Kodak Vision 3: Am I missing something?

I've never used the Kodak Vision 3 films in still cameras, but have viewed many examples online. I realize that isn't the ideal way to judge but, while many are very good, I've yet to see any advantage over still films like Portra. I've read things such as the films give a "cinema look", but I can't see it. Perhaps I'm just missing something?

I've never used Vision3, but one advantage might be tungsten vs. Portra's daylight balanced for indoor or night-time shooting?

Everyone is looking for an edge to be different. Some shoot film, some shoot cine film... I tried a few rolls of Cinestill T800 and D50. They are fine film. Better than Portra? Not to my eyes, but for sure some people would prefer them.

Ten301 said:

I've read things such as the films give a "cinema look", but I can't see it

Click to expand...

Yea, I call bull hockey too. How do you get a “cinema look” when you’re not using the same materials (c41 not ecn II processing, presentation media, etc)? Cinema films are made to give an accurate reproduction in their ecosystem just like still materials. It’s digitally post processed anyway, so you can emulate any look you want.
Decades ago places were selling 5247 cinema film for still cameras, processing in ECN chemistry and printing to cinema print film for projection in your slide projector. That was truly a cinema look!

Ten301 said:

I've never used the Kodak Vision 3 films in still cameras, but have viewed many examples online. I realize that isn't the ideal way to judge but, while many are very good, I've yet to see any advantage over still films like Portra. I've read things such as the films give a "cinema look", but I can't see it. Perhaps I'm just missing something?

Click to expand...

Vision 3 film offers three important differences to Portral, each of which can make or break a shot:

1. Vision 3 500T (sold without remjet backing as Cinestill 800T) offers more than two extra stops of speed in tungsten lighting over Portra 400, and just a bit less than two stops of speed over Portra 800 (which is ISO 640).
   
2. Vision 3 films, correctly developed in ECN-2 soup, produce yet lower contrast than regular C-41 film, which means even more dynamic range. This should be particularly visible in the highlights. Note, that Portra 160&400 already offer massive leeway towards overexposure, and that lens flare can substantially cut down effectively usable dynamic range.
   
3. All color films have their unique color palette. You may like it or not, you may or may not see a difference between Vision 3 and Portra, or you may prefer to craft your own color palette in digital post processing, but it's there for you to use.

Rudeofus said:

Vision 3 films, correctly developed in ECN-2 soup, produce yet lower contrast than regular C-41 film, which means even more dynamic range. This should be particularly visible in the highlights. Note, that Portra 160&400 already offer massive leeway towards overexposure, and that lens flare can substantially cut down effectively usable dynamic range.

Click to expand...

In the cine-film system that was countered again by a print film of rather high contrast (to cope with the negative as well as the transparency projection issue).

I find it very difficult, apart from maybe Kodak Ektar, to see some of the subtle difference between the hues and inherent style of color negative-films.
Ektar tend to be more saturated, but I once had a roll printed and the prints there were MUCH warmer and much more saturated than anything I've ever gotten trough scanning. (Nikon Coolscan V )

So, I am not sure (I am sure I could manipulate these after the fact, but I don't know why all my scans are always "normalized" between film-brands).

50D: https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=kodakvision350d&user_id=22614607@N08&view_all=1

500T: https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=kodakvision3500t&user_id=22614607@N08&view_all=1

I am no fan of Cinestill at all. The removal of remjet, creates a bland, low contrast negative extremely prone to halation, which for a daylight-film which really shine in the sun, is extremely problematic. The halos on the Cinestill 800 is old news and boring.

Not tried their 120 option.

I've shot (and have several hundred feet) of 35mm Vision 3 50 and 500T and when developed in C-41 and scanned, I tend to get very normal looking scans with no particular "feel", as I get with most c-41 scans.

The big hassle is that you have to remove the remjet, the biggest advantage, if you can get hold of left-over cinema-stuff, is price, definitely.

I certainly don't get the colors of "Dunkerque"

Or the feel of the 500T set in this video

Or the feel like in their promo video for the 50D

But i am happy with the general performance of these films. Vision3 50D is very fine-grained and I really like it (in 120 it would be insane). The 500T performs extremely well for night and evening scenes in the city, a whole other mood than I am used to.

Helinophoto said:

... I certainly don't get the colors of "Dunkerque"
...

Click to expand...

I don't get these colours either. In fact, the teal cast that is quite prevalent in movies, usually in a teal and orange combination, is a pet peeve of mine. But you can't blame whatever film stock was used for that, it was the producer's choice to make it look so. And this makes the "cine look" argument even more irrelevant.

You're not missing anything. Portra/Ektar > anything from cinestill or the like.

It's just typical hipster-wanker trendiness by idiots trying to be edgelords about film, think they have "discovered" something new and different. And usually they think playing off their mistakes or lack-of-following-processing-and-exposure-instructions as some new artsy "technique" when really all it is is their lack of talent.

I like Vision 3 a lot. But I like it when used as movie film, and developed in ECN2 chemistry. 50D is my favorite. For still photography I find the current C41 offers to be superior in their intended purpose.

My understanding for movies shot on film and even if processed 100% analog, is that there is still a person (or a few) who's entire job is color balancing to make things look consistent from scene to scene. In the process, I'd think this gives a lot of leeway to depart from the natural color palette of a particular film stock... and of course, some film makers use mismatched film (tungsten balanced in daylight) or use filters to accomplish different feels for some scenes. The one that comes to mind in particular for me is how Breaking Bad always uses a yellow filter when shooting scenes that take place in Mexico..

Either way, I've shot a bit of the Cinestill stuff. I really dislike 50D, it looks washed out when processing in C-41 and the halos are really not great in daylight. The 800T has it's uses, but of course as other have said, it is over used by some. I really like 800T for pushing to 1600 and going hand held in a city at night. All other experiences I've had with color film done like this (hand held) has resulted in very poor color rendition and/or very high grain. I've found daylight balanced films without any filter really work best when over exposed by 1 or 2 stops under typical sodium orange streetlights, and since 1600 is really the max speed you can find for color film, it just isn't doable for me. I stick more to B/W these days for night anyway, but I really liked Cinestill 800T for how well it handled the situation, and how it gave mostly natural looking colors. I also used the 120 version of 800T and not sure if it's my camera or what, but there was significantly less halo effect with the 120 version.

I really wish that it is was possible to do ECN-2 development at home easily, but the formulas I've seen look complicated and short lived, and apparently official chemistry is impossible to buy outside of super huge bulk sizes.

Ten301 said:

I've never used the Kodak Vision 3 films in still cameras, but have viewed many examples online. I realize that isn't the ideal way to judge but, while many are very good, I've yet to see any advantage over still films like Portra. I've read things such as the films give a "cinema look", but I can't see it. Perhaps I'm just missing something?

Click to expand...

Hmmm - what do you state : NO CINEMA LOOK with Kodak Vision 3 ???

First one have to think about - some may say " what is wrong with you "

Well there is nothing wrong Ten 301 because you are right.

So a CINEMA LOOK isn't coming from a special emulsion ?

Of course not - but from where is this LOOK ?
If we are speaking about a LOOK in CINEMA Production we may notice the very special experience
coming from a camera operator. There a superb framing is noticable.A DOP as a so named "Director of Photography is responcible for the full budget the camera work will cost (often more than 2mill..)

And we may notice his special lighting what indeed give a Film LOOK (in most cases)

And let's not forget the Directors of such sort of films. Some have precise intention to every single shot. They are prepared with viewfinder lenses to find out the perfect framing concerning to a special
focal length and after this they decided (in cooperation with a DOP) what the camera operator should care about.

A good example for this is the " making of shining 1980 " The outstanding perspective/angle of the freezing room scene where Jack Nicolson was alowed to proceed with his horror and therefore the door opened by gosts hands.
This was filmed via intention of Stanley Kubric who was lying on the ground
with his Panavision viewfinder.
If we may notice a special color LOOK of a Film it isn't allways the lighting (or the color finding via post production) .
There are a lot of other outstanding professionals involved (in addition).
Set Designers creating a simular color LOOK or a coresponding color LOOK with their interioir.
The same is with costume Designers up to make up artists.

From "Shining" (sorry but it is a legendary example) you may remember the absolut symetry of Jack Nicholsons first job Interview. It wasn't the lens symetry allone it was also the compositing from set architecture including details with probs.

So a good concept of directing a full cinema movie gives that what jounalists are talking about " a Film LOOK " coming from lighting or coming from steadycam - this is nonsence.

And Kodak Vision3 gives best oportunity (shot on film) to have a professional tool.

Pls. notice B-Movies in the past they also used Vision2 (the later version of vision3 was often too much expensive)

So they missed a realy Film LOOK because they can' affort vision3 ?


But today more than 90% is filmed with digital. With red cameras, Arriflex Allexa, Panavision is coming with 8k Video and this seams to be ok.
Because to come to 35mm Film resolution 4k isn't inough in all cases.
But 8k will handle the job.
Some state 8k is like IMAX and much better than 65mm Film.
I personally doubt on that.

with regards

Dunkirk look is to give it an antique vision to make it seem like it came out of the past just like the history story they are telling. The color cast helps make you feel that you were there. I also saw it in full size IMAX which was quite beautiful and engrossing.

I notice on my digital camera that even when the midtone exposure is OK, the highlights tend to clip anyway. https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/41087103295/in/album-72157694819890421/
Is this why people shoot S log? Any recommendation to overcome that clipping short of switching to film?

The only thing I know about d-log or c-log (for canon) is that they produce low-contrast shots with max shadow and highlight detail.
But I suppose that is a bit OT (you can find loads of information on youtube about that subject, I had to google it and up came some very informative youtube-vids)

Did someone say cinema look for 500T?



Vision3 500T with an anamorphic lens.

I like the stuff because I got used to it. I don't bother using a filter in daylight anymore. I just white balance in post. The film really shines when shooting a scene lit by candles or the like. As a tungsten film it is quite something.

Cholentpot said:

Did someone say cinema look for 500T?

Vision3 500T with an anamorphic lens.

I like the stuff because I got used to it. I don't bother using a filter in daylight anymore. I just white balance in post. The film really shines when shooting a scene lit by candles or the like. As a tungsten film it is quite something.

Click to expand...

Concerning the color aesthtics AND the deep of field characteristics it is "CINEMA like" compositing indeed.
By the way : here are the examples of symetry conception metioned above from "shining" :



with regards

Rudeofus said:

Portra 800 (which is ISO 640).

Click to expand...

Where did you get that from? It's not in the e4040 document & Kodak are generally pretty good at telling you the 'normal' speed of the film relative to 'push' EI's.

trendland said:

Concerning the color aesthtics AND the deep of field characteristics it is "CINEMA like" compositing indeed.
By the way : here are the examples of symetry conception metioned above from "shining" :

View attachment 208290
View attachment 208291
with regards

Click to expand...

I believe the cinematography of the Shining was heavily influenced by the 6x6 frame of the Hasselblads Kubrick loved.

Chuck some 50D in a Hassie and bingo bango you're Stan the man Kubrick

Lachlan Young said:

Where did you get that from? It's not in the e4040 document & Kodak are generally pretty good at telling you the 'normal' speed of the film relative to 'push' EI's.

Click to expand...

I took the reference to "ISO 640" in Rudeofus' post to be a reference to Portra 800's speed in tungsten light.

MattKing said:

I took the reference to "ISO 640" in Rudeofus' post to be a reference to Portra 800's speed in tungsten light.

Click to expand...

Portra 800, just as Superia 800, were said to be true ISO 640 emulsions with some push capability, a bit like Delta 3200 and TMAX 3200. These ISO 640 ratings are for daylight balanced light, not for tungsten light. In tungsten light you have to downrate by two full stops, giving you effective ISO 160.

This is the main reason why this 500T film is so important: there is no other color photographic product out there nearly as sensitive to blue light. Most indoor shoots are either 500T or flash or tripod with static object or digital.

As described in the initial promotional materials when the Vision films were first introduced, they were never intended for making prints for projection. They were designed for R&R music videos and some commercials that are shot on film and then converted to digital for a “ film look”.
I have ever used them since I shoot BW movies and hopefully (depending on arrival of Ektachrome) color reversal, but my guess is that processed Vision films could possibly be scanned to make digital prints.

I am not 100% sure what your reference is here ? Perhaps it might be just a missunferstanding.
Du you perhaps refer about cinestill (because you metioned initial promo material) ?
Well - as I remember my first Vision promotion right (it should be stored with other Kodak and Agfa Cine Materials - so I might still have it at home) it was Vision II out of somerwere in the midt 90th.
So I guess the very first Vision Cinefilms (obviously Kodak didn't named it Vision I ) should have been introduced somewhere at the and of the 80th.

I can't say if even Vision I was used outside TV comercials , R&R music Videos. But Vision II was used for CINEMA production from the first beginning for sure.

Let's better not talk about Agfa.....

with regards

PS : I remember a day in the 90th when I notice a store with a big "Agfa Sign" driving with my car around the City.
I was a Dependance of Agfa Cine Film I should soon find out as
I entered the store.
An absolut friendly guy (much more too friendly) offered me soon all kinds of Agfa Cine Films with massive special discound.
And he promissed to give me Agfa stuff for less (in bigger amounds) if I would be in a situation to use Agfa for Cine production (official).
I wasn't and told him so he offered Agfa Cine for less if I would use it for low budget production.
???
It was indeed nice but I had first think about (I only wanted to ASK if this store was selling Agfa CT 18/CT 100.....)

So I have him in mind AS the friendliest guy I ever met in film production but I never met him again
(some moths later this office was closed)

J

Rudeofus said:

Portra 800, just as Superia 800, were said to be true ISO 640 emulsions with some push capability, a bit like Delta 3200 and TMAX 3200. These ISO 640 ratings are for daylight balanced light, not for tungsten light. In tungsten light you have to downrate by two full stops, giving you effective ISO 160.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised by this, given that the Kodak data sheet for Portra 800 states that the ISO speed is 800, not 640. And the tungsten speed (after taking into account filtration) as either 250 or 200, depending on the colour temperature of the light source.
The new data for TMax 3200 also indicates an ISO of 800 for that film, but highlights its pushability as well.

Rudeofus said:

Portra 800, just as Superia 800, were said to be true ISO 640 emulsions with some push capability, a bit like Delta 3200 and TMAX 3200. These ISO 640 ratings are for daylight balanced light, not for tungsten light. In tungsten light you have to downrate by two full stops, giving you effective ISO 160.

This is the main reason why this 500T film is so important: there is no other color photographic product out there nearly as sensitive to blue light. Most indoor shoots are either 500T or flash or tripod with static object or digital.

Click to expand...

Well, it's not in the E4040 datasheet for Portra 800, but TMZ & Delta 3200 do specify their ISO rating. Unless you are confusing it with certain E6 films which had P1600 etc ratings on the box. Only anecdotal comments I've heard about Portra 800 was that its speed was actually nearer 1000, thus rating at 800 slightly improved the grain. My own experience would tend towards saying that NPZ was perhaps a tick slow relative to the box speed & Portra 800 comfortably dead on. Like a lot of colour neg films, a little overexposure is often not a bad thing with them. More to the point, there used to be a Portra 100T (and VPL before that) geared towards low reciprocity error & tungsten sources which went away because the demand wasn't there.

It is also important to remember that it is possible to convincingly correct tungsten sources on daylight film to neutrality even when printing optically & not at the time of exposure. Same with daylight on tungsten balance.

Lachlan Young said:

Well, it's not in the E4040 datasheet for Portra 800, but TMZ & Delta 3200 do specify their ISO rating. Unless you are confusing it with certain E6 films which had P1600 etc ratings on the box. Only anecdotal comments I've heard about Portra 800 was that its speed was actually nearer 1000, thus rating at 800 slightly improved the grain.

Click to expand...

I may be mistaken on Portra 800 and may have been confused it with Superia 800. Either way, even at ISO 800 it will be over a stop slower than 500T in tungsten light.

Lachlan Young said:

It is also important to remember that it is possible to convincingly correct tungsten sources on daylight film to neutrality even when printing optically & not at the time of exposure. Same with daylight on tungsten balance.

Click to expand...

You can reliably correct light temperature during printing - as long as there was sufficient exposure in the blue light spectrum range. Since in tungsten balanced light the blue spectrum is about four times weaker than expected, you get an underexposed blue layer unless you either overexpose, filter or use tungsten balanced film.