Vision 3 for Stills

Jesse Cairnie · February 3, 2011

I remember a post for motion picture film loaded in still camera canisters.. Can't seem to find the info anywhere..

Any leads, sites, info (links to previous posts) would be sweet..

Cheers

Nicholas Rapak · February 4, 2011

Check out this link. This is not on the Cinematography forums, but on APUG, a still film enthusiast site: http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/81677-tungsten-slide-films.html It starts out about tungsten slide films, but the discussion quickly moves to using V3 500T as a still film.

Charles MacDonald · February 4, 2011

I remember a post for motion picture film loaded in still camera canisters(links to previous posts) would be sweet..

I think most of the discussion was in connection to the demise of RGB Colour lab.

TRy

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=35133&st=0&p=262340&hl=closing&fromsearch=1entry262340

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=33209&st=0&p=249213&hl=closing&fromsearch=1entry249213

James Compton · February 4, 2011

Jesse,

Check this link out :

http://www.flickr.com/groups/ecn2/

You have to roll your own film canisters. I have a ton of 5218, 5217 in SLR canisters if you need some. No,it's not the same as VISION3 but you'll have good idea of how your exposures will look.

You can take it to your local cine lab and they will develop the rolls of film.

Chris Burke · February 10, 2011

the new portra 400 supposedly is made with the same technology. So, in theory (I have not done this) it should be the closest to V3 stock.

K Borowski · February 10, 2011

Still film is not move film.

I can make a Cavalier and a Corvette using the same sheet metal and punches and robots. That doesn't mean they are the same car.

There are different dyes, gammas and design components. There are different developer times. One's designed for printing onto paper. The other is designed for printing onto positive film.

From what I have seen, I assume they're using common components. . . to save money. So this means incorporating the same advances into still film as movie film, although I've noticed it tends to take 2-3 years longer, probably because the stills market is less than a tenth of what it was a decade ago.

Stuart Brereton · February 10, 2011

John Pytlak of Kodak recommended their Portra range of stills film as being a reasonably good match for their motion picture stocks

Todd Pinder · February 11, 2011

The new Portra is made for scanning, not printing, much like Vision.

K Borowski · February 11, 2011

Neither of those comments about the still film are really true, frankly.

I want to say John said that would be the *closest match* for C-41 film would be Portra, but the only way to REALLY evaluate the stock would be in a motio picture camera, 100 feet at a time.

That's the official Kodak policy too. They don't even recommend shooting stills of the movie stocks, because grain looks different when it's not being projected at 1/48 sec. per frame.

Finally, the "NEW Portra" is a discontinuation of two stocks, NC and VC, with the replacement of just one stock. Any "optimized for scanning" "improved grain" whatever is just hype covering the fact that Kodak has discontinued two stocks with only one to replace it. Maybe doing it digitally is the only way to get the contrast right now, but any negative you can shine a light through with a color mask is perfectly compatible with any color print medium that has been processed to the proper gamma and has a blue, green, and red sensitive layer.

Please guys, let Kodak & Fuji market and sell their own film. They don't need "volunteer sales pitches." The REAL people to trust are the ASC members who do comparisons on articles on these stocks, the lab personnel who print, scan, and manipulate them, do altered processing on them. Kodak's official policy on push processing recommendations for ECN-2 film is from 1980. It's over THIRTY YEARS OUT OF DATE!

Charles MacDonald · February 12, 2011

Kodak's official policy on push processing recommendations for ECN-2 film is from 1980. It's over THIRTY YEARS OUT OF DATE!

Maybe they have not found the newer stocks act differently enough justify any changes in the recommendations?

Stuart Brereton · February 12, 2011

Please guys, let Kodak & Fuji market and sell their own film. They don't need "volunteer sales pitches."

Karl, I have no interest in helping Kodak sell their products. What I am interested in is passing on the advice of a very well respected expert. John advised me that in terms of color rendition and latitude, Portra still stocks were a good match for their motion picture stocks. With respect, I believe John to be somewhat better informed on this subject than you are.

K Borowski · February 12, 2011

He was one of the inventors of LAD. Of course he knew about this better than I do. But he is dead, neither of us, it seems, can find his original post, and we're comparing that didn't even exist in September 2007 to one another.

The gist of what I got out of what he said, and I read several of his posts upon the subject, is the lower-contrast stocks in C-41 give you the best likeness. But he still advised testing with movie film in a movie camera.

All of this, too, goes on the assumption that no one offers still processing of ECN-2 film. There are a t least three labs, in the continental U.S. alone, that can process it. Double that number if you include motion picture labs that can be convinced to do a run.

Steve Zimmerman · February 13, 2011

All of this, too, goes on the assumption that no one offers still processing of ECN-2 film. There are at least three labs, in the continental U.S. alone, that can process it. Double that number if you include motion picture labs that can be convinced to do a run.

Care to share? B)

Steve Zimmerman

Edited February 13, 2011 by Steve Zimmerman

K Borowski · February 13, 2011

Wikipedia

K Borowski · February 13, 2011

Sorry that wasn't what I wanted to type: Seattle Filmworks on Wikipedia has all of the different sources listed. . .

And, as I said, motion picture labs will process it directly. Not everything is on the internet though! Reason why I have three separate phone lines. . .

Dom Jaeger · February 15, 2011

It's an interesting tidbit of cinematographical history that the 35mm still camera was first invented as a device to test the unreliable emulsion speeds of early cine film.

In 1913 Oskar Barnack was working for Leitz on a precision cine camera, and devised the Ur Leica as a small testing unit to expose individual frames of 35mm cine film. The film ran horizontally through the camera, rather than vertically as in a cine camera, so Barnack enlargened the 18 x 24mm cine frame by doubling the 4 perf cine height to make an 8 perf width. 24 x 36mm has been the 35mm stills standard ever since.

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ur-Leica

K Borowski · February 17, 2011

Here is a link from Kodak's website. I don't want to advertise directly, but check it out and you'll see the listing I allude to in the Wikipedia post.

http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Support/Laboratories_Directory/index.htm

Rich Kalinsky · February 21, 2011

Jesse,

Check this link out :

http://www.flickr.com/groups/ecn2/

You have to roll your own film canisters. I have a ton of 5218, 5217 in SLR canisters if you need some. No,it's not the same as VISION3 but you'll have good idea of how your exposures will look.

You can take it to your local cine lab and they will develop the rolls of film.