Kodak Vision 3

[SuzanneR]

There is another thread on this here somewhere.

PE

oops... didn't find it, maybe the mods can combine them.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Super 16 is also used in many television commercials, and some music video productions. The current HD will become a moving target in the future. Originating on film is one way to future proof content, making it easier to meet future standards in broadcasting. This is important on a historical basis, and for syndication usage.

Recent indications in the industry are that SD production is still fairly high, despite much more HD gear being available. One reason is web video, and the other is that the editing requirements are simpler. Oddly enough, when film origination happens in motion imaging, it can be a very small portion of the budget. The approach with film is also different in that a take can be much shorter; while straight to video can be done that way, it often is not, which means more time and expense later in editing.

Anyway, with new films being developed and produced, I think that states a great deal about the health of this market. Other good indicators are companies making new telecine machines, for film to video and video to film transfers. To the average consumer, or shopper at Best Buy (et al), these things are largely invisible. Kodak could speak more loudly about these things.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

 

[Celluloid]

35mm and 16mm film - Hmm - does anyone use 16mm film anymore?

Yes...For example "The Shield" is shot mostly hand held on Super 16mm. You can see the grain and the gritty look it gives, which was what they wanted to achieve. However the industry is moving more and more to digital. "Rescue Me" is digital HD shot on Sony's HDCAM system and I believe that choice was driven more by budget limitations than anything.

 

[jd callow]

oops... didn't find it, maybe the mods can combine them.

tell me which thread and I'll combine them

 

[ben-s]

tell me which thread and I'll combine them

I started a thread on the new Vision 3 film in the color film section a couple of weeks ago:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Okay, threads merged.

 

[pauliej]

I wish the cinematographers would learn to use a tripod when shooting their movies & tv stuff. All the jerky motion camera stuff may be "avant garde" or some such, but it makes my head hurt watching it.

As for the high cost of new digital stuff at the movie houses, the only theatre in my hometown back in Ohio closed back in 1960, I think, when I was in the third grade or so. They had great popcorn, as I recall, but only one screen. Not very trendy at all, I'm a thinkin'.

The high cost of stuff is driving a lot of businesses out and there seems to be no end in sight.

Yes, I am old and crochety - please dont remind me!

Paul

 

[Neanderman]

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...

Traditional film projectors are (for all practical purposes) bullet proof, and last for generations of use, with only minor parts replacement.

Film projection is also a 'mature' technology -- any 35mm projector you buy today is going to remain useable until it wears out.

Digital projection, on the other hand, is hardly mature. The $200,000 spent on one today is going to have to be recouped in no more than 5 years (and 2 years is probably a more realistic time frame) because it will be an antique. Some of the big markets -- and the big theater chains -- may be able to reap that in such a short time frame, but small markets aren't going to be able to.

Ed

 

[JBrunner]

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?

Last year I shot about 60,000 feet of 16mm. No kidding.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Kodak is not only busy in ciné - and 'straight' photo - film, other stuff is apparently still alive and kicking : Dead Link Removed

Who knows, somebody over here might use it for experimenting, that's why I post it...

 

[dslater]

Last year I shot about 60,000 feet of 16mm. No kidding.

Just doing your share to keep it a viable product huh?

 

[JBrunner]

Just doing your share to keep it a viable product huh?

Of course, facilitated by using the OPM principle.

 

[Kino]

"Other People's Money"?

 

[JanaM]

Good news for us, too, I think!!

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

Hi Suzanne,

that is really good news for us indeed! Finer grain and two more stops dynamic range! That blows digital away.... A lot of digital photographers would return to film if such a material could be available as foto film.

But now we have to convince Kodak to implement this new technology to the foto film range. Let's sending them lots of emails with this wish!

Best regards,
Jana

 

[Heinz_Anderle]

It would be a great advantage for Kodak if photographic color print film and motion picture negative film would just be determined by packing into a 35 mm cartridge or onto a roll - as with the first Agfacolor negative materials in the 1940s, when still photo Agfacolor was the same as motion picture film.

The question remains: would it pay for Kodak to issue a new generation of photo films at a time when the print paper product lines are gradually phased out, and automated digital negative scanning and printing means a sort of the bed of Procrustes? The new generation of motion picture film is stated to have been optimized for digital conversion, which might mean that the gradation could have been optimized for the inherent limitation of sensors at high densities. Even the predecessor was capable to differentiate between 20 f-stops (although that might not have been linear over the complete range), what doesn't make me wonder: upon shooting ordinary photographic color print film (Agfa Optima 400) towards the sun on a clear sky, the surrounding halo could be clearly differentiated from the sun itself upon scanning.

It would be interesting to have Fuji Reala 500D, the first 4 layer-motion picture folm, compared to Kodak Vision 3 500T - could someone, please, get both loaded into 35 mm cartridges, shoot them with and without conversion filters at various illumination conditions, then have both ECN-2-processed, darkroom-printed, and scanned?...

My film of choice is the improved Fujicolor Superia 400 - absolutely perfect.

 

[Photo Engineer]

It would be a great advantage for Kodak if photographic color print film and motion picture negative film would just be determined by packing into a 35 mm cartridge or onto a roll - as with the first Agfacolor negative materials in the 1940s, when still photo Agfacolor was the same as motion picture film.

The question remains: would it pay for Kodak to issue a new generation of photo films at a time when the print paper product lines are gradually phased out, and automated digital negative scanning and printing means a sort of the bed of Procrustes? The new generation of motion picture film is stated to have been optimized for digital conversion, which might mean that the gradation could have been optimized for the inherent limitation of sensors at high densities. Even the predecessor was capable to differentiate between 20 f-stops (although that might not have been linear over the complete range), what doesn't make me wonder: upon shooting ordinary photographic color print film (Agfa Optima 400) towards the sun on a clear sky, the surrounding halo could be clearly differentiated from the sun itself upon scanning.

It would be interesting to have Fuji Reala 500D, the first 4 layer-motion picture folm, compared to Kodak Vision 3 500T - could someone, please, get both loaded into 35 mm cartridges, shoot them with and without conversion filters at various illumination conditions, then have both ECN-2-processed, darkroom-printed, and scanned?...

My film of choice is the improved Fujicolor Superia 400 - absolutely perfect.

Heinz;

Motion picture films are built to a contrast of about 0.5, while professional still are built to about 0.6 and consumer films (Gold) to about 0.7 - rough numbers. The MP film has about 2x the latitude of the other two and the print film has a differenent contrast to allow for SFX printing and making intermediates.

We still photographers should not have to pay for the extras in MP film.

Also, Fuji MP film is built to the same high standards as their still films are, but MP pros still use Kodak film for their best work. This is due to superior quality in the negative and print films both in their opinion.

In the opinion of cinemetographers that I've talked to, Kodak holds the edge in negative films, while Fuji holds the edge in reversal films.

PE

 

[srs5694]

It would be a great advantage for Kodak if photographic color print film and motion picture negative film would just be determined by packing into a 35 mm cartridge or onto a roll

The different processing infrastructures, if nothing else, make this unlikely -- ECN-2 and C-41 are different processes, and changing either could be a nightmare for the photofinishing industry.

That said, it is possible to shoot ECN-2 film in a still camera and get prints out of it. As PE says, the results may not be optimal, but it is possible, if you want to experiment or if a feature of a new ECN-2 film is worth the downside. IIRC, somebody even posted some ECN-2 developer formulas to the APUG chemical recipes area a few months ago.

The question remains: would it pay for Kodak to issue a new generation of photo films at a time when the print paper product lines are gradually phased out, and automated digital negative scanning and printing means a sort of the bed of Procrustes?

If memory serves, it wasn't that long ago that Kodak released their Vision 2 MP films, and it was just a few months later (maybe a year or so) before the same technology found its way into the Portra line of C-41 films. I wouldn't be surprised if this pattern repeats itself, although I have no inside information and so cannot promise that it will.

 

[Photo Engineer]

AFAIK, A research team is working now on the Vision2 advances to be put into new consumer negative films and B&W films.

PE

 

[Heinz_Anderle]

The different processing infrastructures, if nothing else, make this unlikely -- ECN-2 and C-41 are different processes, and changing either could be a nightmare for the photofinishing industry.

That said, it is possible to shoot ECN-2 film in a still camera and get prints out of it. As PE says, the results may not be optimal, but it is possible, if you want to experiment or if a feature of a new ECN-2 film is worth the downside.

I know about the differences, and here in Austria I am not aware of any lab processing motion picture film confectioned in 35 mm cartridges. A too soft negative contrast will however require excessive computer adjustment upon scanning; results obtained with contrasty print paper might be better.

In the very early days of moden color photography, the Agfacolor film was essentially the same for still and motion picture photography. Stills for film productions in the war years were shot on this material, and the first commercially available Agfacolor photo print film was introduced in 1947 with the MP designations B (for carbon arc = daylight) and G (for incandescent illumination = bulb).

But with today's shrinking still photography market, it seems that we must wait years for the improvements, if they will ever be made available to us.

 

[JanaM]

AFAIK, A research team is working now on the Vision2 advances to be put into new consumer negative films and B&W films.

PE

Hi Ron,

that is very interesting, because the improvements of Vision 2 (for example the two electron senzitization) were already implemented in some films of the professional line: Portra 800, Portra 400, Portra 160 and afaik in BW 400 CN, too. I don't know whether Ektachrome E100G and E100GX have the two electron senzitization. The Ektachromes hit the market in 2003, one year after the Vision 2 introduction.

Best regards,
Jana

 

[Matt5791]

A testament to the advances in the Vision 2 range was Kodak's decision to package and formally market not only the Vision 2 200T, but also the Vision 2 500T in Super8 - the incredible advances in film technology made a 500 speed film capable of very respectable images in the tiny 8mm frame.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Hi Ron,

that is very interesting, because the improvements of Vision 2 (for example the two electron senzitization) were already implemented in some films of the professional line: Portra 800, Portra 400, Portra 160 and afaik in BW 400 CN, too. I don't know whether Ektachrome E100G and E100GX have the two electron senzitization. The Ektachromes hit the market in 2003, one year after the Vision 2 introduction.

Best regards,
Jana

Sorry for my typo there. The Vision 3 improvements are being worked on now for consumer films. So in my post, it should be Vision 3 not Vision 2.

AFAIK, no 2 electron sensitization E6 film has been introduced yet by Kodak. I only know of the negative film group.

At one time, Kodak had a set of teams with 3+ people each for each product line. These teams did research that was parallel and in most cases the new products hit the market at much the same time.

Today AFAIK, there are only 2 teams, one for reversal and one for negative (MP, consumer, professional and B&W). This therefore slows the trickle down effect or the introduction of new products.

PE