in shadowy shots.
But for my tastes, I'd make every attempt to use 50D in daylight. You'll have to be okay with a change in grain structure though if you're going to mix it with another stock for your indoor shots (assuming there are daylight shots). If you're hung up on consistent grain structure, then I'd say use Fuji's 125 tungsten.
ummm...actually....it's probably good if other people comment too because this topic requires a whole disseration about grain, aesthetics, depth of field, exposure changes during tracking blah blah blah....
hehe, thank for those replays, both of you. Im looking for as little grain as possible to. I myself dont like any grain! I will be trying to shoot only 50D outdoor's, but its just that I have 3 new roll's of 250D in my fridge which Im gonne use. I'll save them for those overcast days then. Im not gonen use anything indoor.
Oh by the way, thanks for that tips on using 200T with a filter indoor if I understod you right, that will work good huh? I didnt get the best results with only using 500T indoor in a room were we had to light everything up ourself, no natural light coming in. Was a bit tricky.
Thanks again, I got some ideas now=)
Marry Christmas
Oh by the way, thanks for that tips on using 200T with a filter indoor if I understod you right, that will work good huh? I didnt get the best results with only using 500T indoor in a room were we had to light everything up ourself, no natural light coming in. Was a bit tricky.
Thanks again, I got some ideas now=)
Marry Christmas
The filter with 200t
would be when used outdoors. The reason why it's usually better to use tungsten film with a filter when outdoors rather than a daylight film with a filter when indoors is because tungsten with a filter has higher ASA afterwards than daylight with a filter.
This seems to be getting all confused.???Marius wrote:ok i see. so if I use Tungsten film outdoors, what filter should I use to get good results? any typical tungsten film you recomend for filming outdoors in sunny and overcast weater, even snow? Im gonne film some this winter in the mountains so need some film for that. Weater change fast!
Tungsten film is for using indoors with lightbulbs or halogen lamps etc.
Daylight film is for using outdoors in daylight.
You could use tungsten film outdoors in the dark (I mean night, no sun) when lit with artificial light or you could use daylight film indoors when lit by the sun.
Basically the sun has a different colour temperature to artificial light and so there is different film for each to give natural colours.
If you use tungsten film outdoors you would use a filter to make the colour temperature right.
If you use daylight film indoors you would also use a filter to get the colour temperature right.
However using a filter cuts down the light entering the camera thus reducing the effective speed of the film. So if you use daylight film indoors you would normally use a filter which would make things much slower in terms of asa.
love
Freya
Last edited by Freya on Fri Dec 26, 2003 11:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You wouldn't want natural light coming in when shooting on 500T as the film is tungsten balanced and hence looks right under artificial lighting. You don't really want to mix your colour temps.Marius wrote: Oh by the way, thanks for that tips on using 200T with a filter indoor if I understod you right, that will work good huh? I didnt get the best results with only using 500T indoor in a room were we had to light everything up ourself, no natural light coming in. Was a bit tricky.
Thanks again, I got some ideas now=)
Marry Christmas
200T wouldn't need a filter indoors as it is tungsten balanced.
love
Freya
Just to clarify further, it's generally best to AVOID using a filter.
It's another thing in the way of your optics.
So you use the slowest film you can in each situation to avoid grain.
As an example, if you use a 200T film outdoors with a filter to balance it for daylight you will loose a lot of speed and the film might act like a 50D film, but it will still be a 200t film and so give a grainier film than if you had used 50d without a filter.
So basically, you would get the same results only grainier.
It would have been better to use 50D and get less grain.
I'm making this example up off the top of my head to explain btw. I have no idea what the actual figures would be for light loss from the filter, I'm just trying to explain the idea.
love
Freya
It's another thing in the way of your optics.
So you use the slowest film you can in each situation to avoid grain.
As an example, if you use a 200T film outdoors with a filter to balance it for daylight you will loose a lot of speed and the film might act like a 50D film, but it will still be a 200t film and so give a grainier film than if you had used 50d without a filter.
So basically, you would get the same results only grainier.
It would have been better to use 50D and get less grain.
I'm making this example up off the top of my head to explain btw. I have no idea what the actual figures would be for light loss from the filter, I'm just trying to explain the idea.
love
Freya
Grain is not the only issue. I think you'll find that the 250D
has a longer tonal scale than the 7245. Plus the films in the 250 range both 250T and 250D are billed as doing better in mixed lighting situations. Get your self a 85ND.6 (2 Stops onf ND) and a 85ND.9 (Three stops of ND).
Then try this film in bright light, mixed light and low light situations.
And as to grain, FILMMAKERS in the 1950's would have killed for to get as fine a grain color film as the 250 stocks are today...even the 500 stock looks great.
Just think by runing your own test you'll realy know, you'll be able to report back here with first hand experiences.
has a longer tonal scale than the 7245. Plus the films in the 250 range both 250T and 250D are billed as doing better in mixed lighting situations. Get your self a 85ND.6 (2 Stops onf ND) and a 85ND.9 (Three stops of ND).
Then try this film in bright light, mixed light and low light situations.
And as to grain, FILMMAKERS in the 1950's would have killed for to get as fine a grain color film as the 250 stocks are today...even the 500 stock looks great.
Just think by runing your own test you'll realy know, you'll be able to report back here with first hand experiences.
-
ericMartinJarvies
- Senior member
- Posts: 1274
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 2:26 am
- Location: cabo san lucas, bcs, mexico
- Contact:
daylight filmstock: the actual stock/chemicals are engineered/patented to work with natural sunlight tempuratures.
tungsten filmstock: the actual stock/chemicals are engineered/patented to work with artificial lights. but not any artificial light, it is specifically engineered for tungsten lamps, which do not include floresents, normal house lighting, etc. tungsten is a type of element(74, W, 183.9). it's melting point is 3422 degrees, which makes it a great metal to use as it is subject to hours of high tempuratures. depending on the actual wattage/make-up of the lamp, will depend on the actual color tempurature for a particular area(space being lit, distance between light and subject/object, etc.). therefore, this particular filmstock assumes tungsten 'IDEAL' tempuratures, aka-properly lit according to your lens iris setting and shutter speed using benchmark standards from kodak, fuji, etc.
DAYLIGHT filmstock used INDOORS: requires a filter if you want accurate colors. 80 series filters; get the right colors with daylight film when shooting indoors, with tungsten lighting, and without a flash by using an 80A filter. the 80A filter balances daylight film for use with most standard tungsten lighting, studio lighting and copy stand lighting. while the 80B filter balances daylight film for use with photo-flood type lamps.
TUNGSTUN/INDOOR filmstock used in DAYLIGHT/OUTDOORS: requires a filter if you want accurate colors. 85 series filters; 85C filter is useful as a creative warming effect with daylight film in daylight. designed to produce cooler results with tungsten film in daylight than the 85 or 85B filters. using tungesten film in daylight will produce a BLUE cast when NOT using a color correcting filter. so if you want your film to take on a cooler, or cold look, do not use a filter. the 85 series filters will reduce/eliminate the BLUEISH cast and make the images look more natural/natural colors when shooting with tungsten film outdoors.
tungsten film used indoors with tungsten lamps: -82 series filters; an 82A provides a cooler effect with tungsten type B film under 3200K lamps. the 82A & 82B reduce unnatural red tones in early morning or late afternoon light. They prevent reddish cast, maintain natural flesh tones, and create a mood of coolness(as in cold, not hip ... or perhaps hip, if you dig the look).
there are other filters like the 81 series, as well as filters that correct for non-tungsten types/lamps for indoor shooting/non daylight filming. all color correction filters deal with managing the light(or color in the visable spectrum) before it reaches the film.
there is a BIG differance between placing filters on your lens and placing filters on your lights! remember, light absorbs and reflects, so depending on the elements in the scene(white wall, black couch, purple haze, mary-j-wanna smoke screen, etc.), you will either want to filter the light that will then interact with your purple haze, et, al., and then make it's way to your filmstock. or filter your lens which will receive the already effected light. in other words, if you were to place an orange filter over a tungsten light and film the scene, it would look differant then placing a orange filter over your lens and leaving the tungsten light as it is. and the same thing applies to the actual types of lights ... an orange filter over a house lamp will product differant results then an orange filter over a floresent lamp or a tungsten lamp or a flood lamp. all of these are worth investigating, especially if you have a digital camera, as that is literally FREE testing as it does not involve film costs or processing/transfer fees. naturally, using a digital camera will only provide an overall general understanding ... actual film will provide the exact understanding, providing you take note or apply it to memory in some repeatable manner.
note: about POLARISER filters. if you want to get a good idea of how ND filters work, take your polariser filter and place it on your lens or in front of your lens on your film or digital camera. then point it at your computer screen. then slowly rotate it. you will notice the image thru the viewfinder will get darker until it reaches it's threshold, and then it will start etting lighter again. basically, ND filters work the same way, except in one fixed setting/value ... so if your polarizer filter is in position wherein the computer monitor is displayed correctly, and then you rotate it until it becomes a shade darker, that would be the same as an ND filter, so to speak, and as a blantent visual example that is simple and easy to demonstrate.
one more thing ... it is ALWAYS better to color correct before the lens/film, and not afterwards in the lab or on the computer(unless you desire that effect). chemicals and pixals are confined to their limitations, and the variables within are dictated by the actual operator/person making the changes. whereas color correction on location, is as dynamic as it comes, and is naturally occuring. however, if you are shooting a sequence that has multiple scenes and on film is taking place in a matter of seconds or minutes, and you the actual filming over a period of days, you will need to properly color correct your scenes each time to match the last, so when you are cutting together these scenes, you do not notice the ambiant foregound or backgound color/tonal variations, in which case you will need to correct this in post production, which costs more money and take more time. so a good place to start(or for me it was), was to take and film the same scene over a 3 day period. in the morning, afternoon, and nitetime. i am referring to an indoor/tungsten setting btw. this will show you how outside light from windows or doors really makes a differance to the final image on film. it is always best to block out any natural light when shooting sequences that must match. this way, it is only a question of setting up your lights, iris, and shutter speeds the same for each scene in the sequence, and making sure you are taking note of your meter readings. once you get good at matching multiple scenes using the same lighting, iris, and shutter speeds, you can then venture into making one a variable, like your iris setting, wherein you may change lightng filters, or iris settings, and still get the same overall look that can be seemlessly cut with the other scens in the sequence. i imagine folks that have been doing this for a long time can work with several differant variables in each primary catagory(lighting, iris, shutter speeds). it just takes lots of practice. a perfect example is if you shoot the same lit scene using 1 frame per second, and then you shoot the same lit scene using 70fps, what must be taken into account so that both scenes match and may be cut seemlessly? start answering questions like this and that will get your brain moving in the right direction in terms of continuity. i think this is the single largest contributor to a bad indi movie ... moving between scenes that do not match. the next worst thing is moving between scenes that the objects/subjects do not match or follow a logicol order/progression(hair properly groomed in one scene, and the next scene it is messy. or ending one scene with a look of astonishment, and opening the following scene in the sequence with a look of readiness. these are dead giveaways and take your thought out of the imaginitive realm and into the critiqing realm).
there are others on this site that have been doing this alot longer then i, and can provide more solid advice ... mine is only 9 months worth, so take it with a grain of salt, and use it as reference ... only doing it yourself will really solidify and make certain the facts, and seperate the fiction/ignorance, both of which you will receive on sites like this(no offence intended to anyone) ... fiction/ignorance being the dominant contributing factor ... sort of like the movie 'quills' where the marquis de sade recites his story to the inhabitants of a madhouse, wherein each particular charactor along the verbal path of transcription, adds to, or takes from, the original story, until alas, it reaches the actual pen to paper laundry maid, where the story is most certainly not the same as that from the marquis de sade. the moral of the story ... second hand information runs rampid, and even though most people are with the best intentions when sharing this second hand information, it can hardly be helped when something is changed or strays from the fact ... it is human nature ... just go read the thread about the honda commercial, you will see clearly how many experts there are about the actual process, for which they have never experienced first hand, but seem to know alot about, and be authorities on the subject in one form or another, even those with good intentions. again no insult intented, just an expressed observation.
tungsten filmstock: the actual stock/chemicals are engineered/patented to work with artificial lights. but not any artificial light, it is specifically engineered for tungsten lamps, which do not include floresents, normal house lighting, etc. tungsten is a type of element(74, W, 183.9). it's melting point is 3422 degrees, which makes it a great metal to use as it is subject to hours of high tempuratures. depending on the actual wattage/make-up of the lamp, will depend on the actual color tempurature for a particular area(space being lit, distance between light and subject/object, etc.). therefore, this particular filmstock assumes tungsten 'IDEAL' tempuratures, aka-properly lit according to your lens iris setting and shutter speed using benchmark standards from kodak, fuji, etc.
DAYLIGHT filmstock used INDOORS: requires a filter if you want accurate colors. 80 series filters; get the right colors with daylight film when shooting indoors, with tungsten lighting, and without a flash by using an 80A filter. the 80A filter balances daylight film for use with most standard tungsten lighting, studio lighting and copy stand lighting. while the 80B filter balances daylight film for use with photo-flood type lamps.
TUNGSTUN/INDOOR filmstock used in DAYLIGHT/OUTDOORS: requires a filter if you want accurate colors. 85 series filters; 85C filter is useful as a creative warming effect with daylight film in daylight. designed to produce cooler results with tungsten film in daylight than the 85 or 85B filters. using tungesten film in daylight will produce a BLUE cast when NOT using a color correcting filter. so if you want your film to take on a cooler, or cold look, do not use a filter. the 85 series filters will reduce/eliminate the BLUEISH cast and make the images look more natural/natural colors when shooting with tungsten film outdoors.
tungsten film used indoors with tungsten lamps: -82 series filters; an 82A provides a cooler effect with tungsten type B film under 3200K lamps. the 82A & 82B reduce unnatural red tones in early morning or late afternoon light. They prevent reddish cast, maintain natural flesh tones, and create a mood of coolness(as in cold, not hip ... or perhaps hip, if you dig the look).
there are other filters like the 81 series, as well as filters that correct for non-tungsten types/lamps for indoor shooting/non daylight filming. all color correction filters deal with managing the light(or color in the visable spectrum) before it reaches the film.
there is a BIG differance between placing filters on your lens and placing filters on your lights! remember, light absorbs and reflects, so depending on the elements in the scene(white wall, black couch, purple haze, mary-j-wanna smoke screen, etc.), you will either want to filter the light that will then interact with your purple haze, et, al., and then make it's way to your filmstock. or filter your lens which will receive the already effected light. in other words, if you were to place an orange filter over a tungsten light and film the scene, it would look differant then placing a orange filter over your lens and leaving the tungsten light as it is. and the same thing applies to the actual types of lights ... an orange filter over a house lamp will product differant results then an orange filter over a floresent lamp or a tungsten lamp or a flood lamp. all of these are worth investigating, especially if you have a digital camera, as that is literally FREE testing as it does not involve film costs or processing/transfer fees. naturally, using a digital camera will only provide an overall general understanding ... actual film will provide the exact understanding, providing you take note or apply it to memory in some repeatable manner.
note: about POLARISER filters. if you want to get a good idea of how ND filters work, take your polariser filter and place it on your lens or in front of your lens on your film or digital camera. then point it at your computer screen. then slowly rotate it. you will notice the image thru the viewfinder will get darker until it reaches it's threshold, and then it will start etting lighter again. basically, ND filters work the same way, except in one fixed setting/value ... so if your polarizer filter is in position wherein the computer monitor is displayed correctly, and then you rotate it until it becomes a shade darker, that would be the same as an ND filter, so to speak, and as a blantent visual example that is simple and easy to demonstrate.
one more thing ... it is ALWAYS better to color correct before the lens/film, and not afterwards in the lab or on the computer(unless you desire that effect). chemicals and pixals are confined to their limitations, and the variables within are dictated by the actual operator/person making the changes. whereas color correction on location, is as dynamic as it comes, and is naturally occuring. however, if you are shooting a sequence that has multiple scenes and on film is taking place in a matter of seconds or minutes, and you the actual filming over a period of days, you will need to properly color correct your scenes each time to match the last, so when you are cutting together these scenes, you do not notice the ambiant foregound or backgound color/tonal variations, in which case you will need to correct this in post production, which costs more money and take more time. so a good place to start(or for me it was), was to take and film the same scene over a 3 day period. in the morning, afternoon, and nitetime. i am referring to an indoor/tungsten setting btw. this will show you how outside light from windows or doors really makes a differance to the final image on film. it is always best to block out any natural light when shooting sequences that must match. this way, it is only a question of setting up your lights, iris, and shutter speeds the same for each scene in the sequence, and making sure you are taking note of your meter readings. once you get good at matching multiple scenes using the same lighting, iris, and shutter speeds, you can then venture into making one a variable, like your iris setting, wherein you may change lightng filters, or iris settings, and still get the same overall look that can be seemlessly cut with the other scens in the sequence. i imagine folks that have been doing this for a long time can work with several differant variables in each primary catagory(lighting, iris, shutter speeds). it just takes lots of practice. a perfect example is if you shoot the same lit scene using 1 frame per second, and then you shoot the same lit scene using 70fps, what must be taken into account so that both scenes match and may be cut seemlessly? start answering questions like this and that will get your brain moving in the right direction in terms of continuity. i think this is the single largest contributor to a bad indi movie ... moving between scenes that do not match. the next worst thing is moving between scenes that the objects/subjects do not match or follow a logicol order/progression(hair properly groomed in one scene, and the next scene it is messy. or ending one scene with a look of astonishment, and opening the following scene in the sequence with a look of readiness. these are dead giveaways and take your thought out of the imaginitive realm and into the critiqing realm).
there are others on this site that have been doing this alot longer then i, and can provide more solid advice ... mine is only 9 months worth, so take it with a grain of salt, and use it as reference ... only doing it yourself will really solidify and make certain the facts, and seperate the fiction/ignorance, both of which you will receive on sites like this(no offence intended to anyone) ... fiction/ignorance being the dominant contributing factor ... sort of like the movie 'quills' where the marquis de sade recites his story to the inhabitants of a madhouse, wherein each particular charactor along the verbal path of transcription, adds to, or takes from, the original story, until alas, it reaches the actual pen to paper laundry maid, where the story is most certainly not the same as that from the marquis de sade. the moral of the story ... second hand information runs rampid, and even though most people are with the best intentions when sharing this second hand information, it can hardly be helped when something is changed or strays from the fact ... it is human nature ... just go read the thread about the honda commercial, you will see clearly how many experts there are about the actual process, for which they have never experienced first hand, but seem to know alot about, and be authorities on the subject in one form or another, even those with good intentions. again no insult intented, just an expressed observation.
eric martin jarvies
#7 avenido jarvies
pueblo viejo
cabo san lucas, baja california sur. mexico
cp 23410
044 624 141 9661
#7 avenido jarvies
pueblo viejo
cabo san lucas, baja california sur. mexico
cp 23410
044 624 141 9661
If you want low grain slow motion footage just use one of those cameras with a large shutter opening like the B&H 70 ( later models) they were designed specifically so that the filmmaker would not loose much light at slow motion speeds. They typically have 204 degree shutters and no reflex viewing system to rob you of the precious light.