Kodak Vision 3

ben-s · Nov 14, 2007

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/hub/v3/evolution.jhtml
I've just seen this on another forum. It appears to be a prerelease promo for a new cinematography stock - Vision 3.

So much for kodak becoming a digital-only company by 2008

It set me wondering actually - there have been several new/updated/re-released films this year, from all 3 major manufacturers. - perhaps film is really much more resillient than the critics would make out...

Photo Engineer · Nov 14, 2007

Not dead but there is a decline and a necessary retrenchment.

With sales dropping over 90%, you have to adjust.

PE

PHOTOTONE · Nov 14, 2007

Well, interesting to think about. Kodak has, what, about 50,000 employees? Ilford/Harman Technology has, I think less than 200. I would guess that Efke and Foma have less than 100 combined. Don't know what Fuji has, but they are also into manufacture of cameras, both digital and film. It takes higher volume production for Kodak to break even, but they have room to downsize more, if needed, I would think.

pentaxuser · Nov 14, 2007

When you compare the employee numbers between the players and look at the film market, it asks the question: What else does Kodak do that helps employ 50,000 or 250 times the number employed by Ilford?

The answer is: ........

Thanks

pentaxuser

Photo Engineer · Nov 14, 2007

Well, Kodak makes color products and digital products as well as having a huge R&D facility for analog and digital. They have hundreds of chemists, physicists, photo engineers, digital engineers, and color engineers that the Ilford does not.

They have a complete set of coating facilities in several locations that have backup engineers to troubleshoot problems from the high speed coaters.

They have slitting and perfing operations for film and packing operations for film and paper.

Many of these are similar to Ilford but about 100x larger or even moreso. I think the biggest difference is the staff to support color, color R&D and digital.

PE

PHOTOTONE · Nov 14, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
I think the biggest difference is the staff to support color, color R&D and digital.

PE

And the need for this level of staff is because of the motion picture industry, so it is not surprising that the motion picture negative films get updated first, and then there is a trickle down effect if the same improvements can be made to still-camera film stocks.

Photo Engineer · Nov 14, 2007

And, that is why I've said that if the MP industry ever fully converts to digital, analog film is in trouble.

Look up Red 1, the new digital camera.

PE

PHOTOTONE · Nov 16, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
And, that is why I've said that if the MP industry ever fully converts to digital, analog film is in trouble.

Look up Red 1, the new digital camera.

PE

The film industry is still very strongly centered on FILM for initial photography, including higher-end dramatic TV production. This is a matter of taste for many many cinematographers and directors. They have enthusiastically embraced digital post-production though.

I don't know what it would take for small theatres in the small towns of the USA, and in the less developed countries of the world to switch to digital projection...the owners just don't have the money. Even if the equipment manufacturers provide special long-term financing, or lease options, it is hard to justify when you only make $1500 to $2000 a week in gross ticket sales, of which a high percentage of that goes to the film distributor. Traditional film projectors are (for all practical purposes) bullet proof, and last for generations of use, with only minor parts replacement.

keithwms · Nov 16, 2007

PHOTOTONE said:
Don't know what Fuji has, but they are also into manufacture of cameras, both digital and film.

Recent Fuji stats:

76k employees, but with ~5000 layoffs since last year
Sales $23.7 bil
Net income $293 mil
R&D spending $1.5 bil
Cap spending $1.4 bil
Sectors: 22% imaging, 37% information, 41% document solutions

The bottom line is that Fuji has remained profitable, and they have also invested very heavily in new research. One of their hotter new directions is the manufacture of triacetate cellulose TAC film used as a polarizing layer in flat panel "privacy" displays. They have apparently cornered that market and the technology came straight out of their film sector.

I am paraphrasing from C&EN, 2 July 2007.

I am not a business expert, but it seems likely to me that the Fuji - Nikon relationship will continue to develop.

ben-s · Nov 16, 2007

I've been watching the red one closely for quite a while now.
It seems to be a highly capable camera, but people are still talking film for distribution.
Apparently the 4K filmout material looks brilliant.

I personally prefer the idea of the new Aaton "Penelope" camera. It's a 35mm camera capable of 2 or 3 perf operation, but they are going to release a digital magazine for it. According to Aaton, it'll only take a couple of minutes to switch from film to digital and vice versa, the logic being that you can shoot a mixture of both if you want.

Tim Gray · Nov 17, 2007

Wow, I had no idea Vision 3 was coming out. Are the Vision 2 stocks that old? I thought in the last 5 years or so... Exciting to see new films still being worked on.

FilmIs4Ever · Nov 18, 2007

To answer your question Tim, no Vision2 stocks aren't old, the first of which, Vision2 500T only being introduced in 2002. EXR 50D, which was introduced in the late 1980s, was only finally improved to a Vision2 version (there was no Vision 50D improvement) last year, so these sorts of improvements don't happen cross-line as they tend to with Portra films, but start with the fastest stocks and trickle down.

It actually remains to be seen how much of an improvement this film is, as it appears to be heavily optimized for scanning, and does not claim to incorporate triple-electron sensitization (although that is not to say that it won't)

It is being plugged by Kodak as a premium product, not a replacement to Vision2 500T, so Kodak is either keeping Vision2 films in production still or is trying to let their Vision2 stocks deplete before they will toute Vision3 as an actual replacement to Vision2. One thing that I remember being said was that it is difficult to see any improvements in Vision3 over Vision2 in traditional optical printing, but it makes for a more substantial improvements in digital intermediate films where the whole thing is scanned first and then lasered back onto print stock. So there may be a trend toward this as opposed to improvements in actual optical characteristics in still films in the future, in fact improvements that hurt optical characteristics somewhat. But any new film is a good film and I congratulate Kodak in keeping the ball rolling.

~KB

kapro · Nov 18, 2007

PHOTOTONE said:
Well, interesting to think about. Kodak has, what, about 50,000 employees? Ilford/Harman Technology has, I think less than 200. I would guess that Efke and Foma have less than 100 combined. Don't know what Fuji has, but they are also into manufacture of cameras, both digital and film. It takes higher volume production for Kodak to break even, but they have room to downsize more, if needed, I would think.

Three weeks ago I was told by the person from Foma's marketing department that they have 400 employees...
BTW, I recommended him to visit Apug site.

JanaM · Nov 19, 2007

PHOTOTONE said:
Ilford/Harman Technology has, I think less than 200. I would guess that Efke and Foma have less than 100 combined.

Ilford: Simon Galley said that Ilford has about 400 employees. Fotokemika Nova (Efke) has about 30. They have a real small scale production. Their machines are the original german Adox machines from the fifties. They are using a unique process, called "Tauchbadverfahren". No other film/paper manufacturer uses this process.

Best regards,
Jana

JanaM · Nov 19, 2007

PHOTOTONE said:
...

I don't know what it would take for small theatres in the small towns of the USA, and in the less developed countries of the world to switch to digital projection...the owners just don't have the money. Even if the equipment manufacturers provide special long-term financing, or lease options, it is hard to justify when you only make $1500 to $2000 a week in gross ticket sales, of which a high percentage of that goes to the film distributor. Traditional film projectors are (for all practical purposes) bullet proof, and last for generations of use, with only minor parts replacement.

Yes, that is exactly the problem.
Recently there was a very interesting report concerning this issue in a german film publication: To install digital projection costs more than 100.000 € per screen! So even in a small cinema center in a small town with few visitors a cinema owner has to invest over 500.000 €. Very high costs, but not more income. For most of the cinema owners it is impossible to make such high investments. Therefore they say the film release firms have to pay for this, but the release firms say no, the cinemas have to pay.
Therefore at least in Germany only very few cinemas have installed digital projectors so far. And they have them installed parallel to the 35mm film projectors, not as a replacement!

So even for an industrial country digital projection in cinemas is very or even too expensive. And now look at India ("Bollywood" is much more film consuming than Hollywood), China, Asia in general, Latin America, Africa. It is very likeliy that movie film with its low costs will be state of the art in these areas for many many years.

Best regards,
Jana

htmlguru4242 · Nov 19, 2007

Wow, 100K Euros to install a digital projector system? That's astronomical ... And, for what? It's not like the quality is significantly higher (if at all), and maintenance on the projector is probably going to be a significant cost if something goes wrong.

Good to see motion picture film still going strong. Let's hope it stays that way.

PHOTOTONE · Nov 19, 2007

htmlguru4242 said:
Wow, 100K Euros to install a digital projector system? That's astronomical ... And, for what? It's not like the quality is significantly higher (if at all), and maintenance on the projector is probably going to be a significant cost if something goes wrong.

Good to see motion picture film still going strong. Let's hope it stays that way.

And..just to put that in perspective, you can equip a theater with used/rebuilt 35mm projectors, lamphouses, lenses, and mono sound for under $10,000..sometimes far under, depending on your bargaining.

dxphoto · Nov 19, 2007

the ending result for digital age is
your are going to pay more, whether using digital or film.
--Digital: keep upgrading the camera bodies, photoshop or other software and your computer system

--Film: since supply is declining, the price on film and processing is increasing.

bottom line --- users will always pay more.

dxphoto · Nov 19, 2007

PHOTOTONE said:
The film industry is still very strongly centered on FILM for initial photography, including higher-end dramatic TV production. This is a matter of taste for many many cinematographers and directors. They have enthusiastically embraced digital post-production though.

That's what I always believe for color, initial FILM, post Digitally. Too bad, they never make decent film scanner for consumers. Instead, we are paying big bucks for scanning in the shops.

B/W is another story..

JanaM · Nov 19, 2007

dxphoto said:
--Film: since supply is declining, the price on film and processing is increasing.

I don't know how it is in other countries, but in Germany film and processing prices are decreasing. Ten years ago I had to pay more for my materials. Lower demand, lower prices. Not astonishing in a free market economy with strong competition.

Best regards,
Jana

SuzanneR · Dec 2, 2007

New Movie Film from Kodak

Good news for us, too, I think!!

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/071129/20071129005189.html?.v=1

dslater · Dec 2, 2007

35mm and 16mm film - Hmm - does anyone use 16mm film anymore? I thought that went out when 8mm was introduced - as I recall getting 16mm film processed is very expensive compared to 8mm and professional movie makers use 35mm film. For that matter, can you even get movie film processed anymore?

Kino · Dec 2, 2007

dslater said:
35mm and 16mm film - Hmm - does anyone use 16mm film anymore? I thought that went out when 8mm was introduced - as I recall getting 16mm film processed is very expensive compared to 8mm and professional movie makers use 35mm film. For that matter, can you even get movie film processed anymore?

Just as much as you can still buy fillum for those old style cameras...

Yes, there are many labs still processing motion picture film in the World. In the US, it is mainly on the East and West Coasts but a few independent labs operate in the heartland.

Check the Kodak website or http://www.acvl.org/motion_picture_labs.html.

16mm is still popular; NFL films still shoot Super 16mm for ingest to their production chain.

35mm is still by a large margin, the main acquisition format for the entire motion picture industry in the World, as is print stock for motion picture exhibition.

The tiny little lab I used to work in did over 2 million feet of b&w a year, and the East and West Coast labs do that in a week, so go figure...

Photo Engineer · Dec 2, 2007

There is another thread on this here somewhere.

PE

Matt5791 · Dec 2, 2007

dslater said:
35mm and 16mm film - Hmm - does anyone use 16mm film anymore? I thought that went out when 8mm was introduced - as I recall getting 16mm film processed is very expensive compared to 8mm and professional movie makers use 35mm film. For that matter, can you even get movie film processed anymore?

Nowadays I can get 16mm processed more cheaply than Super8. Whilst Super8 is still popular with many, 16mm is more mainstream.

It should be noted that these days producers are invariably using Super16mm, as opposed to standard 16mm (although the actual film itself is the same, with perfs on one side - when used in a std 16 camera a smaller negative is exposed than with a super 16 camera).

Super16 is used widely for origination for TV dramas etc. The aspect ratio of Super16 is very close to the current "widescreen" TV's and is a good medium for later transfer to HD.

I will be very interested to try out this 500T Vision 3 as with even finer grain, this of course opens up more possibilties for the old Standard 16mm format - I think that 500T Vision three in Std 16 will probaly yield the kind of grain levels you would have had to go to a 100ASA film for 10 years ago. (I only have a Standard 16 camera)

Also both Aaton and Arri have recently released new Super 16mm cameras:

http://www.aaton.com/news/index.php?nid=23

http://www.arri.com/entry/camera.htm - have a look at the "power of 16" video - I love this little film showing the evolution of 16mm and its current possibilities.

Kodak Vision 3

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency