Marc Roessler Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 It has been announced at Camerimage and in FDT (http://www.fdtimes.com/pdfs/45FDTimes-LoRez150.pdf), but strangely not yet on the Kodak webpage. To quote FDT: "With grain almost gone, the superb color and fine detail of new Kodak Vision3 50D/5203 shows that film is still very much alive." Looking forward to try that one in S16.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Vance Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 That's very exciting to hear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Stewart Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 bah - 5245 was fine, 5201 was fine, now 5203. Why bother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock Blakley Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 I'd almost be inclined to say that VISION2 50D was a step backwards from the beautiful saturation and contrast of EXR 50D - hopefully a trend that won't be repeated this time around. Other than that though, new film, excitement, yay, etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd Anderson Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 +1 really looking to see how this looks on S16mm and transferred through a Spirit Datacine, etc ... -Todd p.s: now I think the next best move would be to put out a 800 or 1000 speed V3 stock ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Will Montgomery Posted December 14, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted December 14, 2011 p.s: now I think the next best move would be to put out a 800 or 1000 speed V3 stock ... 500T is fine pushed to 800 or even 1000... much better than that Vision 800T stock ever was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Roessler Posted December 14, 2011 Author Share Posted December 14, 2011 Official page seems to be accessible now: www.kodak.com/go/50d Guess I'm going to order a 100' roll for testing. Too bad they didn't publish this stock in summer. True EI 1000, that would be fine. But somehow I got a feeling a physical limit is reached there - unless there is a major new technology break through. And I guess with regard to high EI digital has somewhat surpassed film. Then again, in most cases you need to light the scenery anyway for it to look good, so it's not too much additional effort to light to a higher stop/lower EI (and get the film look for free). Greetings, Marc (in no way affiliated with Kodak, btw) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd Anderson Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 500T is fine pushed to 800 or even 1000... much better than that Vision 800T stock ever was. Yeah. I guess I think it would just help with the marketing push (against the wave of high-iso shooting with digital) for there to be a base stock of 800 / 1000. I suppose when a producer starts talking, "you can shoot digital at such and such iso" ... it would be like, "Vision3 800T or Vision3 1000T" does that, and you can push it to 2000, etc" ... plus as mentioned, you get the "film look" for free ... just my thoughts ... -T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Charles MacDonald Posted December 21, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted December 21, 2011 True EI 1000, that would be fine. But somehow I got a feeling a physical limit is reached there - unless there is a major new technology break through. There used to be 1600 and 3200 Still colour stocks, grainy but workable - mind you they may have been a bit optimistic in the speed rating department. Even Ilford Delta 3200 B&w still film basically has a push built into its processing instructions. Major problem with any of the faster films is a tendency to build up fog much quicker than slow speed films, resulting in much shorter dating, while the specialised mature makes then stay in the warehouse longer, resulting in more waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bayley Sweitzer Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I'd almost be inclined to say that VISION2 50D was a step backwards from the beautiful saturation and contrast of EXR 50D - hopefully a trend that won't be repeated this time around. Other than that though, new film, excitement, yay, etc. Here is a test roll I shot of the Vision 2 50D: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoo4-Q4MNAU. I've heard a lot of people say the same thing, but when transfered, I think it looked GREAT! I think it might have been designed to be transfered, not projected, but lemme know what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Bill DiPietra Posted January 13, 2012 Premium Member Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) Here is a test roll I shot of the Vision 2 50D: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoo4-Q4MNAU. I've heard a lot of people say the same thing, but when transfered, I think it looked GREAT! I think it might have been designed to be transfered, not projected, but lemme know what you think. Did you desaturate it at all? The colors look a bit muted compared to 7201. Edited January 13, 2012 by Bill DiPietra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted January 14, 2012 Premium Member Share Posted January 14, 2012 Bill; according to the poster, that is '01 as he calls "vision 2 50D tests" ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Bill DiPietra Posted January 14, 2012 Premium Member Share Posted January 14, 2012 Bill; according to the poster, that is '01 as he calls "vision 2 50D tests" ;) Oops. Yup. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Zuzak Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) I wonder if this will look grainless at 2K/HD resolutions (on Super35). Edited February 29, 2012 by Charles Zuzak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted February 29, 2012 Premium Member Share Posted February 29, 2012 Charles; I can't really recall a time I've ever seen Vision2 50D look grainy. Fuji, though, can give some surprise grain on 64D S16mm, though-- as I learned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indiefilmstock Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I agree that 5245 was universally loved by filmmakers and missed when it was replaced by 5201. If anyone wants to test the new 5203, however, we are beginning to get some recans and short ends in from productions. The recan is just .10 cents per foot or $40. Richard Kaufman Comtel Pro Media 818-450-1122 richard@comtelpm.com www.comtelpm.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Brereton Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 "With grain almost gone, the superb color and fine detail of new Kodak Vision3 50D/5203 shows that film is still very much alive." At least as far as 35mm is concerned, who the hell wants grainless film? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raz Birger Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Did anyone watch this 5203 sample footage from Kodak? What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Bill DiPietra Posted March 30, 2012 Premium Member Share Posted March 30, 2012 At least as far as 35mm is concerned, who the hell wants grainless film? EXACTLY!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Bill DiPietra Posted March 30, 2012 Premium Member Share Posted March 30, 2012 Did anyone watch this 5203 sample footage from Kodak? What do you think? I find the results rather underwhemling. Pretty pictures, but I couldn't even make out any grain in the shadow areas which gives it a flat feeling. I need grain for texture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Yes Bill me to , another reason Kodak are down the toilet ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan kessler Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 So you like grainy texture, eh? Check this out: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Zuzak Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I find the results rather underwhemling. Pretty pictures, but I couldn't even make out any grain in the shadow areas which gives it a flat feeling. I need grain for texture. It's a YouTube video with lots of compression in the source video to begin with. Kodak should release 2K DPX/TIF/JPG stills of the new stock for closer computer examination. That would be awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Bill DiPietra Posted March 30, 2012 Premium Member Share Posted March 30, 2012 Whenever I test a new stock I still get a 16mm workprint to project onto the screen. All of this stuff on the web has been scanned and manipulated so, in my opinion, these Kodak videos are not accurate examples of how any stock may be able to perform under certain conditions. This stuff is just a montage of pretty pictures. Rolling it through the projector is still the only proper way to see what you will be getting in the end. I did this with two rolls of 7207 recently and the results gave me exactly what I needed to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raz Birger Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Whenever I test a new stock I still get a 16mm workprint to project onto the screen. All of this stuff on the web has been scanned and manipulated so, in my opinion, these Kodak videos are not accurate examples of how any stock may be able to perform under certain conditions. This stuff is just a montage of pretty pictures. Rolling it through the projector is still the only proper way to see what you will be getting in the end. I did this with two rolls of 7207 recently and the results gave me exactly what I needed to see. I agree, actually printing a roll is the best way to get an impression of a film stock (specially 16mm that let you see more into the stock), but the thing is that nowadays what you are going to get in the end usually won't be a print. Most of the film shot these days goes through scanning\telecine (tell me if I'm wrong about this). So they do show us an example of what this stock may look like - when scanned. Anyhow, it is right, this video suffers from heavy compression and we can't really get an impression of it. I would like to hear an opinion from someone who has got the chance to test it or has seen a projected demonstration of the stock. Best, Raz. 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