Kodak Vision-2 Demo

David Mullen ASC · February 25, 2004

The presentation here in L.A. was something of a let down. Of course, one problem is that the slow-speed stocks were already pretty fine-grained, so improvements were not going to be as dramatic as with the 500 ASA stocks. They created the demo using a digital intermediate in order to do split-screens and on-screen words, but a lot of people thought the choice to do a D.I. was probably a poor one. They did a 6K scan but downrezzed to 2K for the film out.

At some point, there was a three-way split screen shot of a girl on a bed shot on 100T, 200T, and 500T and they all looked almost identical! A great selling device for the 500T stock, I guess... I mean, the grain differences were miniscule and the 100T was only marginally sharper.

The D.I. seemed to have dulled the differences between the stocks. They all looked similar. That and combined with the decision to not adjust the curves of the stocks to look better for the D.I. meant that the output back to film was on the flat side. Perhaps they should have printed it on Vision Premier to compensate. Everyone complained about the lack of true blacks and decent contrast. Your eyes were begging for something with a little color and contrast to it.

You know it's a bad sign when the number one question being asked is "Uh... you're not going to obsolete 5248... are you?" There was a general fear that Kodak is designing new stocks that NEED a D.I. if you want to put any life into them (not that they did with this D.I.)

I'm absolutely sure the new stocks must look great because I know that '48 and '74 look better than they did in the demo!

The demo for the Expression 500T stock was more successful. First of all, it wasn't a bad "Goonies" concept. Second, it was an optical print so you see the differences. And third, the improvement over 5284 is more dramatic.

---

As various DP's nitpicked the demo to death to the Kodak reps, I was reminded about this complaint some digital advocates have that cinematographers are overly critical about video. The truth is that they are hyper-critical about EVERYTHING related to image quality. They don't cut Kodak any more slack than they would Sony!

David Mullen ASC · February 25, 2004

One nice thing about the evening was meeting Tenolian Bell and Wendell Greene!

Filip Plesha · February 25, 2004

Was the shot of the girl on the bed the same shot they use

on the kodak site as an example of the exposure data?

David Mullen ASC · February 25, 2004

Yes, for the 100T stock.

I'm very excited to try this stock myself for contrasty day exteriors, it has a sharp yet very smooth tonality. A big improvement I'm sure over trying to use 320T for that job (trying to compensate for high contrast daylight).

It might be one of those things where you use Vision-2 100T for sunny day weather and Vision 250D for overcast, since it's not only higher speed but higher contrast.

It didn't help that Kodak shot these day shots in a somewhat mundane location -- brown fields of corn and grass. They maybe should have gone to a harsh sunny location like Hawaii or the desert.

I hope they keep 5245 though...

Wendell_Greene · February 25, 2004

I was more impressed by the new Expression 500T than the other stocks, perhaps because as David pointed out it was an optical print, especially the 16mm version which is a big improvement.

Roger Deakins, ASC, BSC asked the Kodak reps if there were any plans in the works to introduce new print stocks to give cinematographers a great choice, and when the answer seemed non-commital, Deakins stressed again why he felt this was necessary. Maybe it was me, but I think his request fell on deaf ears. The word that the Vision2 would eventually phase out the 48 didn't go over very well, and John Toll, ASC especially, expressed his concerns about the effect limiting the choice of stocks cinematographer would to chose from not just in the next year o so, but in five years. I later overheard one DP tell a friend he was off to Circuit City to buy a bigger freezer to store as much EXR stock as he could.

Funniest moment (outside shaky dolly in and out and the jump cuts in the message from the Kodak CEO) was when the Kodak rep announced that the 100 and 200 stocks would be available on Wednesday morning and someone asked they could stop by and pick up the 65mm version. The production to the sequel for "Far and Away " must be gearing up. :)

Best advice of the evening came from Remi Adefarasin BSC who circled the room and admonished "Do your own tests, gentlemen, do your own tests" .

And it was a great pleasure to meet not only Mr Adefarasin, and my other hero, Allen Daviau, but also our very own David Mullen and Tenolian Bell. Heard a great deal of wisdom coming from John Toll, Robert Primes, Bill Bennett, Richard Crudo, Vilmos Zsigmond et al.

FYI, Daniel Pearl is writing a chapter for the new ASC manual on his special infrared meter and using infrared film stocks.

David Mullen ASC · February 25, 2004

It was an odd question because traditionally 65mm versions have arrived later, I suspect due to the lower demand and the manufacturing issues. "Close Encounters" was shot on the new (then) Series 600 version of 5247 but all the 65mm effects work had to be shot on the old 5254 because 5247 hadn't been released yet in 65mm.

We should be glad that Kodak is trying to release the 16mm versions simultaneousluy with the 35mm versions, unlike the old days. I remember when EXR 500T (5296) first came out, Kodak wasn't even sure they wanted to put it out in 16mm because of the graininess. Same with Vision 800T.

Or back when I was in film school in 1988 and the 16mm line wasn't even the same as the 35mm one -- we had 7291 (100T) and 7292 (320T) I believe. A period of divergence for a few years.

Mitch Gross · February 25, 2004

Or back when I was in film school in 1988 and the 16mm line wasn't even the same as the 35mm one -- we had 7291 (100T) and 7292 (320T) I believe. A period of divergence for a few years.

I'm giving away all the old stock in my freezer to a friend for mag tests and freebie music videos. When she came across a roll of 7292 (yes, 320T) she asked, "What the hell is that?" I'd forgotten how long it's been since the stocks updated. I think it was in 1992 that Kodak replaced it with '93. Wonder what it will look like when she shoots it...

For the Super-8 devotees out there, Kodak is planning to soon release the 200 speed stock in the small format.

Filip Plesha · February 25, 2004

I think they updated 5242/2242 to vision2 technology,

maybe they'll change prints stocks too

Mitch Gross · February 25, 2004

I was told that there are no plans to release new print stocks. Kodak has made a number of minor improvements to the current print stocks over the years, but nothing to be considered a new product line. The current stocks are meant to work with the new negatives and that's as far as their plans stretch, or at least as far as they are willing to publicly state.

Jarin Blaschke · February 25, 2004

I attended the launch in New York where the projection was embarassingly dim, particularly toward the top of the screen; a Kodak rep eventually admitted that the illuminance was only 6 lamperts. It seemed strange to me that Kodak would go through the trouble of securing an IMAX theatre to screen a critical comparison of the new stocks and then neglect to screen it properly. For grain comparisons, I constantly had to look for bright, smooth areas toward the bottom of the image. It was impossible to really compare how the stocks treat areas of skintone, since faces were even darker toward the top of the screen. Thought I'd rant in case someone from kodak might be reading...

Despite these conditions, one difference I could see between the '48 and the new stocks was in saturation. The '48 just looked punchier- it draws you in more, particularly in areas of flat lighting. The grain difference seemed minimal, but again the viewing conditions made it difficult to really tell.

It seems sad that the only options for future film stocks will be low contrast and very low contrast. For projects going to print, I'll probably have to get in the habit of force processing everything atleast half a stop.

Tenolian Bell · February 25, 2004

The presentation here in L.A. was something of a let down. Of course, one problem is that the slow-speed stocks were already pretty fine-grained, so improvements were not going to be as dramatic as with the 500 ASA stocks. They created the demo using a digital intermediate in order to do split-screens and on-screen words, but a lot of people thought the choice to do a D.I. was probably a poor one. They did a 6K scan but downrezzed to 2K for the film out.

At some point, there was a three-way split screen shot of a girl on a bed shot on 100T, 200T, and 500T and they all looked almost identical! A great selling device for the 500T stock, I guess... I mean, the grain differences were miniscule and the 100T was only marginally sharper.

The D.I. seemed to have dulled the differences between the stocks. They all looked similar. That and combined with the decision to not adjust the curves of the stocks to look better for the D.I. meant that the output back to film was on the flat side. Perhaps they should have printed it on Vision Premier to compensate. Everyone complained about the lack of true blacks and decent contrast. Your eyes were begging for something with a little color and contrast to it.

You know it's a bad sign when the number one question being asked is "Uh... you're not going to obsolete 5248... are you?" There was a general fear that Kodak is designing new stocks that NEED a D.I. if you want to put any life into them (not that they did with this D.I.)

I'm absolutely sure the new stocks must look great because I know that '48 and '74 look better than they did in the demo!

The demo for the Expression 500T stock was more successful. First of all, it wasn't a bad "Goonies" concept. Second, it was an optical print so you see the differences. And third, the improvement over 5284 is more dramatic.

---

As various DP's nitpicked the demo to death to the Kodak reps, I was reminded about this complaint some digital advocates have that cinematographers are overly critical about video. The truth is that they are hyper-critical about EVERYTHING related to image quality. They don't cut Kodak any more slack than they would Sony!

Funny how time changes things. I remember back in the mid 90's when Kodak came out with the Vision stocks, many DP's complained about the heavy contrast and saturated colors. I guess we got used to it, even though through the years I've still heard some DP's complain of the contrast of 79. I've heard some say they prefer the softer tones of Fuji stocks.

Looks as though these complaints are what Kodak is addressing with Vision 2. Which are met with "you can see into the blacks", "the colors are too soft." I agree that Kodak should keep the option of a contrasty stock. But I'm sure the softer stocks will gain their appreciation.

It's easier to add contrast than take it away. Color saturation can always be added with lighting, wardrobe, production design, and color correction.

I actually appreciate the ability to see into the blacks more. A lot of times I'm working with bare bones lighting gear. So having the freedom to not bounce into every shadow to make sure their's something there will be appreciated.

As far as the presentation. They qualified it early by saying it went through a DI but did nothing extra to it, then show us this absolutely grainless print. I was like yeah we did nothing to it. That didn't go over well at all with the DP's in LA.

I agree with David the content of the presentation was really flat and colorless. I suppose that was to emphasis the contrast and saturation difference but that didn't go over to well either.

It was good to meet David Mullen and Wendell Green. They help to dispell some of the notions we have in NY about LA.

When I heard they were holding the NY presentation at the Sony IMAX theater I thought that was a bad idea. It's too big. I can imagine during the question and answer, who ever was up front looked like miniscule infront of the two story screen.

In LA it was held at the Academy of Arts and Sciences which was far more opulent than some of the shady spots Kodak has held events in NY. Maybe they're trying to figure out the best place to hold events in NY. Why not just use the MOMA theater on 23rd street somewhere like that. It's spacious but comfortable. Not somwhere massive like an IMAX theater.