Home of Professional Cinematography since 1996

style="margin-bottom: 0">
5212 Latitude

Published : 26th August 2004


Hi everybody!

I have a question for Mr. John P. Pytlak and everybody else who had experience with 5212. I shoot quite a bit of Time-lapse and my favourite stock always has been 5248. It has tremendous latitude. In telecine I am able to prolong sunrise or sunsets shots by 15% to 25% by programming a series of dissolves, digging deep into the underexposed part - usually up to 4 stops, and taming overexposed part of the shot to decent results with up to 3 stops of overexposure.

The best example of 5248 performance under these conditions you can see at www.demoreelnetwork.com/benbutin It is a first spot on the reel, and the first shot of the spot. We started shot one hour before sunrise and finished shot at full sun. I set optimum exposure at 8/11 split which was 4 stops under at the beginning of the shot and 2,5 stops overexposed at the end of the shot. Final results with 5248 where excellent.

Does the 5212 have the same characteristics in terms of latitude
as 5248?

Sincerely

Ben Butin
Cinematographer
Atlanta



Off the top of my head, I would say the latitude of 5212 is as good as, if not better, than 5248. I've forwarded the question to the product development engineer to verify.

As always, the best way to see if a particular film meets your needs is to test it under your conditions.

John Pytlak
Eastman Kodak Company



John Pytlak writes :

>Off the top of my head, I would say the latitude of 5212 is as good as, if >not better, than 5248.

From my testing so far I'd say it's better.

I will get some charts and frame grabs up to the website soon.

I'm waiting for my new 4K scanner amongst other things.

Cheers

Geoff Boyle FBKS
Director of Photography
EU Based
www.cinematography.net



In response to your question, I received the following note from Merrick Distant, the Kodak Product Systems Engineer who worked on the development of Kodak VISION2 100T Color Negative Film 5212 :

Hi John,

The latitude of 5212 is definitely improved versus 5248. We made significant improvements in the underexposure latitude with more neutral shadows (much softer toes and matched toe shape in the negative) and the lower contrast of 5212 enabled more detail to be captured in the highlight regions as well. 5212 also delivers improved neutrality throughout the entire tone scale versus 5248.

Thanks...

Merrick Distant
Product Systems Engineer
Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company

John Pytlak
EI Customer Technical Services
Research Labs, Building 69
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, New York 14650-1922 USA
Telephone: +1 585 477 5325
website: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion



>Hi John,
>The latitude of 5212 is definitely improved versus 5248


Mr. Pytlak!

Thank you for the information regarding 5212. I have pretty sizable time-lapse project coming up in a near future and I definitely will shoot 5212.

Sincerely

Ben Butin
Cinematographer
Atlanta



Hi Ben,

Just curious, since you do time lapse... Do you ever consider daylight balanced stocks for your shots?

I figure that it would be one less filter in your mattebox - or do you use an 85?

The other question is - have you tried pulling the wider latitude stocks to get that extra dynamic range. I had once pulled the Fuji 250D with great results.

Cheers,

Duraid Munajim
DP-Director, Toronto
Home page :  http://www.duraid.ca



>The latitude of 5212 is definitely improved versus 5248.

Does this mean the 16mm version 7248 will be replaced by a 7212 Vision 100?

Marty Hamrick
photojournalist/cinematographer
Jax.,Fl.



Duraid wrote :

>Just curious, since you do time lapse...Do you ever consider daylight >balanced stocks for your shots?

>I figure that it would be one less filter in your mattebox - or do you use >an 85?


Duraid!

I would love to use one less filter... I love 5245 with its brilliant colors and contrast but it has quite narrow latitude. I shy away from medium and high speed stocks when I am shooting time-lapse for several reasons. Increased grain, especially when trying to dig into under and over exposure. I personally like to shoot with longer exposures as well. For example, the "Payne Stuart Award" spot was shot with 2 sec exposure making people movement on the golf course less choppy. As a rule, I would never shoot faster than 1/8 sec and prefer 1/2sec or 1sec exposure even under bright sun. I own a full set of 85/ND filters and ND filters up to ND1.2(4 stops), True polariser’s and 85/Pola. All my Superspeed primes take filters series 9. Therefore, between clip-on on the lens filter and matte box I am able to bring shutter speed to desirable at the moment effect. I would love to have ability to work with a daylight film stock between 5245 and 5279 with latitude of 5248 but...

Regarding pulling the negative - no I did not try it. Pretty much most of my work goes to the small (TV) screen and I always mandate to the client my presence in telecine for the time-lapse transfer and that where I do most of my tricks. Good colorist is a must. Seeing gradual progression of the light while pulling underexposed part of the shot and programming series of dissolves, so there is no jump in a light progression is an art by itself. I worked with many colourists and only few were able to do it right. Ron Anderson at Cinefilm here in Atlanta is really the best.

Sincerely

Ben Butin
Cinematographer
Atlanta



>Just curious, since you do time lapse...Do you ever consider daylight >balanced stocks for your shots?

Ben,

Great comments. I shoot a lot of time-lapse as well and everything you said is on the money. I have a ND1.8 that gets a lot of use for my time-lapse work, though I actually do shoot on 7245. I just like the way it looks. I tried 7246 and it just doesn't hold up as well, especially in HD transfers. I've been thinking, reading this, that I'm going to give 7212 a try. I'm also thinking that what I would be interested in seeing from Kodak is a low- speed daylight Vision2 stock (maybe a 25?).

Do you ever use low-con filters?

Another thought…is there such a thing as optical-grade LCD? Has anyone ever experimented with using LCD as ND? It could be variable density, and I see the potential to program in a gradual change for time-lapse work or other special circumstances. I see some probable pitfalls, but it sounds like a nice idea.

David Mallin
Cloudchaser Films
PO Box 170267
San Francisco, CA 94117



I've just come back from the final grade of a job that mixed 18 and 12.

The only real discernable difference was in the grain.

The latitude of both is excellent.

In S35 the grain of the 18 is, as you all know, low, with the 12 it's practically non-existent!

I'd used it for some blue/green screen sequences and just for the hell of it we tried zooming in until the grain became objectionable.

Just for reference this was looking at the biggest most expensive HD monitor that Sony make.

I have now changed my mind about how much we can play with re-sizing in post

Cheers

Geoff Boyle FBKS
Director of Photography
EU Based
www.cinematography.net



>I'm also thinking that what I would be interested in seeing from Kodak is >a low- speed daylight Vision2 stock (maybe a 25?).

I could've used something like that in Vietnam, '45 with 2 stops of ND and I was still at f16, f11 closing the shutter a bit, well David you probably know what I mean.

(I figured out a trick to get selective focus w/ a 6mm lens, but it
means f2, so 5-ish more stops of ND ouch)

Sam Wells
Filmmaker/etc



David Mallin wrote :

>I'm also thinking that what I would be interested in seeing from Kodak is >a low- speed daylight Vision2 stock (maybe a 25?).

David!

Thank you for your comments. Actually every time Kodak would do presentation of the new product in Atlanta, I would pipe up with my usual question: "Are there plans to introduce low speed daylight stock with an latitude of 48?" I would love to be able to work time-lapse with such stock. I guess that is not economical for Kodak to introduce a film stock for a technique shooting one frame at the time. And so we go filtering again. Regarding low-con filters, no I prefer to control contrast in a telecine. Almost as a rule I use enhancing filters - I like very vivid, bright colors. Are you familiar with SINGH-Ray Vari-X ND filters (March-Outdoor Photographer, page29)? By turning the outer ring, you can vary the density from 1.5 to 10 stops. I got all excited that there is solution to "too many filters" problem. Unfortunately, the biggest size they make is 77mm. I spoke with a man at the Singh-Ray Filters and he said that there is a little demand for Series 9. Perhaps if several people would express interest they would produce a larger size.

I will be shooting 4 day Time-lapse job in San Francisco with my "usual" package - three 35 cameras and my motion Control system in the beginning to mid April. Would love to have an opportunity to meet with you. Also, I was referred to an AC with a camera truck - Phil Bowen. Do you know the gentlemen?

Sincerely

Ben Butin
Cinematographer
Atlanta
www.benbutin.com



Ben Butin wrote:

>Are you familiar with SINGH-Ray Vari-X ND filters (March-Outdoor >Photographer, page29)? By turning the outer ring, you can vary the >density from 1.5 to 10 stops.

It appears to be a simple variation on the old trick of using two polarizing filters in tandem -- this used to be a cheap amateur's way to do fades on cameras without variable shutters. I suspect they are just using newer polarisers with less of a light loss.

Jeff "DIY" Kreines



Geoff Boyles writes :

>"I've just come back from the final grade of a job that mixed 18 and 12. >The only real discernable difference was in the grain."

How big a difference? Like 48 and 79?

Nick Hoffman 600 Dp NYC



> How big a difference? Like 48 and 79?

Pretty much so, except of course the 18 is so much lower than 79 to start with.

I can't ever see a project shot with 12 where grain could ever be a problem.

Of course a daylight balanced stock based on 12 would be even finer grain as the blue sensitivity could be reduced.

Cheers

Geoff Boyle FBKS
Director of Photography
EU Based
www.cinematography.net



I'm debating a feature format for a job between HD and Super-16mm. Film out. Which is better is of course a stupid question, and I guess I'll have to test both but, has anyone compared a 16 Vision2 blow-up with an HD film out?

Nick Hoffman NY DP



Nicholas Hoffman wrote :

>I'm debating a feature format for a job between HD and Super-16mm. >Film out. Which is better is of course a stupid question, and I guess I'll >have to test both but, has anyone compared a 16 Vision2 blow-up with >an HD film out?

It doesn't matter if they have or they haven't. If the test wasn't shot by you, with your intended style and your intended requirements, it means little. Depending upon what you're looking for, a project with lots of day exteriors can have very different production, story, and post requirements than, say, a dark, low key horror movie shot primarily at night or on stages. If you can test, you can come to your own conclusions that are appropriate to the conditions you'll have.

People are always looking for "the" answer on questions like this.
There isn't any. These are all choices, with the decisions to be made jointly by cameraman, director, and producer, based on creative need, production conditions, intended distribution path, and budget.

Mike Most
VFX Supervisor
IATSE Local 600
Los Angeles