Kodak Vision 3: Am I missing something?

guangong said:

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.

Click to expand...

As an employee working on VISION films since the introduction of the 527x series of films, and all subsequent VISION films, this statement is not accurate. All Kodak VISION color negatives have been and were designed for making prints for theatrical projection. They were designed with the specific purpose of capturing images; primarily in movie, television and commercial markets. The effects you are seeing in specific applications, such as in "Dunkirk", are the artistic work of the director and cinematographer at taking a series of film stocks and adjusting them to bring out a particular look by use of lighting, filters, or photochemical adjustments in the laboratory. Once captured, color timing is used to fine tune the image and insure consistency from camera to camera and scene to scene.

Perhaps the poster was referring to still frame use of the VISION2 stocks which are spooled and sold by companies such as CineStill. Those applications, which typically have purchased short end rolls from theatrical production companies, were never factored into any of the design of these motion picture films, which by the way, were designed quite differently from the Professional products like Portra.

I don't know if you are missing anything. Respooled Vison film with the remjet backing removed and processed in C41 will have a different look than Ektar or Portra. Whether you like it or not, only you can decide. Order a few rolls and see. Some random person on an internet forum responding that he likes it or not won't tell you very much.

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...

Not necessarily.

As he says:

Rudeofus said:

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.

Click to expand...

See the density to form the residual one as lowest common density. Which must get enough exposure from the start.
The overexpusure Rudeofus hints at on the other hand must not be too strong for tones to vanish.

Thus filtering, at least roughly, at exposure is the best way to go at strong mismatch between ligting colour and spectral sensitization.

FredK said:

As an employee working on VISION films since the introduction of the 527x series of films, and all subsequent VISION films, this statement is not accurate. All Kodak VISION color negatives have been and were designed for making prints for theatrical projection. They were designed with the specific purpose of capturing images; primarily in movie, television and commercial markets. The effects you are seeing in specific applications, such as in "Dunkirk", are the artistic work of the director and cinematographer at taking a series of film stocks and adjusting them to bring out a particular look by use of lighting, filters, or photochemical adjustments in the laboratory. Once captured, color timing is used to fine tune the image and insure consistency from camera to camera and scene to scene.

Perhaps the poster was referring to still frame use of the VISION2 stocks which are spooled and sold by companies such as CineStill. Those applications, which typically have purchased short end rolls from theatrical production companies, were never factored into any of the design of these motion picture films, which by the way, were designed quite differently from the Professional products like Portra.

Click to expand...

Hy FredK....
Last year I totaly missed the introduction of this film. Yes of course I saw a preview and have had it in mind. The theme in historic context is well known. But I didn't realized it is filmed on 65mm and presented on70mm AND on IMEX (last just in selected theaters - some are not very best equipped )
Now it is too late to me...

What you stated about filtering and photochemical adjustments is obsolet in most cases you probably know.
In digital workflow (filming digital) that is also true for exposure.??? Hard to belive but sometimes that is also done with framing. The 100% intended framing is done during post.

So it could have been also here with dunkirk I had an idea first. But that isn't possible.
(If you are filming with Vision Films your care is on a most neutral handling of the material - effects concerning color management/LOOK and light effects are supplied via post production.)

But if there wasn't the case that dunkirk is presented on 35mm, 70mm, and IMEX .....?
So the described workflow during post is done if you intend 2k , 4k presentation in digital theatres and
of course we should not forget blue Ray/DVD .....

But a copy of a digital
workflow in high quality on 70mm and IMAX isn't possible so far AS I know.
(sure you may copy EVERYTHING onto Film but then the audience isn't amused they may feel super8 presentation in IMEX THEATRE.)
Have you information if 8k resolution is possible to copy back onto film (while holding full resolution)
with new modernest machines - meanwhile.
The conclusion of that all is : dunkirk have realy seen special filtering and photochemical adjustments
in a way Steven Soderbergh has no idea from.
( compare with "Color by numbers" on YouTube ) https://m.youtube.com.watch?v=EgJkjOQH0hM#
with regards

with regards

Missing a slash .....

Again :
with regards

AgX said:

Not necessarily.

As he says:



See the density to form the residual one as lowest common density. Which must get enough exposure from the start.
The overexpusure Rudeofus hints at on the other hand must not be too strong for tones to vanish.

Thus filtering, at least roughly, at exposure is the best way to go at strong mismatch between ligting colour and spectral sensitization.

Click to expand...

I'd simply point out that while correction in printing is not the perfect solution, it does work pretty well with most current neg films - most likely because of their generous latitude. And more to the point, why did Kodak, Fuji etc not make a high speed tungsten balance still neg film in the 90's but instead made Portra 800, NPZ, Superia 1600 etc daylight balanced? It's not like everyone was using flash or HMI in the environments those films were designed for & the technology was there since the 80's to make a 500T or even 800T neg stock.

But the common misconception is that with reversal film intended for slides you always need a pack of filters and with negative film you can ALL do in the printing stage.

Even more if you hand out your negatives for printing: How to filter them? If filtered at the scene, the printer only would have to go for the standard filtration for that emulsion.

FredK said:

As an employee working on VISION films since the introduction of the 527x series of films, and all subsequent VISION films, this statement is not accurate. All Kodak VISION color negatives have been and were designed for making prints for theatrical projection. They were designed with the specific purpose of capturing images; primarily in movie, television and commercial markets. The effects you are seeing in specific applications, such as in "Dunkirk", are the artistic work of the director and cinematographer at taking a series of film stocks and adjusting them to bring out a particular look by use of lighting, filters, or photochemical adjustments in the laboratory. Once captured, color timing is used to fine tune the image and insure consistency from camera to camera and scene to scene.

Perhaps the poster was referring to still frame use of the VISION2 stocks which are spooled and sold by companies such as CineStill. Those applications, which typically have purchased short end rolls from theatrical production companies, were never factored into any of the design of these motion picture films, which by the way, were designed quite differently from the Professional products like Portra.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected. I haven’t shot color in 16mm for about 40 yrs, preferring BW. I paid no attention to 35mm and larger film sizes since my interest in color is/was Super 8 reversal, but I did read and receive promotional material from Kodak extolling the virtues of converting Vision film to digital for reasons that I mentioned. Since I don’t shoot color negative I didn’t pursue new info. However, I do appreciate you very knowledgeable correction. Thanks.

AgX said:

But the common misconception is that with reversal film intended for slides you always need a pack of filters and with negative film you can ALL do in the printing stage.

Even more if you hand out your negatives for printing: How to filter them? If filtered at the scene, the printer only would have to go for the standard filtration for that emulsion.

Click to expand...

Filtration at the time is fine - unless you have three or more different light sources! Cinema neg film also has much more severe limitations if it's run through a traditional chemical finish - no easy dodging & burning - so more has to be achieved via lighting/ filtration at exposure.

I think most custom printers have the nous to look at a neg's subject matter & have a pretty good idea of what to aim for in colour balance, no matter if the scene is artificially lit or daylight. And a colour analyser is likely in the mix too. As with cinema colour timing, it's a question of experience, once you've done it 10,000 times it becomes a pretty implicit activity. It's often more a question of looking 'right' than matching a colour checker.

Biggest problem I have when viewing film/digital at the movie theatre is that they're usually so dark because the theater refuses to use projector bulbs with full light output. They're saving money and it drives me nuts. It looks like the entire movie was filmed at night. So all the cinematographer's hard work and talent and the film's original beauty is all lost.

I have it because I could trade it with someone for some strange Agfa film. The remjet is still a bit of a hassle for me. But if you can buy the stuff for a cheaper price the portra I get that people are using it. There might be a difference in look but I don't think it wil be much.

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...

The amount of work time and money that went into that shot may not have been worth it...I've not used the lens since.

Some professionals went allways in opposite direction. They are not using special lenses wich cost that amount of work time you metioned because they are much to lasy for that.
If their shots then have worth that money they got for it I doubt often.
Last professionel (female) photographer (23years old) I visited on shooting location ( to inform
if I am just up to date) has shown me phantastic workflow from shooting fashion (online marketing).
Her assistent was holding constantly a so called "frenchman" to avoid that the sun came onto her camera display (monitor) where she contantly was looking on after each shot.
That was his main job (I can't remember he did anything else) her job was contantly to LOOK on her
monitor after shooting (not before shooting/no conception was obviously done before)
The background the fashion models were acting was modern architecture.
But from her framing/deep of field characteristics this was not seen within her resulting shots.
Impossible to ask her about the used lens - she can't say! Multi-zoom?
So her Assistent had a hart job I never would like to get his task.
And she got realy lots of money (to much) for that she did.
And I am not any longer up to date - that is quite clear....

with regards