From American Cinematographer, Sci-Fi Cowboys by David E. Williams (July 1999)
"I like Kodak's Vision 320T, which I used quite a bit in the film and exposed at 200 ASA, but for the bluescreen work, ILM asked me to use 5248, which has less grain and a better blue layer. I rated it normally at 100 ASA, and because it's more contrasty, I had to use a bit more fill. I also used some 5293, because its blue layer is also better than in the 320T, and I sometimes needed a stock faster than 48. I rated the 93 normally at 200 ASA. However, since all of the effects shots were to be digitized and manipulated, ILM said they would work it out so the contrast in those shots would match the footage shot on the 320T, and they have done a pretty good job with that.
I like the 320T because it has a wide range of exposure, about 6 or 8 stops, and it's almost impossible to overexpose it, which is great. Also you can play with it; the more you expose, the more contrast you get. If you read it at 320 ASA, it's very flat, but at 200 ASA it has good contrast. At 125 ASA, it has even more."
- Michael Ballhaus, ASC
I read, discuss, and discover new things about cinematography everyday. Most of it, I consider incredibly interesting. Everyday I will share one of those things, maybe more if I have time.
Showing posts with label 5293. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 5293. Show all posts
11.5.09
Steven Goldblatt: On Kodak Film
From American Cinematographer, Of Loss and Hope by Jay Holben (March 1999)
"I've experimented for the last two years with Kodak's low-contrast negative stock. In its previous incarnation [EXR 5287 200T], before the advent of 77, I really disliked it. It was too flat and grainy, and I just couldn't get on with it. But this time, using [the new 5277 Vision 320T], it really worked. It has a lovely, soft gradation and was my basic choice for daylight interiors at around 250 [ISO]. I found that it gave a very smooth, flattering skin texture which could still be used interchangeably with the other stocks. It wasn't such an obvious difference that it jumped out at you, but it was much nicer than the 5293 [EXR 200T] and the 5246 [Vision 250D], which I used in the hotel scenes. More often than not, Kodak's 46 is far too contrasty for me, and I have trouble with the highlights, which just blow [out] in a breath, whereas the 77 holds them beautifully. My night stock was 79, which I'm really used to. I've developed a t2.5 eye for 79; I can just look and see that it's around 21 or 22 footcandles and bang! I don't need to meter it. I got there with 77, too, but the 93 and 46 puzzle me a bit-- they don't come naturally, and I've got to work harder to get them to look the way I want them to onscreen."
-Stephen Goldblatt, ASC
"I've experimented for the last two years with Kodak's low-contrast negative stock. In its previous incarnation [EXR 5287 200T], before the advent of 77, I really disliked it. It was too flat and grainy, and I just couldn't get on with it. But this time, using [the new 5277 Vision 320T], it really worked. It has a lovely, soft gradation and was my basic choice for daylight interiors at around 250 [ISO]. I found that it gave a very smooth, flattering skin texture which could still be used interchangeably with the other stocks. It wasn't such an obvious difference that it jumped out at you, but it was much nicer than the 5293 [EXR 200T] and the 5246 [Vision 250D], which I used in the hotel scenes. More often than not, Kodak's 46 is far too contrasty for me, and I have trouble with the highlights, which just blow [out] in a breath, whereas the 77 holds them beautifully. My night stock was 79, which I'm really used to. I've developed a t2.5 eye for 79; I can just look and see that it's around 21 or 22 footcandles and bang! I don't need to meter it. I got there with 77, too, but the 93 and 46 puzzle me a bit-- they don't come naturally, and I've got to work harder to get them to look the way I want them to onscreen."
-Stephen Goldblatt, ASC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)