Kodak Portra 400 Film Made Exclusively for Scanning -- Not Printing

James Steven Beverly · October 3, 2010

Anybody know anything about this and are they planning on bringing out motion picture film versions? B)

http://www.switched.com/2010/09/30/kodak-porta-400-film-made-exclusively-for-scanning-not-printi/

Chris Burke · October 3, 2010

Anybody know anything about this and are they planning on bringing out motion picture film versions? B)

http://www.switched.com/2010/09/30/kodak-porta-400-film-made-exclusively-for-scanning-not-printi/

they already did. the now discontinued 5299/7299

Nicholas Rapak · October 3, 2010

Portra 400 uses Vision3 technology, so the technologies are already there in the MP world.

Adrian Sierkowski · October 3, 2010

I don't think Porta 400 used V3 tech; I think it uses V2 stuff, as it's an older emulsion, pre V3.

Richard Tuohy · October 4, 2010

This is a new version of Portra 400 only just released. Kodak describe it as based on Vision 3 technology.

Adrian Sierkowski · October 4, 2010

Ahh gotcha, my mistake. It's been awhile since I used Porta (160 and 400) since I got back into the "chromes." Didn't even know they have a new version of it out, which is cool. Maybe time to dust off the Nikon.

James Steven Beverly · October 4, 2010

I kinda half expected that motion picture film would have been the trailblazer and still film would be the beneficiary of that technology. I WAS however, surprised that they are now processing more film than ever. I guess it's understandable though, digital is a bit transitory where as film prints tend to last for decades.

K Borowski · October 4, 2010

There are so many fallacies on this thread I don't know where to start.

No one is, now, processing more film than ever. That is totally wrong in every field that still uses film. Major theatres are going to be completely digital in three years, tops.

The "new Portra" is just a clever way for Kodak to discontinue the VC and NC lines and bring out one film to replace them. It isn't about "new technology," it's about shoe-horning the needs of two stocks into one that has the contrast that is half-way between vivid contrast and neutral contrast (low).

It still has a color coupler mask. It still prints optically. Anything you can effectively transmit light through prints optically. Look at the characteristic curves. At least those can't be injected with hype, supposition, and uneducated speculation.

Kodak did the same sh*! when they brought out the "new Ektar." They had 100UC, and 400UC films out. They discontinued the (more useful) 400UC, improved 100UC, and slapped "Ektar" on the box. And everyone fell for it instead of being pissed off for the most part that they discontinued a stock from their lineup!

Watch the movie "Factorum." if you want to understand the way Kodak marketing works. "These are premium break pad boxes, ultra break pad boxes, and standard break pad boxes. Put the break pads in each one."

"How will I tell the break pads apart?"

"They're all the same; just put' em in the boxes."

At least cinematographers are, somewhat, educated that they can't get away with the marketing crap they use in stills on us.

K Borowski · October 4, 2010

This is a new version of Portra 400 only just released. Kodak describe it as based on Vision 3 technology.

This line, in particular, angers me.

If anything, stills shooters should be indignant that Kodak updates their stills stocks at least three years after introducing improvements to motion picture.

They aren't "improving" anything either. The marginal improvement in grain, if any, is more than made up for by loosing contrast choices if you are printing optically.

Kodak has systematically eliminated contrast choices in both films and optical print-compatible paper. They now only make one contrast choice professional paper and only a medium contrast professional film.

Just five years ago they made low-, medium-, and high-contrast films AND papers. Some improvement!

My favorite part of this whole farce is this though: They "still make" 160 NC and VC films. Why haven't they "improved" them like the 400? Because they are still using up the old stock until they axe 160NC and VC just like they did with the 400 and bring out one film that only marginally covers the needs of both films users.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Karl Borowski

Tim Gray · October 5, 2010

As someone who shots stills really only on film, I'm not that broken up about 400NC and VC going away. It does kind of suck that the contrast choices are going away for those that optically print, but there's a lot of sucky things that are going on in the optical printing world, mainly the availability of cut sheet papers.

Regardless, quite a bunch of us who still shoot film for stills scan, and the difference between contrast really isn't enough to make me reach for the VC - I'd rather have the extra range on the NC. I'm excited for this film for two reasons:

- improvements (slight though they may be) over the previous generation of film, which was already quite good and in its 3rd incarnation in 4 years (400NC-3)

- the fact that Kodak decided to consolidate two similar films into a new improved emulsion, instead of just axing one of the two previous films and leaving us with the other.

As far as I can tell, Kodak probably needs to have a bit more consolidation in its stills product line if its going to make money on this stuff in the coming years. I'm guessing 160VC/NC will also get replaced with a new in-between 160. And hopefully 125PX and P3200TMZ still get produced, but I'm a bit anxious about those two..

To think otherwise is I think is a pipe dream. While I wish we had all of the papers and films of years past, I'm happy I can still get high quality films for really not that much money.