New Motion Picture film: Eastman Kodak VERITA 200D Color Negative Film 5206/7206

[koraks]

Hehe, yeah, you're right about that one!
Especially the bike.

 

[Fish soup]

Well, what do I know. But there certainly has been rumors that there is a new Kodak cine stock based on an existing still film stock from insiders in cinematography circles over the past two years. Look at the second post here: https://cinematography.com/index.php?/forums/topic/102017-new-mystery-filmstock-from-kodak/

 

[isaac7]

I was dubious about productions doing 65mm dailies but here’s a walkthrough of getting some dailies ready for a director. That’s a lot of film!

 

[gbroadbridge]

It's worth pointing out that not all IMAX is created equal.

Many IMAX theatres are digital projection with dual 4K projectors, not film at all.

 

[blee1996]

It's worth pointing out that not all IMAX is created equal.

Many IMAX theatres are digital projection with dual 4K projectors, not film at all.

Indeed, IMAX is mostly a marketing term. The next IMAX 70mm film projection will be Odyssey in the summer: I booked my tickets a year in advance!

 

[koraks]

Well, what do I know. But there certainly has been rumors that there is a new Kodak cine stock based on an existing still film stock from insiders in cinematography circles over the past two years. Look at the second post here: https://cinematography.com/index.php?/forums/topic/102017-new-mystery-filmstock-from-kodak/

But that doesn't make any sense like I said before. He alleges it's a still film, and it's ECN-2. Which ECN-2 process still films has Kodak made, ever?
It's anyone's guess what he heard/read back then and how he understood/interpreted it.

Also, this is what he posted on the currently released film a few days ago:

To me it looks like Vision 3 200T honestly, I haven't found anything yet to make me say "oh that's radically new". The fall-off in the blacks is nearly identical to 200T. This doesn't look anything like the pre-release stuff from 2 years ago, which had a VERY distinct look and was WAY grainer. So IDK what happened.

A few posts up he says:

I'm pretty sure it's reformulated Portra 400.

So which is it...and whatever it is, it's apparently not what he was talking about 2 years ago.

Looks to me he's like guessing, feeding the rumor mill. People pick it up, repeat it, at first with a tentative "IDK but this guy here..." and before we know it, it's gospel.

 

[brbo]

well, let's be honest: if you take a portra and change the emulsion, dyes, couplers, formulation, edge markings, canister, logo you basically have a portra that becomes an ecn2 film. Or even a bicycle, with a few more tweaks.

And, if we are really honest, maybe if you take Portra, change nothing then process it in ECN-2 and you (just what it says on the tin) get pictures with a cross? I mean, that wouldn't be THAT different to taking V3 5203, changing nothing and processing it in C-41 (you get nice enough pictures with a cross).

I mean, I would at least try processing Portra 400 in ECN-2 before having a strong opinion on what this new Verita is or isn't.

 

[benjiboy]

I thought "motion picture film" was reversal film, not negative film.

 

[gbroadbridge]

I thought "motion picture film" was reversal film, not negative film.

The vast majority is negative film.

Reversal film professionally was only really used for things like news gathering with 16mm.

 

[tykos]

And, if we are really honest, maybe if you take Portra, change nothing then process it in ECN-2 and you (just what it says on the tin) get pictures with a cross? I mean, that wouldn't be THAT different to taking V3 5203, changing nothing and processing it in C-41 (you get nice enough pictures with a cross).

I mean, I would at least try processing Portra 400 in ECN-2 before having a strong opinion on what this new Verita is or isn't.

i never tried crossprocessing portra, but that was a joke.

i can see why, in the current legal dispute about film names, Eastman would rename portra but then why create a new name and not simply use their brand new shiny Ektacolor (that we all know is our beloved Portra)?

 

[koraks]

maybe if you take Portra, change nothing then process it in ECN-2 and you (just what it says on the tin) get pictures with a cross? I mean, that wouldn't be THAT different to taking V3 5203, changing nothing and processing it in C-41 (you get nice enough pictures with a cross).

It's an interesting experiment alright. I doubt it will yield Verita's curves, though. Looking at the, they're a little too wonky to be explained by a simple x-process. But who knows? I don't have any fresh Portra 400 to try it on.

 

[mshchem]

well, let's be honest: if you take a portra and change the emulsion, dyes, couplers, formulation, edge markings, canister, logo you basically have a portra that becomes an ecn2 film. Or even a bicycle, with a few more tweaks.

The bicycle, a Bianchi, Campagnolo equipped! Sweet! Sign me up. (Steel frame, it's more analogue than carbon )

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It's worth pointing out that not all IMAX is created equal.

Many IMAX theatres are digital projection with dual 4K projectors, not film at all.

That's correct. Most theatres show 4k digital. There are special theaters that show the huge IMAX film productions. You have to read carefully which ones those are. There are also 3D IMAX, but I don't know whether those are digital, film, or what.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I thought "motion picture film" was reversal film, not negative film.

Don;t they reverse it again to make reversal film (or digital) for the theaters?

 

[Aidan Sciortino]

Don;t they reverse it again to make reversal film (or digital) for the theaters?

Indeed; Motion Picture film production uses a similar workflow to color negative still film.

You can do as the vast majority of color negative still film shooters do and shoot it, develop it, scan it, invert the image and then edit your footage digitally. You can also do as some color negative still film shooters still do, and print it on Motion Picture print film, which performs a similar function to RA-4 paper. That print can then be scanned and distributed digitally for theaters. Then there's hybrid processes, where the negative is scanned, edited, and written back out to film that can be printed. This "Digital Intermediate" process has become very popular in recent years, with some films like Dune part II writing digital footage back out to film for the so-called "film look", for whatever that's worth.

 

[MattKing]

I thought "motion picture film" was reversal film, not negative film.

When people shot home movies, those movies almost always were. And much of it was Kodachrome.
When they switched to video, Kodachrome's days were numbered, because without the movie volumes, it became uneconomic to maintain the infrastructure.
Some small scale motion picture product is shot on the re-introduced Ektachrome, but that is a very narrow niche.