Sounds great. Thanks for posting.
Will it be a case of "one film fits all"?
I would not be surprised if it had (in part) to do with micro-scratches showing up in scans etc from the physical removal process.
This might also explain why Kodak has been trying to put a stop to still photography use of present Vision3. Today, the presence of remjet is kind of a practical hurdle/barrier that will keep some people from shooting this film. When that's gone, what remains is a CN equivalent to the E100D situation where it'll be very difficult to protect the still film business at its substantially higher price point.which would also makes it easier to process for still photography.
BW is BW; no special developers needed, or, if you will, develop as you please. Double X is in my experience a technically reasonably good, albeit relatively grainy (for its speed) product.I would expect the color cine films to still require CD-3 versus CD-4 for still films, so at least they will remain different. Not sure about B&W.
Source needs to be verified.
There also some discussion about it here, so looks like its been on the cards for a while. This includes posts on films using 35mm variant in current production and a link to a test for the 16mm stock by TCS New York.
https://cinematography.com/index.ph...-stocks-will-ditch-the-remjet-layer/#comments
This might also explain why Kodak has been trying to put a stop to still photography use of present Vision3. Today, the presence of remjet is kind of a practical hurdle/barrier that will keep some people from shooting this film. When that's gone, what remains is a CN equivalent to the E100D situation where it'll be very difficult to protect the still film business at its substantially higher price point.
Or they're going to go the other way round, and adopt C-41 for cinema
There also some discussion about it here, so looks like its been on the cards for a while. This includes posts on films using 35mm variant in current production and a link to a test for the 16mm stock by TCS New York.
https://cinematography.com/index.ph...-stocks-will-ditch-the-remjet-layer/#comments
I wonder to what extent the differences are very relevant in today's technological landscape. But who knows. It's interesting to note that Kodak will be releasing 1000ft cine rolls of Portra films. Btw, my post you quoted reflected on cutting the supply of Vision3 cine stock for still photographers. That's a different topic than what you bring to the fore above; also relevant and interesting of course.Or they're going to go the other way round, and adopt C-41 for cinema - CD-4 has strong advantages over CD-3 and the only real reason why Kodak didn't jump to CD-4 and CD-6 across the board 50+ years ago was because of anti-trust legal threats from competitors.
Transition all ECN-2 films in all formats from rem-jet to AHU and then... kill all those ECN-2 films and start producing C-41 cine negative film? I thought that Kodak was done throwing money away.
I mean, your idea seems obvious and logical, but considering what they've done, it doesn't seem that Kodak thinks the same.
No wonder Alaris pushed hard for a ban on still photographers purchasing cine negative film.
Or they're going to go the other way round, and adopt C-41 for cinema - CD-4 has strong advantages over CD-3 and the only real reason why Kodak didn't jump to CD-4 and CD-6 across the board 50+ years ago was because of anti-trust legal threats from competitors.
It would also solve the need for a high speed daylight balanced cinema neg stock very efficiently.
seems unlikely based on the last partially visible bullet point on the sheet above:
I don't see that. I also don't really see how this is shocking?Perhaps the temporary halt of the production lines had something to do with it.
Does it? I'm not sure, really. Maybe, maybe not. Depends on factors I don't think any of us has access to.Without a doubt, putting AHU in the layers has a number of advantages, but it will also probably make the process more expensive.
With all due respect, but this sounds to me like just a bunch of interesting words put together. I don't see a direct relation between microcontrast and sensitometry, and in any case, whatever problem might relate to these, Kodak seems to have tackled long ago when they introduced C41 films with excellent performance. Now, I can see something in the argument that it would require some (perhaps extensive) R&D to build a C41-based product with the same sensitometric performance as present-day Vision3. But the major question is whether the ecosystem would demand or even need such a product. Given the fact that the majority of productions based on film rely on a hybrid/scanning approach, there's no absolute requirement for a certain color balance. For the one or two oddball productions that would involve a direct negative to print process (when was the last time this actually happened...?), it would make sense that if EK were to move to a C41-only ecosystem, they'd also adjust the print film to match.Bringing the microcontrast to accurate sensimetric values
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?