Cinematography Mailing List - CML

Favourite Daylight 16mm Film Stock


Hi, all

I've got a project coming up where I'll be shooting four or five days of driving shots on freeways. I was toying with the idea of shooting a slower speed stock (7245 or F-64D) but I'm not sure I'll like the lower contrast.

Does anyone have any experience shooting 7246? How does it compare to 7274?

I was thinking that it might be nice to use a daylight stock and avoid using an 85/85B, but I'll be stacking the matte box with ND and a polarizer anyway (some of the shots will be at 3fps) so adding color correction couldn't hurt too much.

I'll be using 7218 for the night shots. There's no question about that.

So, anyone have any preference for Kodak's daylight-balanced stocks? Or Fuji's? Or should I just stick with a tried-and-true tungsten stock?

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

It's hard to beat 7245 for day exterior work, especially in Super-16. Fuji F-64D is nice too, a little softer, less contrasty.

I think 7246 is a bit contrasty in sunlight; better for overcast and late afternoon work.

David Mullen
Cinematographer / L.A.

Art Adams wrote :

>So, anyone have any preference for Kodak's daylight-balanced stocks? >Or Fuji's? Or should I just stick with a tried-and-true tungsten stock?

Here is a simple formula :

Sunny Day + Kodak 45(pick your width)with edges +3 to +4= love, sex and a happy ending for all.

Faster stocks 74, 46 outside in the sun is such sensitivity over kill and you and in the end your ND stack is got another 2 stops in it.

WHY? Sure you can do it but on a sunny day you might already have 3 or 4 stops of ND with 45.

Just shot some over cranked scenes on 45 on a sunny day in NYC (15000 foot candles on my meter, most I've ever seen here) and I shot it at 4/5.6 with an ND and a Pola. I don't particularly like looking at ground glasses when stopped to 11 or 16.

Mark Smith DP
Oh Seven Films Inc.

>but I'm not sure I'll like the lower contrast.

Ooops. Should have read "higher contrast" Lower contrast is fine, I can always increase it later.

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

>I think 7246 is a bit contrasty in sunlight; better for overcast and late >afternoon work.

More contrast than 7245? Wow. That's not what I'd expect out of a faster stock, but I'm not up on the current stocks other than the high speed ones. (Strangely, it's been a long time since I've had to shoot anything other than a high-speed stock.)

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

> Does anyone have any experience shooting 7246?

I've shot two features entirely on 7246 - I like the film stock a lot and would definitely use it the next time I shoot on S16mm.

I normally rate it as 160 ASA and it's look is similar to 7274, but I believe the '74 is a bit sharper.

Jessica Gallant
Los Angeles based Director of Photography
West Coast Systems Administrator, Cinematography Mailing List

Kodak did a comparison test of their stocks all shooting the same series of shots (an Asian woman on a train and inside a building, 1940's era settings) and I was surprised to see that Vision 250D was generally more contrasty than almost every other stock, including 5245. You can view the test at Kodak, however, I can't say the differences were radical other than the faster stocks were grainier than the slower ones.

A lot of people swear by Vision 250D, by the way. I like it for day interiors too but I like 5245 even more! Actually, I've never found 5245 to be as harsh as some people say - I think 5248 is just as contrasty outside.

Another nice look in full sunlight is Vision 320T rated at 160 ASA (over exposed by one stop). But I don't know about in 16mm.

David Mullen
Cinematographer / L.A.

I normally don't comment on film stocks, but I just shot a project with 7274, and thought it was great. Gave us lots of places to go in telecine, and really held the shadow detail well in the bright sun. I chose that stock because we were shooting both day exterior (street scene) and interior green screen. It seemed like the best choice, as I wanted a fine grain Vision stock. I also think that '45 is a great stock - I'm glad to hear my own suspicions that it isn't really any more 'contrasty' than the other stocks confirmed by David Mullen.

Ted Hayash
mostly a gaffer, sometimes a DP
Los Angeles, CA

Outside 7274 Vision 200T is hard to beat. Pretty malleable in any direction you want to go.

I did some pick ups on a documentary recently. I shot 4 cores of 7248 (directors personal stock) and the results were fantastic. It was a documentary about old Cajun musicians. The flesh tones were amazing. 48 had an almost silky sheen to it compared to the snappier 74. The musicians were playing under a huge Oak tree with skylight coming in from the side. I was pretty concerned how it would look but the transfer was gorgeous. I over-exposed 1/2 stop. In this situation 48 was a perfect match. Shooting mostly Vision lately I'd forgotten how good that old EXR stock can look.

If I had only one choice however...74 all the way.

Tom McDonnell
New Orleans, La

Hi Art…

In daylight I'm shooting both 7245 and 7274 (prefer 74 w/85 to 46 for print - a little sharper & I skip the 85 for effect sometimes). 7246 is nice in Telecine though.

45 is bolder, more reversal-like colors (personally, I push it to emphasize that) - 74 softer transitions, more of a sense of texture. However, 45 with a soft subject can be quite beautiful. (BTW I wouldn't call 45 "harsh")…

74 (according to Kodak) measures sharper, but 45 can look sharper due to its fine grain & saturation. Actually I find that 45 will often seem to look as sharp/sharper on long shots for this reason, but cu's with fine detail shows 74 to be it's equal or better.

Basically for me it's 45 for COLOR in caps, 74 for more nuance.

However, @ 3 fps -- 45 gonna make your life simpler. (I've been shooting some 74 with 6 stops of ND, it's "I can't wait to see the dailies and find out what I shot"…Well not really, but.....

Also "sheet metal" looks good on 45 ! Cars ARE bright shiny California Dreamin' things are they not ?

FWIW If I were shooting in 35mm I'd probably just shoot 5274 or 5246. Why ? Because for the way I'm shooting, 5245 would be too "in your face" -- the texture of 46 or 74 would be more interesting. But in 16mm, the "edge" that 7245 gives has a certain appeal to me.

HTH, maybe not, I'm playing outside the box...

Sam Wells

I actually rather like '46, although in 16mm you can see a slight difference in resolution when projected. For telecine I don't think this is true at all. I have not found it to be particularly contrastier, but perhaps I need to do some side by side comparisons.

Another feature I like of daylight stocks is how they react when shooting tungsten unfiltered. Daylight stocks are red-sensitive, so flesh tones are rendered very full & rich. They can be dialled back down later but it makes for a very healthy look. This is radically different to shooting tungsten-balanced stocks in daylight with no filtration, where ultraviolet radiation casts a cool blue sheen over the image. No such issue in tungsten light. It handles mixed light better as well. I shot an entire feature in 35mm on '46 last year and never corrected for tungsten and the results were very satisfying to my eye.

Mitch Gross

Tom McDonnell said :

>"I'd forgotten how good that old EXR stock can look."

Dear CML’ers,

I always used 7248. Richer colors, great latitude, easy to print down or print up, few grain, suffers little with the age.

Once time I was shooting a music video with a old (2 years) 7248 negative (but d-min was OK!), rated at 160 ASA and pushed 1 stop. A certain take I must to shot very quickly, and the take was 2 or 3 stops underexposed (the iris set at 1,4, no more lights). I go to telecine anxious. The result?

The footage looks great, and that shot was decent! For this and other reasons I think 48 the trustworthy stock.

Best regards for all,

Adriano S. Barbuto
Sao Paulo / Brazil

Copyright © CML. All rights reserved.