I can confirm that the Vision 3 50D is damn sharp and has a lot of latitude, I did not have a single under/over exposed frame yet, I usually have it pushed to ISO 100 by my lab.
In my opinion the colors are very accurate and neutral, I recently shot portraits with my Leica R6 + Summicron 50 and scanned it with a Coolscan V,
the grain is very fine, I think people wouldn't expect this to be shot on film, even in full resolution.
My conclusion: I don't know exactly how it compares to Portra, but it is a damn nice film and with short ends I can shoot Vision3 for about 2€ - 2,5€ a roll, which is a steal compared to Portra.
Here is an example I shot with a Summicron 50 + scanned with the Coolscan:
https://free-picload.com/images/2020/01/24/67c0be0669d6729232ec0f43026ed97c.jpg
@Cholentpot do you develop 50D in C41?
My local lab technican told me that developing cine film in C41 leads to stronger grain and shifted colors.
When developed properly in ECN-2 chemistry it is maybe not superior to Portra, but equal.
Definitely better than the consumer stuff.
Although we talk about how fleeting and disposable most modern digital images are, can we say the same about most snapshots on film?
To the best of my knowledge, I still have all the slides I have shot over the last 50 years.Prints I shot in the 80's have been lost over the years, but my photos are mostly intact from the mid-90's onward. I suspect I, like many on Apug, am an outlier. I suspect that most prints made worldwide during have been lost, misplaced, damaged or forgotten. To my shame, I haven't organized my prints since 2003. The nice thing about film and analog prints, is that the are long-lasting, and I still have the prints and negatives to access and use. Hoepfull during these cold winter nights, I can get to work on curated my shots from the last 17 years, selecting out the keepers and placing them in albums.
As for the increased demand for movie film, I am happy about this because it keeps the coating lines running at Eastman Kodak. My only concern is if still film production is temporarily delayed as a result.
I can confirm that the Vision 3 50D is damn sharp and has a lot of latitude, I did not have a single under/over exposed frame yet, I usually have it pushed to ISO 100 by my lab.
In my opinion the colors are very accurate and neutral, I recently shot portraits with my Leica R6 + Summicron 50 and scanned it with a Coolscan V,
the grain is very fine, I think people wouldn't expect this to be shot on film, even in full resolution.
My conclusion: I don't know exactly how it compares to Portra, but it is a damn nice film and with short ends I can shoot Vision3 for about 2€ - 2,5€ a roll, which is a steal compared to Portra.
Here is an example I shot with a Summicron 50 + scanned with the Coolscan:
https://free-picload.com/images/2020/01/24/67c0be0669d6729232ec0f43026ed97c.jpg
@Cholentpot do you develop 50D in C41?
My local lab technican told me that developing cine film in C41 leads to stronger grain and shifted colors.
When developed properly in ECN-2 chemistry it is maybe not superior to Portra, but equal.
Definitely better than the consumer stuff.
No... Portra 400 linearity is two or three stops less than VISION3 (with standard developments), Portra 400 is under 8 stops in linearity, VISION3 is 10. This is well known.
Yes, more grainy for the same ISO, but 50 is fine grained, a particularity of VISION3 is that blue channel is more grainy than red and green, compared to pictorial film, a bit optimized for skin tones, I guess.
But when you shot VISION3 50D in MF (Cinestill) it blows away Portra in several fields, in particular when subject is bathed with strong light.
...it is beyond what sensors/softwares are able by a LARGE margin.
If that's the case, why are you so intently fantasising about LUTs?
You're really just giving away that you have either a lack of knowledge or ability to scan or print Portra properly. If you had those basics you wouldn't be making these claims. And as has been said elsewhere, cross processing ecn-2 in C-41 will give odd results which, while possibly aesthetically pleasing (like cross processing E-6 can be), will give no real indication of the overall actual performance of the film used as designed.
Hmm, I don't know if it's the scanner, web compression & the film interacting, but that's altogether quite a lot less crisp than I know Portra and Ektar can deliver with the same lens - either via scanner or enlarger. I suspect it's probably the scanner - it looks a lot like some Coolscan files I've had to deal with recently.
Kodak's own data suggests you're talking nonsense - in fact the reality they show is the opposite of what you claim. Indeed, one test of Portra 400 (done by someone whose work on other matters you unquestioningly repeat) claimed that it potentially held 20 stops of range - which I'm doubtful about.
You're really just giving away that you have either a lack of knowledge or ability to scan or print Portra properly. If you had those basics you wouldn't be making these claims. And as has been said elsewhere, cross processing ecn-2 in C-41 will give odd results which, while possibly aesthetically pleasing (like cross processing E-6 can be), will give no real indication of the overall actual performance of the film used as designed.
If that's the case, why are you so intently fantasising about LUTs?
Not LUTs, 3D LUTS
If I read the KODAK data documents on Portra and Vision3 correctly, Vision 3 has 1-3 stops more dynamic range than Portra.
I know exactly what they are, how to make them and how to use them. I've made quite a few for various purposes.
In fact, everyone that has used an ICC profile or calibrated a monitor has made and used a 3D LUT.
There are 1D LUTs 2D LUTs and 3D LUTs.
When bending the curve for a particular color channel in Ps we in fact make a 1D LUT. Today the vast majority of User color adjustments are not made with 3D LUTs.
Still, today we have new software like 3D LUT creator allowing true 3D LUT color edition. You may know that we have two kinds of LUTs: Technical LUTs and Creative LUTs...
Do you use 3D LUT creator or similar? Using that we have an impressive control in the color output.
Just one information: When the digital projectors were installed in my local cinemas, they have been installed next / parallel to the remaining 35mm film projectors. The 35mm film projectors were not removed.
Best regards,
Henning
What do you believe will be the change or changes to circumstances that will persuade the cinemas to run the machines again?There is still hope yet that these machines could run again.
View attachment 238955 View attachment 238953 View attachment 238954
Hey something I can chime in on. I'm a traveling theater tech and this has been my experience as well. For most of the theaters I have serviced over the last year if they had analog equipment at one point it's mostly still there. I asked about this and most have said it wasn't worth the time and effort to actually move the things.
There is still hope yet that these machines could run again.
View attachment 238955 View attachment 238953 View attachment 238954
Almost none of the movie film being sold is projection stock.Presumably there are lots of analogue cinema projectors still being used and either old ones are being brought back to life or new ones being ordered or is there another explanation for the increase in movie film that was mentioned in the opening post?
pentaxuser
No this is incorrect.So for the foreseeable present time I will assume that the future for the production of movie film lies in its conversion for use in stills cameras and not in a re-establishment of 35mm movies.
Presumably there are lots of analogue cinema projectors still being used and either old ones are being brought back to life or new ones being ordered or is there another explanation for the increase in movie film
Oh trust me I've been trying. So far none have wanted to give up their lenses.
View attachment 239042 View attachment 239041
At about 1:39 in the extended interview Bellamy says “We are also seeing unbelievable growth in print.” Presumably from a minuscule starting point but still interesting.Came across this report from WHAM13 in Rochester the other day.
Yes, most "journalists" have transformed themselves into Tribalistic cheerleaders who report to their preconceived notions, rather than actually investigate the situation and factually report.
While I think the photographer is solid in his personal artistic notions (never saw anything he has done, but he sounds quite lucid), his sweeping generalizations about the death of photography and the darkroom are swallowed whole and reinforced by the reporter without out any substantive rebuttal.
That's not journalism.
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?