Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'vision3'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Cinematography Forums
    • General Discussion
    • Cine Marketplace
    • Cameras Systems and Formats
    • Lighting for Film & Video
    • Camera Operating & Gear
    • Camera Assistant / DIT & Gear
    • Grip & Rigging
    • Visual Effects Cinematography
    • Post Production
    • Students, New Filmmakers, Film Schools and Programs
    • Lenses & Lens Accessories
    • Film Stocks & Processing
    • Books for the Cinematographer
    • Cinematographers
    • Directors and Directing
    • In Production / Behind the Scenes
    • On Screen / Reviews & Observations
    • Business Practices & Producing
    • Camera & Lighting Equipment Resources
    • Jobs, Resumes, and Reels
    • Please Critique My Work
    • Cinematography News
    • Sound
    • Off Topic
    • Accessories (Deprecated SubForum)
    • Regional Cinematography Groups

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





My Gear


Found 18 results

  1. I shoot with expired film quite a lot. As a matter of fact, I would say that it's my go to. My favorite stock I've ever shot with is hands down Kodak EXR 5245 50D. I have lately realized, however, that there are a few realities about shooting on expired that I need to come to terms with quickly. It’s unreliable, it’s in short supply, it’s going extinct, and no professional production wants their investment shot on expired film. I need to move on, but frankly, I have always had a visual distaste for VISION3. I want to further pursue something I've only ever experimented with but never fully committed to in the past: emulating the photochemical characteristics of older Eastman fine grain film stocks by experimenting with exposure, density, and processing using modern Kodak film. For reference, I most often shoot on 2-Perf Techniscope with the original line of Basuch & Lomb Baltar lenses dated at the 1940s. The two Eastmancolor stocks I am most interested in trying to emulate are ECN 5248 25T (1952-1959) and ECN 5250 50T (1959-1962). About a year ago I did a short experiment on 35mm with Baltar lenses where I shot a few short reels of footage on VISION3 500T using ND filters in direct sunlight outside and had them exposed and processed in different ways. I then had them scanned in 12-bit HDR and brought them into DaVinci to level out all the footage and see how my end products differed. The four types of footage I got were underexposed one stop and developed at box speed, underexposed two stops and developed at box speed, exposed at box speed and underdeveloped one stop, and exposed at box speed and underdeveloped two stops. After leveling out all my footage in Resolve, I was extremely disappointed in the results. Once normalized with HDR tools in DaVinci, all the underdeveloped footage looked nearly identical to a standard exposure and development. And the underexposed footage just had crushed blacks with very little discernable differences other than that. I considered it a failed endeavor and steered clear of these kinds of experiments again after that. Top visual inspirations: 5248: Rear Window (1954) The Ten Commandments (1956) Vertigo (1958) Ben-Hur (1959) Rio Bravo (1959) 5250: Spartacus (1960) The Magnificent Seven (1960) West Side Story (1961) Lawrence of Arabia (1962) It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (1963) Assuming that the 4k and 1080p blu-rays of the previous film were scanned from the negatives themselves and not the print, I will take it that what I've seen is a quality representation of the stocks in question. My eyes often roll when people talk about footage looking "vintage" "old" or "film-like". Mostly because this could refer to over a dozen different visual aspects in one's footage, and what invokes the feeling of "filmlike" to one person may differ from another. For the sake of this experiment let’s ignore aspects such as lens choice, format size, granularity, lighting contrast, production design, and (for the most part) color scheme. Let’s instead talk about the photochemical qualities of the negative itself. I mostly associate the Eastmancolor look from the mid 50s to the early 60s with neutral to muted highlights, rich and deep blacks, with the density and dynamic range that was available with those stocks at the time. I'm young and an amateur in this field, so I don't understand film on a more in-depth level like so many others hear. But firstly, I'm curious to know what the distinction between film density and dynamic range is, cause I can't quite make heads or tails of it. I am hoping someone with lots of (or any) experience with celluloid, the photochemical process, and the visual evolution of film over the decades can chime and and possibly steer my ventures in the right direction. THE 2383 QUESTION: Small update. During my writing of this post a friend of mine found an interesting video and vimeo and shared it with me. He suggested it as a possibility for me to shoot with 2383 in camera with lots of sunlight and that if developed using ECN-2 and given a simple color correction, the end result may be something close to what I am after. It is difficult for me to discern whether what I like so much about this clip is due to the 2383 stock or if it is just the hard tungsten lighting. I don’t currently have the time or funds to properly run a test myself but I’m putting some consideration into shooting some footage with 2383 in camera rated at 6 ASA in the cloudless sunlight and having it cross-processed using ECN-2. I can get a good 12-bit HDR scan and see if what I’m left with retains the photochemical qualities I have in mind. This clip does remind me very much of the 5250 stock—more so than most other emulations of vintage film do. But as I said, it could just be the hard tungsten lighting. I'm not certain.
  2. hey all. wanted to share this film cost calculator that I've been working on for a while. www.filmcostcalculator.com Eventually I'd like to add more equations that can list out alternative results to compare various perf options. Also working on a 1000' roll calculator. Hope it helps! Feel free to comment with any notes and ideas.
  3. hey all. wanted to share this film cost calculator that I've been working on for a while. www.filmcostcalculator.com Eventually I'd like to add more equations that can list out alternative results to compare various perf options. Also working on a 1000' roll calculator. Hope it helps! Feel free to comment with any notes and ideas.
  4. ....my first EVER footage shot on 16mm is coming back me via certified post tomorrow or the day after.... ...the footage has been Telecine'd to HD size and exported as ProRes 422 on a pen drive.....its coming to me clean of timecode marks etc so I can use in the final edit...... My question is......does anyone use Telecine for final piece edit? Obv its to save money on 2k/4k scans that I ask.... .......the final piece will be on social media and at its largest viewed size on a 43" TV at the factory for tourists to watch when the master blowers are not there making glass at the time OBVIOUSLY all I have to do is watch the footage on the mentioned TV and make a decision but I wanted to know if people in my budget situation use Telecine in final edits Tech details Film: Kodak Vision3 500T Camera: Aaton XTR XC Lens: Cooke Varokinetal 9-50mm Format: Standard 16mm Client: Gibraltar Crystal Footage: master glass blowers making pieces at the glassblowing factory to edit into a piece for marketing purposes and for walk-in visitors to watch
  5. Per my other post, it's been around 20 years since I've really shot much film, maybe 15 for 35mm, but 20 for super 8. I've tested a few rolls recently, but not super specific to lighting and whatnot, just checking cameras. So, my question- I am going all in to shoot a straight 8 one cartridge short film. It will be on vision3, but I'm not sure which ASA/ISO I should use for a scene looking out from a dark room onto a bright scene with a figure silhouetted. I want the inner doorway as dark as possible, black would be nice, and the scene outside totally washed out, white would be great. I thought about using a sheer curtain to wash the scene out a little more, but not sure. I also thought about opening the aperture all the way, but then I'll get some shadow detail and I'm hoping not to. However, since this is a single cartridge short film whichever speed I choose needs to be compatible with the rest of the scenes as well, which will range from dark alleys to evening sunlight to lit city streets, a few well lit indoor shots and a few barely lit indoor scenes or single light source indoor shots. Any suggestions will be appreciated, thanks in advance.
  6. Greetings Everyone! Need some advice here on a sailing documentary which I have shot on S16 with an Arriflex SR3 camera. After a lot of struggles and failures, I have reached 50% of what I really wanted to achieve. Anyways, I have started assembling the footage. Cinelab Mass., has done a good job. I have the negatives scanned to 1080p HD without timecode. Few editor friends of mine suggested that I get the negatives scanned again with a timecode and then with a final cut timeline get a 2K scan and grading done the way we do for movies. I wish to showcase the documentary in film festivals. Do you think an HD output won't do justice? Generally,what formats are documentaries shown in film festivals? advice and suggestions welcome.
  7. <iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/244517536"width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe> <p><a href=" ">iron sportster 883 hd</a> from <a href="https://vimeo.com/user18835395">Prashantt Rai</a> on <a href="https://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p> https://vimeo.com/244517536 I shot this long time back, early 2014 perhaps. Had the negatives scanned, graded, and 2k footage stored in a hard drive. The drive crashed. Data recovery guys were asking a lot of money. I got it scanned again now. I shot this with a focus puller and a driver one early morning on Kodak 200T.
  8. Selling 4 cans of new, unopened 16mm Kodak Vision3 250D film. Bought from Kodak three weeks ago, stored in temperature-controlled condition. $150 (+ shipping) per can Pickup possible in Los Angeles 90012
  9. Hello, this is my very first post on this forum so first of all thank you all for having some time to read and answer this question. I'm going to shoot a project on S16 (arri 416 plus) next month and I don't have nearly the same experience with film than digital so I'm sorry if this sounds really newbie. Basically I'd like to know what's the real and usable dynamic range of kodak Vision3 and all the elements that affects it (print, scan, etc). I Research on this forum, internet and on Kodak's website and the numbers change considerably. Kodak says it's about 10-11 stops, then I read that the official number is 14 (this is hard to believe) and some friends told me it's about 7 stops (-3, +4). Also I wanted to know if the print and the scan are really important to save the dynamic range. I read a Kodak document that recommends to use 16bit scan when the stock is Vision3 to hold all the dynamic range in there. Also, which scanner do you recommend me? What I read the best one is DPX 16bit but it may be really expensive so I'd like to have a cheapest solution that can hold the DR of the film. Thanks!
  10. I shot a short roll of Kodak 500T (16mm). Upon finishing I noticed, much to my dismay, that the ISO on my light meter was set to 50. So, the fast film's exposure index is rated at 500T and I overexposed by how many stops? Can either push or pull (pull, right?) processing save this spool? The negative is probably pretty dense too, right? I saw a latitude test where film was overexposed by 5+ stops and it looked nice. Hoping there's a way to remedy this problem.
  11. Greetings, I'm selling 8 rolls (976m/3200ft) of KODAK 16mm VISION3 500T Color Negative Film 7219 acquired in 2012 (August). 500 Euros (+ shipping) Best regards, Tiago Carvalho
  12. I'm shooting a project on Vision 3 250D & 500T 16mm soon, we will be scanning to 2K. I've only shot 16 mil once before and am hoping to get something that will look sharper than we got last time. This is what we ended up with last time. http://www.marzmiller.com/ghost (this was also a 1080 telecine, not a 2K scan, processed normally and telecined at Fotokem) Right now I'm thinking of shooting up a stop and a half and pulling one stop, as well as some de-graining in post. Any other ideas on how to get the look I'm going for? I guess the look could best be described as I want it to look like very clean 35mm. We just don't have the dough for 35 this time. - M
  13. Hi everyone, Like several people here, I bet you end up with white a bit of shortends after each shoot. Shortends that barely can make it to the next project. And when I do I keep it and respool it into some old 35mm canisters for shooting stills for my hobby. Problem is, I have used Little Film Lab in Menlo park to develop the film. While they may be great people, their C-41 process of doing it tends to ruin the colours a little. The vision3 I shoot for moving image looksa lot better. And recently I have acquired some Vision3 65mm to be used with my medium format. Problem is, I am looking for a new place to develop these to get the best colours. Does any lab let you develop this low amounts? What if I send it in on a core, does it help? C
  14. Hi there everyone, greetings! Thought I will brief everyone on how super16 is still going popular with indie filmmakers and independent producers. 1. I shot a roadie film BOOM BOOM WALE in November last year for a director friend, is finally coming up for DI grading next week. The film was shot on a small budget. I used china balls and some practical lights for interiors and exteriors were all shot without lights. The results are good and the director is happy. 2. Am currently filming SANDRA BEDS SANDEEP on super 16 using Kodak Vision 3 stocks - 50D and 200T. My producer is a young guy who comes from television background. When we were doing pre prod he was slight apprehensive of super 16 being grainy. But I showed him some results and he loved it. He ran the numbers for both digital cine cameras and film cameras with stocks and he concluded that film turns out cheaper with good looks in built in the negative. and after that he hasn't looked back. What started as another shoestring film shot handheld turned into a full fledged feature. He hired studio spaces, built sets, got me lighting and grips package, generator vans, etc. He is satisfied with the results so far. almost 90% of principle photography is over. 3. The same producer now intends to start my second film JACKnJILL on Super 16 to be shot tentatively in Oct 2014. Earlier he was thinking of upgrading it to 35 but 16 is good he feels. It has a hell lot of character and feel.
  15. Hi there everyone,Greetings and a very happy new year. I am coming up with a feature shoot where there is a small under water 'fantasy' sequence (ok, clue is a mermaid in the sea).Logistics wise we are not ready to go and shoot either in sea or in a swimming pool. Couple of years back, I guess in 2009, there was an awesome thread on CML about shooting dry for wet. That thread is buried under 8000emails and I cant locate it. I need advice of all you experience cinematographers about how best to cheat and give it an underwater look.I will submit the following for your consideration:-a) it is a fantasy sequence. doesn't have to look like a real underwater.b) no long takes. just inserts/reactions and Medium shots of the artist underwater. What we have is - a studio space, lights, fans, grips and an awesome art director, Arri SR3. We do not wish to go the digital route in creating bubbles etc. Looking forward for your tips. regards Prashantt Rai
  16. Hello, I'm doing some school project, and I need to know exactly how the processed and developed film negative (preferably Kodak Vision3) looks. Can someone, please, post here some detailed photos of processed and developed film negative that comes directly from camera (no copy)? I would be extremelly grateful!! :wub: What is the main differences between processed and developed negative from camera and distribution copy film stock? Does the distribution copies usually using the same film stock type that is used in camera? Is there some distribution copies on Kodak Vision3? Does Kodak Vision3 contain sound, and if yes, what type? Can Kodak Vision3 (or other camera film negative) contain SDDS or Dolby Digital sound, or just analogue optical audio? Many thanks in advance for all your replies!!
  17. Hi Cinematography.com people... I've just released a director-cinematographer 1st promo, shot with no budget other than stock, developing and telecine and would love some feedback if you had a few minutes. The idea was to create a mood and tone rather than a certain narrative. https://vimeo.com/54611682 H.Grimace "Lands of Gold and Green" With kind thanks, Ash (Ashley Michael Briggs).
  18. There doesn't seem to be much experience-based info floating around about 5230 500T... I'm just curious if anyone here has shot this this stock and can comment on it's look, grain, and the result that push/pull has on contrast, color, and grain. Anyone done full or partial skip bleach with it? Any other notables? I'm beginning to evaluate stocks for a project, and I'm wondering if I can get significantly different looks by mixing '30 with 5219 and playing with processing, since I'd need an ASA 500 stock for the entire project. Also, 5230 doesn't seem to bear the Vision label... is this a DI-minded stock or something else? Cheers,
  • Create New...