Maik Lobborn Posted January 11 Posted January 11 Interesting review done by Filmboy24 on his YouTube channel. https://youtu.be/En6vYtggHLQ Very interesting to see how different the stock can look depending on the processing. I very much like both results (for different projects and purposes of course). 1
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted January 11 Premium Member Posted January 11 Yea we've done similar tests with NC400 and NC500 (the other 2 stocks) and the results were interesting for sure. I think NC200 is closer to a standard daylight stock, which is nice. So far, I think they're only making small batches, so I doubt it will be available for 16mm or 35mm motion picture anytime soon, which is a shame because we'd love to include it in our NC400 test video that hasn't been released yet due to not having NC200!
Maik Lobborn Posted January 11 Author Posted January 11 I have not seen any information about 35mm cine stock yet. But they are working on 16mm release already: https://bsky.app/profile/wittnercinetec.bsky.social/post/3m7x7gsjgwk2t
Maik Lobborn Posted January 11 Author Posted January 11 An ISO 100 version seems to be in development too https://bsky.app/profile/wittnercinetec.bsky.social/post/3m7xbjbujbk2t
Maik Lobborn Posted January 11 Author Posted January 11 (edited) 2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: I think NC200 is closer to a standard daylight stock, which is nice. At least the negatives seem to look more usual https://bsky.app/profile/wittnercinetec.bsky.social/post/3lxk5zqfbpk2v Edited January 11 by Maik Lobborn
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted January 12 Premium Member Posted January 12 9 hours ago, Maik Lobborn said: I have not seen any information about 35mm cine stock yet. But they are working on 16mm release already: https://bsky.app/profile/wittnercinetec.bsky.social/post/3m7x7gsjgwk2t Oh good, tho if their coating consistency isn't updated, then it may not be worth it. I will for sure buy a 400ft can just to make a video about it, but I don't have high hopes as the NC400 had the same issues as NC500 in terms of coating/density consistency. They are clearly making small batches on an in-house machine and having issues when they make long runs. It's also interesting that Wittner is now the distributor, not OWRO themselves?
Mark Dunn Posted January 12 Posted January 12 11 hours ago, Maik Lobborn said: At least the negatives seem to look more usual https://bsky.app/profile/wittnercinetec.bsky.social/post/3lxk5zqfbpk2v I'm guessing here, but with the effective demise of positive printing, isn't masking now irrelevant? Or is backwards compatibility needed for those stubborn folks who insist on making prints!
Joerg Polzfusz Posted January 12 Posted January 12 https://darkskiesfilm.com/why-is-there-an-orange-mask-on-color-negative-film/
Mark Dunn Posted January 12 Posted January 12 31 minutes ago, Joerg Polzfusz said: https://darkskiesfilm.com/why-is-there-an-orange-mask-on-color-negative-film/ I'm well aware of the reason for the tone-correction mask. I was wondering out loud whether it is unnecessary in an era of scanning. That article rather confirms it in FAQ 4. I'm sure it will never be removed as the industry is set up for it. Nur ein Gedankenspiel. 1
Mark Wiggins Posted January 31 Posted January 31 I’m going to be testing the NC200 soon (35mm version) so will report back. 1 1
Premium Member Aristeidis Tyropolis Posted February 9 Premium Member Posted February 9 I received my free 30.5m 16mm NC200 + questionnaire - Will test together with NC500. The 35mm Stills equivalent is the Kono Color 200 - so will test that as well. Will post footage when all is said and done. 2
Premium Member Uli Meyer Posted Thursday at 11:18 AM Premium Member Posted Thursday at 11:18 AM commenting to follow topic.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now