You'd better have a definitive source for this claim. Reality is that the QC is likely tougher for still than motion picture - at 24/25 FPS a small flaw is long gone before you notice it.
That is actually an interesting point. Does anyone have any insight on if motion film is given a wider margin than their still film lines for quality control?
Personally I would have guessed they were using the same gear and standards for all their film, but I also wouldn't have expected much in the way of flaws from mid-roll sections once those coating rigs get up to speed.
Reality is that the QC is likely tougher for still than motion picture - at 24/25 FPS a small flaw is long gone before you notice it.
VISION3 is slightly more expensive to manufacture than Portra because it includes the remjet.
Unlikely. Remjet is a very simple anti-hal/ lubrication solution that's at least as old as Kodachrome & much easier to implement than an integral layer that has to clear during processing. If anything it reduces both manufacturing and design costs.
Quite apart from the fact (as pointed out earlier) cinema film needs both simpler packaging and less of it (400/ 1000ft vs 4-5ft) - the most expensive parts of 135 and 120 are the cores/ paper/ canisters/ packaging - as per Ilford and others on here over the years. If you think about it 400ft of 5207 may require as little as a couple of percent of the packaging as 80 rolls of 135 Portra 400.
The main thing I was aiming at is that cinema and still films are going to have slightly different aim quality markers because of the different requirements for the end result. For all we know, Vision 3 may actually be more profitable than Portra because it might be cheaper to manufacture in very big quantities.
You can buy 200ft rolls of VISION, say 40 rolls, at some $2.4 per 1m.
Film price is not based in ex-factory cost, but in marketing strategy, this is an oligopoly and general competition rules do not apply.
Kodak could sell Portra in 100 or 200ft cans at same price than VISION, but they won't do it.
Of course they are free to do what they want, but VISION3 retail price says a lot.
Purely anecdotally, I've seen comments about 5222 having occasional tiny flaws from people who have used it for still uses - but it might also be due to end users not cutting meticulously and loading cleanly into cassettes. There are likely specific acceptance criteria for imperfection sizes of various sorts during coating (and probably more importantly, converting) - I don't know if they are different between still and motion.
If Portra matters to you, find ways to afford it.
and Vision 50D is superior in many ways to Portra, so it's about exploiting its particular spectral response to get good results with it.
Really?
Tell us how.
I can think of a long list of why 5203 isn't superior as a still imaging film. And yes, I've used it. For starters all Portras are drastically sharper in areas that are perceptually important in still imaging.
#136 - the claim that Kodak 5203 is somehow 'superior' to the Portra films for still imaging, nothing to do with motion picture capture!This is in reply/reference to what post?
(Are you several people? why do you say "us"??)Really?
Tell "us" how.
I can think of a long list of why 5203 isn't superior as a still imaging film. And yes, I've used it. For starters all Portras are drastically sharper in areas that are perceptually important in still imaging.
market was changing (Fuji's at times incoherent panoply of choice) or didn't have products that had enough overall strengths to compete (Agfa) outwith specific aesthetics.
If you see the "0", it is 5 stops far from speed point, so as an starting point they suggest overexposing it by two stops... but there is more... even when overexposing the 50D by 2 stops you still can overpose 8 additional stops and still conserving texture, not a joke, see the graph.
Regarding colors, it is designed to be copied on film, not on RA-4, so regular color inversion based on RA-4 nature may not do a perfect job, so it requires (and deserves) a 3D LUT Creator job.
I like a lot the V3 spectral signature, but I found I need 3D LUT job to suit my taste.
so.... regarding your question about how to exploit the V3 spectral footprint, here there is the answer: A 3D LUT to overcome RA-4 vs Copy film inversion missmatch.
The 50D is damn sharp, also see the granularity vs exposure graph in the datasheet.
for as long as they could Fuji was in an all out war with Kodak for market share in the movie market. that is quite likely why one can buy "Vision 3" as both vision and vision 2 were outflanked by various Eterna products.
Agfa mostly marketed in Europe, and they probably were even more dependent of Print film sales. I do remember the Agfa Movie negative and much prefered the more laid back colour balance.
It would help if you looked more carefully at it. The '0' represents the midtone - 3 stops up from the start of the straight line and 4 stops below the shoulder. 7 stops of recorded range on the straight line. As it should be.
Lachlan, please see the basics about what 50D is, and later we may advance in the debate. 10 Stops linear, 9.5 at least:
Regarding lp/mm, the same than portra, V3 graph is better done, not surpassing 100%:
Your reading of sensitometric curves is rather creative here.
Lachlan, perhaps if I show you the 50D datasheet graph at full size then you would be able to count linear stops: 10, not 7. Its about counting, 1, 2, 3...
https://www.super8.nl/file/7203.pdf
View attachment 238777
It is quite evident you have shot little 50D (or none), I you were experienced with that film you would have noticed how it works in the highlights, and you would realize how top notch cinematographers use it.
10 stops linear, 15 total, with standard processing. With some pulling you get 18 or 20 total, not a joke.
Buy some and expetiment a bit, $0.5 per feet.
If you look at Portra 400 (for example), the straight line alone is 10 stops at least.
My family tossed all the negatives. I'm still torn up about it.
As for Vision 3 being superior to Portra, I shoot it in 35mm and it's far grainier than consumer stuff.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?