Eastman Kodak: Strong increasing demand for movie film

[Cholentpot]

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.

I've been developing 500T in C-41. I'm not knocking the stuff, it's an excellent film. And it's a very unique look too. I've only shot 50D on 16mm still and I've not yet scanned the results so I can't speak for 50D.


This was shot on 500T with the REMJET removed beforehand. Developed in C-41. It has amazing range.

However it does not like any lighting conditions that are not optimal.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

My ex-mother-in-law when she got film back from being processed threw out the negatives first thing. When her husband died, she came to me in tears with a folded and worn photograph of him wanting me to fix it.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

...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?

 

[138S]

If that's the case, why are you so intently fantasising about LUTs?

Not LUTs, 3D LUTS, Lachlan.

Spectral Sensitivity is the "Partiture" and the 3D LUT is the "Score".

In cinematography (since several decades ago) Spectral Sensitivity determines what tones are separated or confused, the 3D LUT determines how each separated tone in the capture is presented in the destination color space. The workflow in the movie industry (many productions cost hundreds of millions) was fueled/shaped with big money and top notch technicians, so it's a nice reference for any kind of imaging work.

First Disney do with VISION3 is scanning to later digitally processing color, in cinematography Hybrid rules, film cinematographers enjoy best of both worlds, they have a dedicated spectral response in the capture and a total flexibility in the post, as 2020 this combination is unbeaten.

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.

????

 

[dutchsteammachine]

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?

If I read the KODAK data documents on Portra and Vision3 correctly, Vision 3 has 1-3 stops more dynamic range than Portra.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Not LUTs, 3D LUTS

As the discussion was about colour, I'd assumed you knew they couldn't really be anything other than 3D. Secondly, it's 'Lookup Table' - the 's' signifies nothing other than tables, plural. I know exactly what they are, how to make them and how to use them. I've made quite a few for various purposes.

If I read the KODAK data documents on Portra and Vision3 correctly, Vision 3 has 1-3 stops more dynamic range than Portra.

The straight line is the critical part - it runs for 8-9 stops on Vision 3 - the straight line is closing in on 10 stops for the Portra films, and dropping to about 8 on Portra 800 pushed a stop. Obviously the toe and shoulder do play a role tonally, but if you actually overlay the characteristic curves (compensating for the different y-axis heights - the x-axis are all 16 2/3 stops or something like that) you can see that Vision 3 shoulders earlier. Obviously Vision 3 is designed to be printed for transilluminated viewing, Portra for printing to paper - & the film curves are designed to work systemically with the relevant output print media. Vision 3 is designed to deliver a pleasing highlight behaviour without needing burning in, with shadows controlled through lighting; Portra to deliver good shadow behaviour with well separated highlights controlled via printing.[/QUOTE]

 

[138S]

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.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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.

I've used various approaches to creating 3D LUT files, mainly used to carry out specific colour correction, inversion, gamma correction etc in a single step for colour neg films from an un-inverted scan input - aim being to deliver an aesthetically pleasing (and close to correct) result that should at most only need small colour and contrast tweaks to make things about as good as possible.

The main thing is to make something that looks 'right' rather than getting bogged down in absolutes - you'll have a hard time trying to bake the look of a different film onto an extant scan (which isn't to say that you can't make Portra not 'look' like Portra) - as opposed to building something sort of convincing on to a low contrast log output from an Alexa sensor or whatever.

 

[davela]

Wow great news! I wish Kodak could bring back magnetically stripped Super8 or some similar modern implementation of that. Of course for that matter we could really use a new generation of small cine cameras (8,16, and maybe even 35mm) in addition to the long need now for new high qualithy still film cameras (SLR"s, rangefinders, and medium format) to help with the film resurgence. Quiet 8 and 16mm camera systems with crystal sync'ed motors and perhaps with integrated digital sound recording electronics, or a paired two-system set could present interesting possibilities for small scale film makers.

 

[Loflyinjett]

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

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 238954

 

[pentaxuser]

There is still hope yet that these machines could run again.

View attachment 238955 View attachment 238953 View attachment 238954

What do you believe will be the change or changes to circumstances that will persuade the cinemas to run the machines again?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Loflyinjett]

The theater in question actually still maintained there analog projectors, there was another I visited in Florida did the same. One thing I noticed for sure was there were many diehards still around.

I was very surprised at just how many theaters I've been to still have the equipment on site or still maintained. The main issue I could see is I know for a fact that the Technicolor distribution center in Wilmington, Oh sold off or destroyed a lot of their equipment back during their transition to digital cinema. My wife would come home from work and tell me horror stories about the things she would see.

This is just my opinion but the way I feel is if there is demand at least some of the infrastructure is still around to satisfy it. One can dream.

 

[Cholentpot]

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

If you happen across a Micro ISCO anamorphic projector lens that's not being used I'll gladly take it off someones hands. If it's a red one I'll trade someone's hands for it...

 

[pentaxuser]

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

 

[MattKing]

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

Almost none of the movie film being sold is projection stock.
It is almost all camera stock.
Historically, the projection stock was where a large portion of the film production volumes and profits came from. Projection stocks are relatively short lived and in the old days you needed a separate copy for every theatre screen the movie was being shown on.
The two types of film are both "negative" films, but they are quite different.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Matt. I read Henning's #1 as distinguishing between photo film ( what I will call "stills" photography ) and movie film ( that destined for movie cinemas) It appears based on what you have said that #1 was actually saying that there is an even bigger increase in the production and conversion of movie film for the specific use in 35mm stills cameras so in effect its movie film converted for use in 35mm stills cameras

Maybe everyone else read this correctly but I have to say it would have helped my understanding of what the post was saying if Henning had made it clear that the bigger of the two increases was movie film for use in stills cameras and not movie film for the use in movies where I assume the future remains bleak or are there signs of "green shoots" there as well?.

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. So given the price increase in traditional colour film such as Portra then does this indicate that except for traditional film users such as Portra, the newcomers are all buying converted movie film. If the reason for this is either price or look then it suggests that a combination of look and price will drive the Portra films out. As the "oldies" die and there are less and less of them then the price of Portra will rise further and curtail sales even more?

Already in a spirited exchange we have seen the argument for and against converted movie film being better.

It becomes difficult for me to see how both can prosper and continue to increase in demand but I may be missing some vital evidence that allows this circle to be squared

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

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.

No this is incorrect.
Henning is referring to the production of film for movie cameras - the ones used on set and in the field by cinematographers when they "film" a movie.
Film is being used to create movies, but it isn't used as much now to distribute and show movies.
Here is a photo (most likely an older version) of the sort of camera I refer to:

 

[cmacd123]

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

Movies traditionally used a Camera film, and made prints onto a positive film. there was one ppositive print needed for each theatre that was showing the movie..

the current demand is for Camera film.

the camera films are mostly for tungsten light, (shown as "T") and are last time I checked

KODAK VISION3 500T Color Negative Film 5219
KODAK VISION3 250D Color Negative Film 5207 (daylight)
KODAK VISION3 200T Color Negative Film 5213
KODAK VISION3 50D Color Negative Film 5203 (daylight)

back in September last year a 1000 ft 35mm roll of 5203 was just under 800 dollars US (eleven Minutes shooting time)
in Movie circles the users often just talk about using for example 5219 as that uniquely specifies the film.


Print film was traditionally cheaper.
KODAK VISION Color Print Film 2383
shows as about 300 dollars for 35mm 2000ft again back in the fall. 2383 is on a thin Polyester base.

there are other films used in the lab but those don't really matter much these days for many users. It is possible to have film prints made, even from a digital source. BUT imagine if you will the cost of a 2 hour Movie print (almost 6 rolls at 300 dollars each or $1,630.00 just for the film stock.) compared with a 200 dollar hard drive that can be reused.

 

[Loflyinjett]

If you happen across a Micro ISCO anamorphic projector lens that's not being used I'll gladly take it off someones hands. If it's a red one I'll trade someone's hands for it...

Oh trust me I've been trying. So far none have wanted to give up their lenses.

 

[Cholentpot]

Oh trust me I've been trying. So far none have wanted to give up their lenses.



View attachment 239042 View attachment 239041

Guess you've got that covered for yourself. I have an ISCO lens but it's close focus is something like 15 feet. Not very useful for portraits and the like.

A company called Sirui just put out some single focus anamorphics. I'm waiting for them to put one out in EF so I can slap them on my cameras. I contacted them and they seemed to say it's in the pipeline. Here's hoping.

If you do somehow stumble across a trove of the reds I'm game for one.

 

[cmacd123]

Came across this report from WHAM13 in Rochester the other day. at least some Kodak folks are seeing some future in Movie film, the longer version of the interview is near the bottom of the News item...

https://13wham.com/news/local/kodak-continues-starring-role-in-hollywood

 

[Samuel Dilworth]

Came across this report from WHAM13 in Rochester the other day.

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.

 

[138S]

Also, at about 1:00 he tells that with digital capture often has to be repeated a lot of times. This is well true, with film when actors nail the role they are done...

With digital many captures are not good enough, illumination and actors position are way more critical, many times when the actors nail the role the images are not good enough.

In a big budget production this has an impressive economic impact, because a too long principal shooting is a nightmare.

Anyway some film directors/cinematographers have established a reference level that digital captures simply don't reach (by far) this 2020.

Of course a "Best Cinematography" Oscar can be won by shooting with a bare smartphone, cinematography may be beyond technnical shorcomings.

...but we have many examples of film supremacy, say Pulp Fiction... that cannot be done digitally, perhaps some scenes can be matched, but also many film scenes are technically so damn good that digital cinematographers can only dream that one they will reach that level. There is no contest... it is not about aesthetic preferences or taste, it's about effective technical excellence.

Several good directors use both film and digital in the same movie, understanding why/when they use one medium or the other it's quite interesting.

 

[jtk]

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.

 

[jtk]

On reading one statement of contrary opinion, certain types attack journalism. Better to enjoy public relations professionals like Henning than to condemn journalism.