Home of Professional Cinematography since 1996

class="Paragraph" Rating 7218 & 7246

class="Paragraph" Published : 7th March 2003

class="Paragraph"
So here I am, about to shoot two stocks I haven't shot before, and I'm not sure what to rate them at.

The stocks in question are 7246 and 7218. They are destined for telecine, either on a Spirit (if I'm lucky) or a BTS Quadra (if I'm less lucky.)

Is 7218 really a 500 speed film in 16mm? I used to rate 7279 at 320 or 250 just to crush the grain down to something manageable so I'm a little weary of rating a 16mm film so fast. Any thoughts?

How about 7246? Is it really a 250 speed film? Or am I safer and happier rating it at 200 or 160? I have no trouble rating 7274 at 200 but I've seen comments recently that say that 7246 is less sharp and possibly grainier than 7274.

Any constructive comments are appreciated. Humorous comments are acceptable. Sarcastic comments will be tolerated and possibly imitated at a later date.

Art Adams, DP
Mountain View, California - "Silicon Valley"
http://www.artadams.net/


class="Paragraph"
Art,

I have rated 218 at 500, and after seeing Kodak's 7218/7279/F900 comparison, I would stick with it. You can always "crack it open" a 1/3 stop if you prefer.

John Babl


class="Paragraph"
>...Is 7218 really a 500 speed film in 16mm? I used to rate 7279 at 320 >or 250 just to crush the grain down to something manageable so I'm a >little weary of rating a 16mm film so fast.

Art,

7218 is truly 500 speed, in my opinion (don't have any tech data to support that, but a number of others have agreed.)

7246 is a little grainier than 74, probably would benefit from
underrating. Beautiful stock, tho'.

Wade K. Ramsey, DP
Dept. of Cinema & Video Production
Bob Jones University
Greenville, SC 29614


class="Paragraph"
>7246 is a little grainier than 74, probably would benefit from >underrating.

I seem to get my best results by rating it at 160 which, if I remember correctly, is the GRR for that stock.

Jessica Gallant
Los Angeles based Director of Photography
West Coast Systems Administrator, Cinematography Mailing List
http://www.cinematography.net


class="Paragraph"
Hi,

>GRR

Eh?

Phil Rhodes
Video camera/edit
London


class="Paragraph"
> GRR

Eh?

Geoff's Recommended Rating. A few years ago, Geoff used to test the stocks and post his results.

Jessica Gallant
Los Angeles based Director of Photography
West Coast Systems Administrator, Cinematography Mailing List
http://www.cinematography.net


class="Paragraph"
Hi,

>Geoff's Recommended Rating

Ah. I thought I was missing some important industry acronym.

Phil Rhodes
Video camera/edit
London


class="Paragraph"
Phil Rhodes writes:-

>>Geoff's Recommended Rating
>Ah. I thought I was missing some important industry acronym.


You were.

Dominic Case
Atlab Australia


class="Paragraph"
I'd shoot the 18 at 500, it really is what it says on the pack! :-) with the '46 I'd tend to err on the side of slight over-exposure, certainly 200, maybe 160, depends on how much you need the speed.

I have difficulty waiting for a V2 version of '46 :-)

Cheers

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


class="Paragraph"
Phil Rhodes writes :

>Ah. I thought I was missing some important industry acronym.

Important!

It's bloody vital mate

Oh and the ratings were partly as a result of tests and partly as a result of feeding half stop exposure variations into the Kodak Eval program and varying the speed setting to see which gave the flattest straight line portion.

Totally the wrong thing to do according to Kodak but it was amazing how the results always matched practical tests

Unfortunately Kodak haven't updated the Eval prog for '84 or '18

Cheers

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


class="Paragraph"
>Is 7218 really a 500 speed film in 16mm? I used to rate 7279 at 320 or >250 just to crush the grain down to something manageable so I'm a little >weary of rating a 16mm film so fast.

I've shot a fair bit of 7218 over the last couple of months, rating it at 500, and have been very pleased with the results. I was a big fan of '79, but the new stock has definitely sold itself to me.

As to the 7246, I haven't shot any in ages, so I wouldn't want to comment.

Stuart Brereton
DP, UK
www.46and2films.com


class="Paragraph"
Geoff Boyle wrote :

>I'd shoot the 18 at 500, it really is what it says on the pack!

Hmmm. Seeing is believing... still, maybe I'll rate it at 400, just so I'll feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

And as for the '46 at 160... that works well for my purposes. I'll be shooting at exposures down to 1/4 second, so less speed actually helps me out.

I saw some 7246 demo'd on a Spirit yesterday. Wow. Great stock, great telecine. Sadly, I don't think this project will be transferred on a Spirit.

>I have difficulty waiting for a V2 version of '46

Oh, I don't think we'll have to wait long.

Art Adams, DP
Mountain View, California - "Silicon Valley"


class="Paragraph"
And by the way, to all who commented... thank you very, very much. Your help is much appreciated.

Art Adams, DP
Mountain View, California - "Silicon Valley"


class="Paragraph"
Jessica Gallant writes :

>Geoff's Recommended Rating. A few years ago, Geoff used to test the stocks and post his results.

Any chance of finding GRRs in the archives?

David Campbell


class="Paragraph"
>Any chance of finding GRRs in the archives?

I'm sure they're in there somewhere.

Jessica Gallant
Los Angeles based Director of Photography
West Coast Systems Administrator, Cinematography Mailing List
http://www.cinematography.net


class="Paragraph"
I decided to rate 7246 at 200 for a very pragmatic reason.

I'd like to rate it at 160 but, with a polarizer and ND 1.2 on the lens, that reduces me to an effective ASA of 2.5. If I rate it at 200 then I end up with an effective ASA of 3...the lowest number two of my meters will handle. And since I'll be changing speeds every which way I don't want to make things more complicated by having to adjust a third of a stop at some times and not others.

Art Adams, DP
Mountain View, California - "Silicon Valley"


class="Paragraph"
Art Adams wrote :

>...I'd like to rate it at 160 but, with a polarizer and ND 1.2 on the lens, that reduces me to an effective ASA of 2.5...

Care to share the reason you are using all that ND?

Wade K. Ramsey, DP
Dept. of Cinema & Video Production
Bob Jones University
Greenville, SC 29614


class="Paragraph"
>Care to share the reason you are using all that ND?

I have to shoot at 24, 6 and 1 fps in broad daylight.

Art Adams, DP
Mountain View, California - "Silicon Valley"