color, density, and dynamic range of Kodak Vision 2383

Deniz Zagra · January 6

This might sound amateurish, but I wasn't able to find any resources online about this topic and wanted to post my questions here. What is the dynamic range of Kodak Vision 2383 color print film? Some people online correlate a film's dynamic range with its density, arguing that slide film, especially Velvia 50, has the highest dynamic range of any medium because of its high Dmax value, but Velvia is also known for its harsh contrast and narrow exposure latitude. Are there two types of dynamic ranges: one during capture (exposure latitude maybe) and one for projection? Kodak Vision 2383 has a high Dmax value, but how many stops can it show before blowing out highlights or crushing shadows.

Lastly, can Kodak 2383 produce most of the colors accurately? Have you ever experienced a noticeable shift in color when comparing a DI image to the printed image?

Edited January 6 by Deniz Zagra
typo

David Mullen ASC · January 6

In terms of color/contrast, whole DI system was built originally to create a digital master that could be recorded back to intermediate film stock to be printed to 2383 that would match Vision negative film directly printed to 2383 -- and then digital cinema projection was designed around getting digital files projected to match 2383. So there should be no color shift between a DI recorded out to film and printed, or a DI digitally projected, compared to the same film printed to 2383, if matching is what you want.

In fact, movies like "Oppenheimer" have the D.I. and film print projected split-screen in the D.I. theater to make sure the digital version matches the film print, because in that case, it was timed in film first which is rare. And that's one of the reasons there is a 2383 print emulation LUT used in D.I. sessions, so you stay within the color gamut that print film can reproduce for movies that plan to be released both in film prints and digitally.

However, this is all based around shooting negative and printing it on 2383, not using 2383 inside a camera to record an image onto. 2383 was not designed to reproduce colors of real life accurately but to reproduce the colors on the negative film accurately into a positive image. It's all designed as a 2-step system. That's one reason why color negative has that orange color mask in it, so that the colors in the print end up being accurate.

Print film has higher contrast than negative film because it has to in order to get decent blacks when a bright projector lamp is pushing light through the print and projecting the image on a white screen (just like why reversal slide film has more contrast than negative films.)

Jon O'Brien · January 7

It's fascinating that many people retain a very definite memory of what typical film prints of the 70s and 80s looked like projected in cinemas. I can vividly remember in minute detail the look of the print of The Empire Strikes Back that I saw in the cinema in 1980. It was in many places quite grainy, but always to my eye very beautiful. I can remember less vividly as I was younger but still with some degree of clarity the look of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. But to put it into words more exact than that is impossible. I've seen some Blu-Ray transfers that retain a look faithful to what prints looked like in the cinema release. I just chuck this comment in here as I felt like writing something. Films back then looked like art. Art was a massive aspect of the cinema experience but the average cinema goer was probably unaware of it.

Kyle Mikolajczyk · January 9

I know this is about 2383, but the discontinued 2393 (Kodak VISION Premier) was really something else. The blacks were so deep, like looking at an OLED or laser projector. The data sheets gave some data that would help understand 2383 and 2393, but as a simple comparison, the dynamic range of the cheaper 2383 is closer to an LCD backlit display, while as I mentioned above, 2393 is much closer to an OLED display. I have seen The Godfather on 2393 (as well as a Wreck-It-Ralph trailer I own) and it was an experience. If only Kodak brought it back, Nolan would go for it in a heartbeat.

Deniz Zagra · January 15

On 1/9/2024 at 3:28 PM, Kyle Mikolajczyk said:

The blacks were so deep, like looking at an OLED or laser projector. The data sheets gave some data that would help understand 2383 and 2393, but as a simple comparison, the dynamic range of the cheaper 2383 is closer to an LCD backlit display

It seems the Dmax of 2393 achieves above 5.0 while that of 2383 is closer to 4.0. Is it possible to increase the Dmax of 2383 during the printing process, or should we just wait and hope for a new and updated version of 2383 from Kodak?

Giray Izcan · January 15

That will never happen as photochemical finishing more or less doesn't exist anymore.. We're lucky to have the negative and print stocks that we have for as long as it lasts unfortunately.

Kyle Mikolajczyk · January 18

On 1/14/2024 at 9:12 PM, Giray Izcan said:

That will never happen as photochemical finishing more or less doesn't exist anymore.. We're lucky to have the negative and print stocks that we have for as long as it lasts unfortunately.

While I mostly agree, it's possible for someone like Christopher Nolan to get Kodak to re-introduce 2393 if there was enough money to back it. It's not like they are making a new stock, just re-engineer a stock that existed a decade ago