It's official! Vision 3

[Joe Taylor]

That was absolutely not what I meant. :lol: There is a DISTINCT difference between cheap video and film. As a Super 8 user ANY prospect of less grain is right up my alley.

 

Why are you limited to Super 8? In this era of mega-resolution, Super 8 seems to be the last frontier of actual fim that looks like it was shot on film. The grain in super 8 is what gives it iss charm. Shooters filming on the ultra-expensive Super 8 negative stocks for its lack of grain baffles me.

 

If you want the Super 8 look, why not shoot on Super 8 chrome. Vision 3 super 8????? Who gives a damn?! They took away my Kodachrome, don't force this Vision 3 and your fancy-shmanzy pee-wee grain. And how come they don't have a little yellow bawling baby face??!! Answer me, damnit!!

[Matthew Buick]

AAAARGH!!! You're crazy!!! :P

 

I want less grain because I love landscapes. Unless you use something like K25 you can only make ouy basic shapes.

[Adam Thompson]

AAAARGH!!! You're crazy!!! :P

 

I want less grain because I love landscapes. Unless you use something like K25 you can only make ouy basic shapes.

 

Then load up an old 16mm cam with a daylight load and shoot your landscape. Use a 500 film, push it, use an old lens and crop to fit and it might cut in with your S8 just fine. S8 just isnt a landscape film, never will be.

[Matthew Buick]

I'm determined to make Super 8 work. I won't desert it just yet. Good last resort though.

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

If Kodak is doing what I think they're doing, then I think it's something that will be beneficial to everyone. The fact that theyre taking to mind that more and more people are scanning negative now and making film stocks to look better when scanned is a huge step forward in the right direction, because those who want to print can use previously available stocks and those looking for something newer, and better for scanning ( a majority from what I've observed ) will be the beneficiaries.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

If Kodak is doing what I think they're doing, then I think it's something that will be beneficial to everyone. The fact that theyre taking to mind that more and more people are scanning negative now and making film stocks to look better when scanned is a huge step forward in the right direction, because those who want to print can use previously available stocks and those looking for something newer, and better for scanning ( a majority from what I've observed ) will be the beneficiaries.

 

But isn't that the principle complaint about Vision II stocks? Their contrast is low in order to accomadate scanning. & snappier older stocks for direct printing are no longer availiable.

[Matt Workman]

Yeah I wasn't thinking, change that to an INT Night club, same talent from the beach.

 

It was mentioned that this film stock will be better for scanning. Which reminded me of the KODAK VISION2 HD Color Scan Film 5299 / 7299, I've never used/heard of anyone using this. Is the VIII a step in that direction?

[David Mullen ASC]

Yeah I wasn't thinking, change that to an INT Night club, same talent from the beach.

 

It was mentioned that this film stock will be better for scanning. Which reminded me of the KODAK VISION2 HD Color Scan Film 5299 / 7299, I've never used/heard of anyone using this. Is the VIII a step in that direction?

 

That's a bit more extreme - '99 can't be printed well, not really designed for it. V3 neg is still designed for printing.

[K Borowski]

I've never shot 7399, or V2 for that matter, but from what I've seen in still stocks, they've basically solved the former problem of inconsistant film emulsion base dyes, back in the early 2000s or '98 IIRC, when they came out with what was then called "Single Channel Printing Technology". All of the Portra-I emulsions, and I'd assume the Vision 1 emulsions, since they were introduced concurrently, were basically redesigned so that all stocks in the same line would have approximately the same-colored dyes regardless of stock speed or emulsion batch. That's not to say that there is absolutely no variance now, but the orange mask interlayers are and have already been optimized for scanning and batch-to-batch consistancy. I've never shot an inch of Fuji MP stocks, so someone else would have to comment on those, but I honestly think that the exclusion of the orange mask is totally unnecessary now in terms of scanner compatibility. Scanners have been optimized for neg films, and films have been optimized for easy to scan masks.

 

What I believe the exclusion of the mask on '99 is designed to facilitate is better grain for the faster speed and better latitude, although many still seem to want to rate it below it's standard ASA for still smaller grain. Since you can tune out color crossover digitally, they've basically sacrificed optical printability for increased speed, which makes sense for TV shows on a low budget that don't want the hastle of messing around with different filters and stocks. "The Shield" switched over to the stock for all of their work, making it easier to work quickly with a single stock. They've been working with heavy digital correction all the way through, though, so for those that tend to shoot for a more traditional, non-manipulated look, there isn't any real advantage to shooting one stock except for making the loader's job easier since he's only loading one film and there's no guessing as to how much of one ASA stock you'll need as opposed to another.

 

~KB

[K Borowski]

Sorry, I left out a few pertinent commas in my prior post, and it won't let me edit it to put them in for some reason.

 

Keeping in mind that I've never shot '99, I've seen mentioned here and heard from outside sources that you can optically print '99 with minimal color crossover by just using a clear piece of developed ECN-2 with the colored mask as a "filter" during printing. There may still be some crossover that can't be corrected, though.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Keeping in mind that I've never shot '99, I've seen mentioned here and heard from outside sources that you can optically print '99 with minimal color crossover by just using a clear piece of developed ECN-2 with the colored mask as a "filter" during printing. There may still be some crossover that can't be corrected, though.

 

The lab I was at basically did that when printing B/W on color print stock.

 

B/W intercut with color neg will print orange using the basic printing lights, so if one is trying to get a more neutral B/W image the printing lights have to go to the extreme ends which severely limits density changes.

Thus the B/W neg is on a seperate roll and the orange "filter" is added to the pack to enable the printer lights to stay in the middle range.

 

Adding the orange filter to the filter pack for the '99 would be doing that rather than eliminating color crosstalk.

[Matthew Buick]

This forum is turning into a real hot potato. I'm really excited. I hope the film have considerably less grain than Vision 2. I'd still love a new EXR range.

 

Karl Borowski, you were saying you wanted an "MP" stock. I have no idea what MP means. But that Fuji Vivid 160 stock IS an MP.

[Tenolian Bell]

Had a very interesting conversation with a Kodak rep last night. She told me how Kodak has struggled with second guessing its strategy for digital scanning of film over the past 15 years. In the early 90's Kodak pioneered film scanning technology with its Cineaon system. Kodak also began R&D in low contrast stocks purpose built for film scanning. But unfortunately all of this research was ahead of the industry. Kodak executives looked at the bottom line and saw this wasn't making the company much money and pulled the plug on its investment in Cineon.

 

In the late 90's Kodak launched 5620. A 640T film intended only for television. The film was again ahead of its time, did not sell well, and was discontinued. Now that the DI post is becoming more the norm, Kodak realizes it missed the opportunity to be the market leader with Cineon.

 

The current 5299 has come at the right time. A number of television shows use the film stock. 5299 was intended to be used in accordance with the KODAK VISION2 HD Digital Processor in post. The Digital Processor would add the color characteristic of any Kodak film stock the production chose. But what has unexpectedly happened is that shows love to shoot 5299 but do not use the digital processor. The colorist choose to create the look of the show from the raw image.

 

The Kodak rep told me Kodak sees this as the direction the industry is headed and Kodak is attempting to get ahead of the trend. 5219/7219 is lower grain and lower contrast to accommodate DI. She told me they expect some DP's to initially complain about Kodak making its stocks too grainless or loose many of films older characteristics but this is the direction the industry is headed.

[Michael Lehnert]

Tenolian, thanks for this post as this clears up what I gathered here on the other side of the Atlantic.

 

The Cineon failure is such a pity. I recently stumbled over an old Cineon brochure ("starring" Pierce Brosnan in James Bond 007 - GoldenEye) in my office, being surprised in how many details it pre-dated current DI workflows by over a decade. I caught myself briefly thinking about what if Kodak had continued that strategy despite few people then understanding what 4K actually meant. The irony, considering the fact that quite some people now level against Kodak that its business is not "innovative enough" and isn't taking true ownership of the image capture and processing chain.

After all,that is not Kodak's real problem ? it's rather that they dropped the ball too early (not trusting in their own "avantgardness") and are now struggeling to be re-perceived as being an innovator because the marketing terminology and R&D of digital videography is now apparently setting the agenda. They basically have to aquire the videographic perspective and language to transmit that they are on top of image capture rather than selling stuff that is "just like sooo last century" (sorry for bringing the spirit of a RedUserForum-post into this thread), and they are not too good at that for the time being.

We shouldn't forget that apart from what we do here, Kodak has other stakeholders to consider that sustain its business operations in much more crucial ways. And talking aesthetics is not something a young Wall Street analyst ? barely understanding the complexities of the financial markets ? will fall for.

 

When I originally heard about Kodak HD 7299, the first thought was of it as being a replacement for the ill-fated Kodak Primetime 7620. I never shot 7620, and am actually surprised to hear that 7299 is well-used in the US. Could anyone give an example of a TV series shooting on 5299? On what stock is "The L-Word" actually shot? The photography and the sound design is absolutely marvellous!

 

Re. Vision3 and grain: I really cannot remember at what point in time film grain became reduced to the equivalent of unwanted video noise?! Although I am not a fan of seeing pingpong-ball sized coarse-grain pictures in a screeing room, I think it is an innate aspect of cine-film that makes it distinct from the "video look", just as its brothers&sisters which are exposure latitude, color reproduction, and the organic depth of the three-dimensionality of the film layers that gives the picture its soul. Nevertheless, unlike previous posters, I would wish for Vision3 7219 to be launched for Super 8, as any reduction in grain size will be more helpful ameliorating the visual cinematic perception of this format. Even with 7217, grain on Super 8 is more visually distracting than providing a cine-film signature.

Yet Vision3 on 35mm might maybe just reach the tip-over point where the disappearance of visible grain, lack of color saturation and contrast, and enormity of latitude pushes it into the potentially unwanted realm of "Superman returns" material aesthetics ? at least as far as shooting on cine-film is concerned.

 

Just saw some extracts from the island opening outdoor scenes of the original Jurassic Park film, and remarked the intensity of colors and contrast. I believe it was shot with EXR 50 D 5245 (please correct me), and I second the notion to be able to shoot on such material again. Maybe when Vision3 is fully established as a product line in 5 years, and the industry has developed further (Red firmware update 18.2), they might ponder about introducing a second, visually more "bold" product line. But I would not count on it, as "do it in post" will probably define color-grading overall.

 

For the time being, I can actually understand why Kodak is not betting on a diversification strategy to move its film look backwards instead of showcasing that it can visually achieve better what digital cameras attempt right now. A risky strategy, and not favoured among most in this thread, but maybe the right move for the overall market's mood and accelerating adaption of digital "cinematography".

Edited November 9, 2007 by Michael Lehnert

[Tenolian Bell]

Could anyone give an example of a TV series shooting on 5299?

 

Numbers, The Shield, Pushing Daisies from what I remember. There were a few more shows the Kodak rep mentioned.

 

On what stock is "The L-Word" actually shot? The photography and the sound design is absolutely marvellous!

 

The film stock for the L Word is called F-900. :), its actually shot on HD. All of the shows produced for Showtime are shot on HD. I agree they do an excellent job.

 

Nevertheless, unlike previous posters, I would wish for Vision3 7219 to be launched for Super 8, as any reduction in grain size will be more helpful ameliorating the visual cinematic perception of this format.

 

The rep said '19 will be marketed as a premium product. Its expected to mostly be used by features for DI. They are not marketing it for television or indies.

[Michael Lehnert]

Funny, I just saw Numb3rs yesterday by sheer coincidence (and for the first time, actually, as it runs on a UK network I usually don't have time for) and thought it looked like HD... what does that say about material aesthetics and the HD vs the VisionX+ cine-film generations debate?

 

Likewise, Tenolian, I am glad to see that Fuji found someone with Showtime to use its new F 900 ASA experimental film stock :P

 

The rep said '19 will be marketed as a premium product. Its expected to mostly be used by features for DI. They are not marketing it for television or indies.

 

It's good to see that this marketing approach nevertheless includes a 72-version for 16mm and not just focuses on 35. I personally doubt there will be a Super 8 cartridge'd version of it sold by Kodak directly anytime soon (just like 7201 is shun despite being ideally suited for S8), but I am certain that the plentitude of resellers like Pro8mm, Spectra and Wittner Cinetec will probably load, package and sell 7219 in Super 8 later next year for a premium price.

[Alessandro Machi]

.........The irony, considering the fact that quite some people now level against Kodak that its business is not "innovative enough" and isn't taking true ownership of the image capture and processing chain.

After all,that is not Kodak's real problem – it's rather that they dropped the ball too early (not trusting in their own "avantgardness") and are now struggeling to be re-perceived as being an innovator because the marketing terminology and R&D of digital videography is now apparently setting the agenda. They basically have to aquire the videographic perspective and language to transmit that they are on top of image capture rather than selling stuff that is "just like sooo last century"..........

 

I am in preliminary discussions in regards to having a certain 16mm camera modified so that it will do time-exposure. The camera was not that expensive when originally made. My point is new camera technology does fuel any format and such a new film camera I believe could be made for low cost. The lack of a "fun" and "low cost" film acquisition camera that would offer both single frame and time-exposure is rapidly diminishing the future generation of young filmmakers who now see those tools as digital effects.

 

But rather than get into another worthless debate over this issue, I plan on uploading my own super-8 films in the very near future which will help me guage if I'm correct or not.

[Adam Thompson]

Robert... how did the test go? You said you had some V3 you were going to shoot.

[Matthew Buick]

Oh yes! We must see! We must see!

 

I hope John Pytlak got to see VISION3 before he died. :(