It's official! Vision 3

[Matthew Buick]

It was all 16mm the BBC had a problem. From a webpage I read by someone who attended a conference on the subject there was nothing wrong with the MPEG4 compressed 16mm. They're probably trying to make excuses for being cheap. Torchwood looks like shite. So does Waterloo Road.

 

 

I hate the beeb. I'm not looking forward to having to fork out £170.00 to listen to man-hating feminism all the time. I mean when was the last rime a man hasn't acted a complete idiot in British TV. :angry:

[David Mullen ASC]

What I've been told is that the improvement from '18 (Vision-2 500T) to '19 (Vision-3 500T) is pretty subtle if just contact-printing, but more visible if scanning the negative.

[Saul Rodgar]

Well even the older "Vision 1" 500T stocks in 16mm were perfectly viable for real production. The Squid and the Whale was shot that way (all on 500), Leaving Las Vegas on even older 16mm stocks, and lots since and before of course.

 

You see grain that bothers you in 35mm, on TV?? Wow, you must have a 40ft TV screen. I can barely notice it (and its not a bad thing anyway!) when I'm watching 500T 35mm movies in the theater, much less on TV, unless it's purposefully done. But maybe it's because I'm not trying to find some problem with every little thing; I'm enjoying the movie like everyone else. What bothers me are TV shows shot with Varicams or the like. It always looks so cheap and video like. Even worse are the huge numbers using little 3chip cams for TV... that's a joke and always looks like highschool level stuff (which I guess it is overall) Thank you so much MTV and VH1.

 

I understand less and less about what people are seeing out there, and why they like or don't like certain things with every new post. I give up. <_<

 

Long live real cameras and talent!

 

 

YEAH MAN! You tell them! :D

[Matthew Buick]

Yes! - can #72 has my name on it.

 

$1000 for one can?! Golly! You must be rich!

Edited November 2, 2007 by Matthew Buick

[Matt Workman]

that promo was kind of weak, no exterior ... personally I would have gone with girls at a beach instead of sweaty dudes in a gym <_<

[Dan Goulder]

that promo was kind of weak, no exterior ... personally I would have gone with girls at a beach instead of sweaty dudes in a gym <_<

I understand your sentiments, but I don't think the beach would be the best place to demonstrate a new 500T stock. Of course, they could have thrown in a few sweaty girls at the gym...

[K Borowski]

I don't understand the backlash I am getting for wanting improvements in grain structure. It is a 500T stock afterall. While I agree that there is a place for grain, smaller latitudes, and the like, and I would in fact welcome if Kodak brought back maybe EXR 500T or at least kept the '79 around, I want film to offer the best possible image, and that means it has to compete with digital by reducing "noise" (grain) and continuing to keep a large advantage over digital with wider latitude and dynamic range and gamma. I'm sorry if this is not what other people here want, but it IS necessary, and I applaud Kodak for its continued support for film emulsion research in both entertainment imaging and professional photography.

 

It is very obvious that there is grain in 1080i broadcasts with the 500T stocks, painfully obvious in 16mm. I don't mind the grain that is there in the 35mm stuff, but the look on the 16mm shows is not a good one at all, at least in my opinion. It also throws into question why one would shoot a noisier, lower-res image on 16mm film when HD does a better job for about a third of the cost. And yes I do watch shows just for the purposes of evaluating film stock, otherwise, I really wouldn't have much to entertain myself with in watching "The OC" ;-) Film isn't a nostalgic medium, it is a living, breathing entity that needs to grow and evolve to keep up with a rapidly changing entertainment medium that is transitioning to higher definition and to an almost all-digital distribution medium. Film needs to maintain the best possible compatibility with these outlets or it will become a thing of the past, which has happened to a large extent in the world of still photography.

[K Borowski]

Yes! - can #72 has my name on it.

 

Can you please tell me if they are offering 16mm too, and what the minimum purchase amount is?

 

Thanks,

 

~KB

[David Mullen ASC]

It would be unusual to shoot a 500T stock demo outdoors in sunlight where there are better-lookig Kodak stocks for that. Makes more sense to shoot in interior or night exterior scene.

 

I'm all for improvements in grain structure -- it makes the stocks more flexible, especially for 16mm work. I prefer Fuji Eterna 500T to 5218 partly because it's finer-grained, so I'm curious about this new 5219 stock because it's probably finer-grained than Eterna 500T.

 

The thing is that even a 50D stock has a visible grain structure on a big cinema screen, so it's not like you can make these 35mm stocks grainless anyway. And pushing, underexposure, and skip-bleaching can add more grain if you want it.

 

I think though for PR reasons, Kodak would have been better-off introducing a 1000T stock and thus challenging the notion that digital is better for low-light work.

[K Borowski]

I agree that the 1000T would have been more of a PR boost. Remember though, that practical film speed tops out around 1000, and becomes disproportionately more grainier once you get past say 4-500. The old 800T is an example of this. In still photography, the 800-speed daylight-balanced films are significantly grainier than their 400-speed counterparts, and many say that they only have a true speed of around 500. So, by this 2/3 of a stop overrating, I'd say it's safe to say that a 1000-T stock would only be around 640 ASA, maybe 800ASA. I really don't think that it's possible to get it much faster without getting very noticeable grain, or invest heavy amounts of money. Fuji still makes a 1600-speed still film, and it's at most a true 1000-speed film. At these speeds, whether or not they're using double electron sensitized T-grains, you still get disproportionately large grain.

 

Remember also that films actually have 3 different speed layers, one slower than box speed, one faster than box speed, and one that is at or near to the rated box speed. Whereas this works out OK in daylight work, for night stuff where everything is ver dark, you're shooting wide open, and you're trying to get just enough light on the subject to get any sort of exposure, you're not going to be getting any exposure on the slower-than-box-speed silver halides at all, so this is probably a large part of the reason for disproportionately larger grain when you are shooting in low light or night scenes.

 

As for Vision-3, if it is what they say it is, and they have indeed come up with a way to produce triple-electron sensitization, they've essentially gained another stop over Vision-2 so that, in effect, you gain a true stop on paper. Now, remembering that shooting in low light produces disproportionate speed loss, you could shoot Vision-3 at EI 1000 with one stop less light and it should produce identical results to Vision-2 500T at EI 500, assuming that it does incorporate triple-electron sensitization. Perhaps this is more like1/2 to 2/3 of a stop increase, as I am not sure mathematically if triple electron sensitivity would double the film speed over Vision-2 or make it 1 1/2 stops faster than the original Vision. In any case, as with all films, it is essential to test to determine how accurate Kodak's claims are. As I haven't even seen any claims as to improvements, perhaps this isn't really a triple electron film afterall. I'd think that if they'd surpassed that hurtle, they would be boasting about it, but as yet it hasnt' been mentioned.

 

I am also curious why Kodak doesn't keep older MP stocks, like EXR around longer. You can still get slide films, like Ektachrome 64, that haven't been changed significantly since the 1970s, but negative film is seemingly always phased out, leaving only one line intact, with the older stock only available until the supply of coated older film runs out. While there is certainly more control in a negative-positive system (not even taking into account the controls added with DI), there are still all sorts of limitations with color negative compared to B&W in printing, yet there is a much more limited selection of films. I hope that Kodak tries to continue to keep variety around in addition to their continual improvements of their Vision line. I think they ought to have an older, contrastier, non T-grain stock, just as they continue to keep their old standby's Plus-X, Tri-X and Ektachrome 64 around despite their newer T-Max B&W stocks and their E-series of reversal films (from which 5285 is derived).

 

Kodak needs to understand that filmmakers want variety, not necessarily the most versatile, finest grained, lowest contrast, most-easily scanned films available.

 

 

~KB

[Matthew Buick]

What I eould like is an EXR II line of films. Higher contrast, lower speed.

 

Kodak EXR2 50D.

 

Kodak EXR2 100T.

 

Kodak EXR2 200T.

 

 

Aah!! ;) Real film.

[Logan Schneider]

I am also curious why Kodak doesn't keep older MP stocks, like EXR around longer.

 

 

~KB

 

 

Keeping a worldwide inventory of a filmstock is a huge financial and logistical feat. Kodak has to be able to serves productions all over the globe, but cannot keep stock longer than a year or two (I think two) without replacing it. This makes specialty stocks an expensive and risky endeavor, because if people aren't shooting it they cannot just hold onto it indefinitely.

[Sam Wells]

... personally I would have gone with girls at a beach instead of sweaty dudes in a gym <_<

 

I won't argue with that. But -- it does show you a lot of specularity on skin which I think is a point they're making, plus you'll note they have a "combative" theme here ---

 

-Sam

[Robert Houllahan]

Keeping a worldwide inventory of a filmstock is a huge financial and logistical feat. Kodak has to be able to serves productions all over the globe, but cannot keep stock longer than a year or two (I think two) without replacing it. This makes specialty stocks an expensive and risky endeavor, because if people aren't shooting it they cannot just hold onto it indefinitely.

 

 

Perhaps in the coming decades the growth of nano tech and other bio technologies will allow you to grow filmstock in a small facility and choose from any kodak or fuji recipe from the past or experiment with growing your own variant... may sound nuts but look at the stereolithograpy machines and other rapid prototyping stuff out there for the desktop, stranger things could happen....

 

I could see us as a lab growing our own stock, offering processing with low environmental impact using solar hot water creation and bio-remediation and nano-bio tech for a fully clean and sustainable film process....

 

 

-Rob-

[Dan Goulder]

Keeping a worldwide inventory of a filmstock is a huge financial and logistical feat. Kodak has to be able to serves productions all over the globe, but cannot keep stock longer than a year or two (I think two) without replacing it. This makes specialty stocks an expensive and risky endeavor, because if people aren't shooting it they cannot just hold onto it indefinitely.

 

 

 

Perhaps in the coming decades the growth of nano tech and other bio technologies will allow you to grow filmstock in a small facility and choose from any kodak or fuji recipe from the past or experiment with growing your own variant... may sound nuts but look at the stereolithograpy machines and other rapid prototyping stuff out there for the desktop, stranger things could happen....

 

I could see us as a lab growing our own stock, offering processing with low environmental impact using solar hot water creation and bio-remediation and nano-bio tech for a fully clean and sustainable film process....

 

 

-Rob-

O.K. Enough of that. Now, what about the new Vision 3 stock? Have you shot, processed, and seen the results?

[Robert Houllahan]

O.K. Enough of that. Now, what about the new Vision 3 stock? Have you shot, processed, and seen the results?

 

 

HA!

 

 

I loaded 2 100' rolls but ended up shooting a sunrise timelapse on 250D for someone yesterday so I have not had a chance to load the eyemo with it yet. My Aaton is in princeton, nj so no S16 which I think will be more interesting... I have a 400' 16mm test reel and i am going to NY/NJ to shoot on Wed and I will bring it and do some low light stuff with my superspeed set to check it out...

 

-Rob-

[Adam Thompson]

I don't understand the backlash I am getting for wanting improvements in grain structure. It is a 500T stock afterall. While I agree that there is a place for grain, smaller latitudes, and the like, and I would in fact welcome if Kodak brought back maybe EXR 500T or at least kept the '79 around, I want film to offer the best possible image, and that means it has to compete with digital by reducing "noise" (grain) and continuing to keep a large advantage over digital with wider latitude and dynamic range and gamma. I'm sorry if this is not what other people here want, but it IS necessary, and I applaud Kodak for its continued support for film emulsion research in both entertainment imaging and professional photography.

 

It is very obvious that there is grain in 1080i broadcasts with the 500T stocks, painfully obvious in 16mm. I don't mind the grain that is there in the 35mm stuff, but the look on the 16mm shows is not a good one at all, at least in my opinion. It also throws into question why one would shoot a noisier, lower-res image on 16mm film when HD does a better job for about a third of the cost. And yes I do watch shows just for the purposes of evaluating film stock, otherwise, I really wouldn't have much to entertain myself with in watching "The OC" ;-) Film isn't a nostalgic medium, it is a living, breathing entity that needs to grow and evolve to keep up with a rapidly changing entertainment medium that is transitioning to higher definition and to an almost all-digital distribution medium. Film needs to maintain the best possible compatibility with these outlets or it will become a thing of the past, which has happened to a large extent in the world of still photography.

 

Once again, people are coming from different core needs here. I care little about competing with video cams and losing all organic traits of a medium on a HDTV screen because I do little to no work that isn't for indie film production. What you want (and that seems to contradict itself a little) is different than what I want.

 

I'd like to know something: Why is it when I mention a 16mm movie no one ever comments back about it? I give examples of great work shot on 16 like once a month but all I get back are comments like the one above? Let me try another one: Have you been able to see any of the Ken Burns "The War" on a big HD set yet? Basically all the new stuff was S16 and to me it's HD broadcast looked shockingly great. Do you honestly think an HD cam, with it's sterile, boring, cheap and plastic look would be a better way to have shot that? I guess I'm relating that kind of work too much to narrative films where HD simply serves little purpose for me. If I did the kind of work you do, maybe I'd hate what I now like so much about physical capture.

 

Can anyone honestly say that any of these new HD TV shows look high-end to them? No, you can only make excuses as to why it fits the material so well. Every time Dr. Who is on or that unwatchable Tyler Perry's -whatever- show, or Sara Silvermans Program.... I can't help but think they didn't care enough to even rent anything above a DVX to shoot with- at least thats what they look like.

 

I'd also like to know why so many great DP's now, and over the last many decades, use nets and diffusion filters to degrade the look of (those even older) film stocks? I guess they needed higher resolution and cleaner images and that was some really weird way of getting there. Wake up guys, Sony, Panasonic and now red has your creative ball$. :huh:

[Robert Houllahan]

I'd like to know something: Why is it when I mention a 16mm movie no one ever comments back about it? I give examples of great work shot on 16 like once a month but all I get back are comments like the one above? Let me try another one: Have you been able to see any of the Ken Burns "The War" on a big HD set yet? Basically all the new stuff was S16 and to me it's HD broadcast looked shockingly great.

 

 

I agree I have been seeing allot of 16 and 35 shows on a nice HD set when I am in NY shooting and they all look really good, I think the grain in them is a great and important part of the picture.

 

-Rob-

[David Sweetman]

Can anyone honestly say that any of these new HD TV shows look high-end to them? No, you can only make excuses as to why it fits the material so well. Every time Dr. Who is on or that unwatchable Tyler Perry's -whatever- show, or Sara Silvermans Program.... I can't help but think they didn't care enough to even rent anything above a DVX to shoot with- at least thats what they look like.

 

I'd also like to know why so many great DP's now, and over the last many decades, use nets and diffusion filters to degrade the look of (those even older) film stocks? I guess they needed higher resolution and cleaner images and that was some really weird way of getting there. Wake up guys, Sony, Panasonic and now red has your creative ball$. :huh:

Personally I don't see why it's something to be so dogmatic about -- in either direction. Shoot whatever you want to and afford everyone else the same luxury. The last time I saw someone do something interesting with actual image attributes was Miami Vice. They were looking for something new; maybe they found it, maybe they didn't, but at least they were looking. Other than that, for me anyway, it's just been images as usual, whether film or HD. I've been paying much less attention to actual image attributes because everyone's trying to look the same anyway. In my opinion, being starved lately to watch a show or film I truly enjoy, the misuse of the media is a result of the mediocre content, so I'm more interested in solving the content problem than the media problem. Sure there are plenty of anomalies, but it's not HD that ruins a show and it's not film that saves it. And nothing is ugly and nothing is beautiful. I think we'd see more interesting things if someone would decide nothing is ugly and nothing is beautiful.

[K Borowski]

Adam, you say what I say contradicts itself slightly. From a certain point of view, I guess that you are right. Let me simplify what I have said: I want variety!

 

I think that Kodak's improvements to filmstock do not look sterile like HD; they are cripser, sharper, maybe a little bit lower in contrast, but every improvement brings them closer to reality. Some people say that HD is the closest, most accurate look out there. I disagree. I don't agree with this nostalgia for older films. Kodak, with its introduction of Eastmancolor Negative film in the late 1950s has been on a perpetual quest to achieve a look as good as possible from its films, not necessarily the most neutral, accurate in color, but with the finest grain, widest color range, and most pleasing rendition of flesh tone as possible. This probably isn't as much of an emphasis with MP stocks as with their C-41 line, but I feel that Kodak has always done the best job, with all of their pro negative films, with providing very pleasing flesh rendition. Making a stock better does nothing to destroy the "film look" that we all admire so much. Now, lowering the contrast to make for easier scanning or DI work does bother me to some extent, but honestly, from what I've seen with the Vision2 stock out there now, it still does a fine job and is perfectly usable for straight optical printing, and can be made, through lighting, filtration, to look just as contrasty as Vision-1 before.

 

Now I mentioned that I want variety. There are times when people intentionally don't want to use the best possible stock, with the finest grain. In those cases, I think it would be great to have older stocks, not the whole line but the most popular ones, around at a premium price. Kodak, contrary to popular opinions here, can keep film fresh far longer than 2-3 years. Having one or two of the old EXR stocks around would be great, as well as perhaps another reversal film (like a high-speed slide film to replace some of the VNF stocks that have been discontinued). In still photography, Kodak has a line of saturated films called "Ultra Color" that are high in saturation, as well as contrast IIRC. I've only shot one roll of the stuff and that was a long time ago, but I think that a stock like this would be the perfect answer to those who gripe about improvements too film, because it has a classic, nostalgic, grainier look to it.

 

However, I think that Kodak should continue its strategy of improving grain structure and optimizing film for scanning/DI, as long as those improvements do not in any way hamper the traditional optical printing characteristics of the filmstock. So far they I feel they have been pretty good about this.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I agree that the 1000T would have been more of a PR boost. Remember though, that practical film speed tops out around 1000, and becomes disproportionately more grainier once you get past say 4-500. The old 800T is an example of this. In still photography, the 800-speed daylight-balanced films are significantly grainier than their 400-speed counterparts, and many say that they only have a true speed of around 500.

 

The C-41 Agfa 1000 was not that much grainier than the Agfa 400.

& one could get it very cheap as a Ritz house brand.

Do I miss that stuff.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I don't agree with this nostalgia for older films. Kodak, with its introduction of Eastmancolor Negative film in the late 1950s has been on a perpetual quest to achieve a look as good as possible from its films, not necessarily the most neutral, accurate in color, but with the finest grain, widest color range, and most pleasing rendition of flesh tone as possible. This probably isn't as much of an emphasis with MP stocks as with their C-41 line, but I feel that Kodak has always done the best job, with all of their pro negative films, with providing very pleasing flesh rendition.

 

Make that late 1940s.

 

Lately prints of 5254 movies on TV have the most beautiful fleshtones out side of 3-strip Technicolor.

'Grey Gardens' is on 7254, & while not the sharest looking movie has magnificent color and fleshtones.

 

As John Holland mentioned, cinematographers revolted when Kodak replace it with 5247II.

[Matthew Buick]

I used to think 5247 was the best film look ever. One watch of Airport 1975 changed all that. I have never loved the flesh tone rendition of any film so much. If Kodak applied T-Grain and whatever sharpening technology the developed since 1968 - 1976 to 5254, and re-released it as one hi-con stock they'd have one dedicated customer here. I'd use it's lower latitude to train myself to expose bang on the mark, rather that going twenty nine stops either way thanks to new-fangled Visison 3.

 

Low latitude, high contrast, low speed, no grain. That's what film should be about.

[A. Whitehouse]

Low latitude, high contrast, low speed, no grain. That's what film should be about.

 

Sounds like you want the look of a cheap video camera, they have all the qualities your after. And zero grain.

 

Looking forward to seeing V3 in S16mm, especially the 200T which was always a favorite in the V2, 7217.

[Matthew Buick]

That was absolutely not what I meant. :lol: There is a DISTINCT difference between cheap video and film. As a Super 8 user ANY prospect of less grain is right up my alley.