Benjamin_Lussier Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Hi guys, I bought a bunch of Kodak Vision 500T mags from a guy who kept em in his fridge... THen I realised it wasn't Kodak vision 2... but just vision... vision1 I guess... Is there a big difference between the two ? thx Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Brawley Posted September 10, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted September 10, 2007 Hi guys, I bought a bunch of Kodak Vision 500T mags from a guy who kept em in his fridge... THen I realised it wasn't Kodak vision 2... but just vision... vision1 I guess... Is there a big difference between the two ? thx Ben There is a difference. But the bigger difference will be due to the fact that your film has to be at least two years old....because if memory serves me that's when they switched over. High speed stock does tend to age, even if it's kept in the fridge. That means it gets grainier and milkier. The solution will be to over expose it about 1/2to 2/3 of a stop. After about 6 months I'd start worrying....2 years ?? Perhaps you could send a clip test into your local lab and see how it comes up. JB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 A clip test is a good idear, it should be fine though if it's been in the fridge the entire time. Ideally it should have been in the freezer to almost completely halt the aging. The biggest difference I hear from others is that Vision2 has a tighter grain structure, and is possibly a little higher contrast. I've never had the opportunity to shoot much of Vision myself. Didn't start shooting 16mm until Vision2 came out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Brawley Posted September 10, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted September 10, 2007 A clip test is a good idear, it should be fine though if it's been in the fridge the entire time. Ideally it should have been in the freezer to almost completely halt the aging. The biggest difference I hear from others is that Vision2 has a tighter grain structure, and is possibly a little higher contrast. I've never had the opportunity to shoot much of Vision myself. Didn't start shooting 16mm until Vision2 came out. From what I recall there was nearly a full stop extra latitude in the shadows and the highlights seemed about the same. I shot some comparisons but in 35mm. And they more closely match the rest of the Vision 2 family...ie...the stock lost it's personality :-) It will be fine, just cook a little more in the gate... jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Will Montgomery Posted September 10, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted September 10, 2007 I tried some Vision 800T 2 years ago, and found it to be pretty nasty. My colorist said that 800T was about the "ugliest" stock she worked with (with the possible exception of Ektachrome VNF which isn't used anymore). I found it to be exceedingly grainy. The Vision 500T was certainly an ok stock and was used extensively... if you're just experimenting I'd go for it. If you have to shoot a music video or a slightly larger project it would probably be worth it to stick with fresh stock you can get more of if you need it. Lighting & lenses will probably be more important to you than Vision2 vs. regular Vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Lussier Posted September 10, 2007 Author Share Posted September 10, 2007 (edited) http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products....4.20&lc=en God ur right.... Its discontinued! Edited September 10, 2007 by Benjamin_Lussier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris dye Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 I tried some Vision 800T 2 years ago, and found it to be pretty nasty. My colorist said that 800T was about the "ugliest" stock she worked with (with the possible exception of Ektachrome VNF which isn't used anymore). I found it to be exceedingly grainy. A few years back I thought about using 800T stock. Even the Kodak representative I was dealing with discouraged me from using it. I went with 500T 7218. Looked great to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Engstrom Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 The biggest difference I hear from others is that Vision2 has a tighter grain structure, and is possibly a little higher contrast. My opinion is that vision2 is less contrasty then vision. The older vision stocks 7279, 7277 a.s.o. had more contrast, I guess that´s because vision2 have more latitude. Some cinematographers I worked with during the shift from vision to vision2 liked the vision stock more because of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Will Montgomery Posted September 11, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted September 11, 2007 My opinion is that vision2 is less contrasty then vision. Check out the 500T 'expression' stock. Very low contrast, interesting look but not very practical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 The older vision stocks 7279, 7277 a.s.o. had more contrast, I guess that´s because vision2 have more latitude. More likely because VisionII was probably designed with video and DI Xfer in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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