Vision and Vision 2

[Robert Edge]

What is the difference between Kodak:

 

Vision 250D and Vision 2 250D;

Vision 200T and Vision 2 200T?

 

Is one of these series more suitable if the input is super 16 and the output is digital?

 

Are the Vision simpliciter stocks on the way out?

Edited July 18, 2005 by R. Edge

[David Mullen ASC]

The Vision-2 replacements are somewhat finer-grained, slightly lower in contrast with less red saturation, with more neutral fleshtone response, than their Vision counterparts. Vision-2 is probably better suited for any digital intermediate work due to the lower contrast but some people feel that they lack "snap".

[Nathan Milford]

You would be best suited to pick up a roll of each and shot a stock test.

 

You can hear people's description about thier charactaristics all day, but shooting it yourself, in the conditions you intend to shoot in, finishing in whatever lab, on whatever format from whatever telecine you want, will best inform you.

 

But the Vision 2 stocks are what all the kids are shooting these days. They are too 'sharp' for my taste... but I suppose it depends on the project. They're all suited quite well for S16 and telecine.

[Robert Edge]

David,

 

Thanks. It sounds like the Vision-2 series will do fine. Good range of speeds and probably a longer life ahead of it than its predecessor.

 

Nathan,

 

Between choosing a camera, choosing lenses and choosing stocks, I could spend a lot of time testing options. For people who work full time as photographers, that may well be a good thing. For the rest of us, making decisions is sometimes more conducive to getting a project done. It is highly unlikely that the choice between Vision and Vision-2 is going to make or break what I'm working on. Besides, I like to steer clear of magic bullet chasing, and one of the worst forms of that affliction is getting tied up in knots over things like film choice. For me, it's better to pick a stock and stick with it until I understand it than to search for the holy grail. I'll leave the latter to Tolkien :)

 

That said, there is one test that I may do. I'd like to see how Vision-2 100T, filtered for daylight, compares with EXR 50D.

 

 

Does anyone know whether Kodak has footage showing how its various stocks treat the same scene and, if so, whether it is possible for one who is not making multimillion dollar movies to see that footage in New York?

[Stephen Williams]

  I'd like to see how Vision-2 100T, filtered for daylight, compares with EXR 50D.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi,

 

I have used 5212/5217 the 35mm versions with an 85 filter and was very happy.

Kodak have a DVD showing how good the new stocks are.

 

Stephen

[David Mullen ASC]

5245 (EXR 50D) will be slightly finer-grained than 5212 (Vision-2 5212) but 5212 will be slightly sharper. But they are very close in terms of grain & sharpness.

 

The main visual difference is that EXR 50D is fairly saturated and contrasty whereas 5212 is lower in contrast and color.

[Robert Edge]

Thanks Stephen and David. Here are a couple of photographs that give a general idea what I am looking for in a stock as interpreted in telecine through to digital output.

 

The first is a digital image that I made yesterday. It hasn't been manipulated in Photoshop. The light is from above through frosted glass. I cropped the photo as part of my attempt to get it under 100K. In the original, and especially in the 6x7 transparency that was taken just after, the flowers are quite luminous, and in the uncropped version there is a fair amount of negative space to the right.

 

[Robert Edge]

This photo is neither cropped nor manipulated. I could see myslef adding a tad more saturation, but not much.

 

No doubt it is apparent that I am not a professional photographer, but these images do give an idea about what I want in colour palate, saturation and contrast.

 

 

[John Pytlak RIP]

What is the difference between Kodak:

 

Vision 250D and Vision 2 250D;

Vision 200T and Vision 2 200T?

 

Is one of these series more suitable if the input is super 16 and the output is digital?

 

Are the Vision simpliciter stocks on the way out?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Kodak website has technical data for each film and a comparison tool:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...0.1.4.4.4&lc=en

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...omparison.jhtml

 

As David noted, the Kodak VISION2 films will generally have improved grain and sharpness over their VISION counterparts, along with an improved tone scale and slightly lower contrast and color saturation, which really helps in telecine transfer or scanning for digital intermediate.

[timHealy]

Anyone have an opinion about the difference between 500T 7279 and Expression 500T 7218? Both are Vision 2 500 ASA stocks. I personally haven't shot 500 since I used 7279 on something a while back and did not like the results. It was very grainy in darker portions of the image.

 

Thanks,

 

Tim

[Jeremy Russell]

David..

 

I'm surprised that you say that. My experiences with 50D have been negative ones. Prepping for a shoot this weekend, my DP chose 250D, because we both agreed the footage we screened of 50D was way too low in contrast, and was in the case in all situations I saw it in.

 

Strange.. Does anyone have any screenshots of 50D?

 

Jeremy

[Filip Plesha]

Kodak has a 2K cineon file of 5245 for download on their site.

Cintel has a full 4K scan (but in jpg) of 5245 for download too.

[Sam Wells]

Thanks Stephen and David.  Here are a couple of photographs that give a general idea what I am looking for in a stock as interpreted in telecine through to digital output.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think 7245 would do a nice job of getting that look "out of the box"

 

You might try 7212 in comparison and see if you can 'get there' in telecine.

 

-Sam

[David Mullen ASC]

I've never heard of anyone complaining that 5245 was a low-contrast film! The number one complaint about it is the high contrast leading to a lack of shadow detail and underexposure capability.

 

5212 is definitely lower in contrast that 5245 -- even Kodak will tell you that. Maybe you got some bad stock.

[David Mullen ASC]

Anyone have an opinion about the difference between 500T 7279 and Expression 500T 7218? Both are Vision 2 500 ASA stocks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Err, no they aren't.

 

Vision-2 Expression 500T is 7229.

Vision-2 500T is 7218.

7279 is a Vision stock, not Vision-2.

 

So what is your question? Are you comparing the old Vision 7279 to the new Vision-2 7218? Or the new Vision-2 7218 to the new Vision-2 Expression 7229?

 

Expression 500T is a low-con stock.

[John Pytlak RIP]

David..

 

I'm surprised that you say that. My experiences with 50D have been negative ones. Prepping for a shoot this weekend, my DP chose 250D, because we both agreed the footage we screened of 50D was way too low in contrast, and was in the case in all situations I saw it in.

Jeremy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perhaps the 50D was underexposed, which would reduce contrast, especially in the shadows? 5245/7245 normally has a reputation for rich contrast and color saturation, and has the lowest graininess of currently available camera films.

[Filip Plesha]

not to: 1. ...put my nose where it does not belong

2 ....mention that slower films in avarage are higher in contrast than fast films

unless it is aimed to make a high contrast fast film

[timHealy]

Ahh yeah...I had a typo. I ment to say 7229 not 7279.

 

Sorry

 

Tim

 

PS Personally i have always thought 7245 is and has been an outstanding film stock ever since it came out. Was it about 1990 or so?

Edited July 22, 2005 by heel_e

[David Mullen ASC]

29 is a litttle "smokier" than 18, with softer colors. Grain is similar although the contrast of 18 hides it a little better.

 

5245 came out in 1989. Who would have thought it was 16 years old -- my how time flies! It used to be that a color neg stock was around for a decade and then obsoleted; 5247 probably was around the longest, nearly 20 years. Now the tunaround is even faster, so the fact that 5245 is still around is amazing.

[mark leuchter]

 

I'll leave the latter to Tolkien :)

 

Or perhaps Terry Gilliam/Jones.

 

Ni,

 

Mark