Jump to content

Dynamic Range Kodak VISON 3


Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
5 minutes ago, Michal Kedracki said:

Hi,

I'm researching diffrent film stocks for my super 16m project, and I can not find any informaton about the dynamic range for this stocks:

7213 200T, 7207 250D, 7219 500T

Is anybody able to help me out?

 

you need to know how much negative density your scanner can handle and then you can approximate you usable 'dynamic range' by checking the sensitometric curves of the emulsion. For example you know that the scanner can handle 2.5 density range so you can check on horizontal axis how many stops you can approximately get out of the neg with that scanner when processing normally https://www.kodak.com/uploadedFiles/Motion/Products/Camera_Films/5219/Resources/5219_TI2647.pdf  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

FWIW, this is what Zacuto measured a few years ago. Only 5219 and 5213 were tested. Interpreting DR is not so simple, so I can't comment too much on the accuracy of the test. (You can also see confirmed what was common wisdom: Alexa had two stops over the old MX sensor, which was used in the R1, Scarlet-X and Epic.)

Screen-Shot-2019-08-15-at-10-33-13-pm.pn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

FWIW, this is what Zacuto measured a few years ago. Only 5219 and 5213 were tested. Interpreting DR is not so simple, so I can't comment too much on the accuracy of the test. (You can also see confirmed what was common wisdom: Alexa had two stops over the old MX sensor, which was used in the R1, Scarlet-X and Epic.)

Screen-Shot-2019-08-15-at-10-33-13-pm.pn

they not seem to quote any USABLE dynamic range, only the specs listed by the manufacturer which are normally exaggerated by one or two stops. 

You tend to be pretty safe if you take about 1.5 or 2 stops off of the underexposure latitude, then it better resembles the real life performance of the system. AND you definitely don't want to try to get 5 stops underexposed details out of film... if the specs list -4 then you can treat it as -3 maximum. 

Advanced noise reduction can do wonders to image but it will take forever to render (even days) and will create artifacts. for stuff like 5dmark2 details underexposed 7 stops it would probably not help no matter how much heavy noise reduction you use on it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

the thing with digital cameras is, you can't really "measure" their usable dynamic range because it is a matter of taste how much noise you can tolerate in the shadows to still call them usable. Camera manufacturers tend to measure the underexposure stops by calling all the stops above noise floor usable as long as they can be in any way differentiated from plain noise. So if there seems to be SOMETHING which resembles a stop then they call it usable. But in real life no one can use them for imaging purposes. The manufacturer stops are only for marketing purposes and for real life performance it is thus important to know how they measure them... then you will know this "last stops not usable for real life purposes" thing and will treat the dynamic range of the camera system correctly :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/10/2020 at 8:27 PM, aapo lettinen said:

the thing with digital cameras is, you can't really "measure" their usable dynamic range because it is a matter of taste how much noise you can tolerate in the shadows to still call them usable. 

One standard that is used is S:N=2 for the deepest shadow. That sounds like a very practical metric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 1/10/2020 at 1:19 AM, aapo lettinen said:

 

You tend to be pretty safe if you take about 1.5 or 2 stops off of the underexposure latitude, then it better resembles the real life performance of the system. AND you definitely don't want to try to get 5 stops underexposed details out of film... if the specs list -4 then you can treat it as -3 maximum. 

 

With grade applied, I find -4 1/2  gives texture on ECN film for sure (200T)- it's my night exterior fill level. It's gone by -5 though. Double-X peters out at -4 with my exposure, processing and grade regimen.

I do underrate my color film by 2/3 to 1 stop though.

Your results may vary.

Edited by Jarin Blaschke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It's interesting that the overexposure latitude with color film really went up a notch with Vision-3 stocks, which introduced the "micro grain" in-between the regular grain, so small and thus so slow that they only really activated in the brightest areas of the frame, giving Vision-3 another stop of overexposure detail compared to Vision-2 and earlier.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

It's interesting that the overexposure latitude with color film really went up a notch with Vision-3 stocks, which introduced the "micro grain" in-between the regular grain, so small and thus so slow that they only really activated in the brightest areas of the frame, giving Vision-3 another stop of overexposure detail compared to Vision-2 and earlier.

So that's why - I've gradually noticed that film stocks have become more "natural" looking over time, most rapidly since the EXR 90s. I thought it was a softer palate in general but perhaps it's particularly the endless highlights that make it look more lifelike.

It has been very interesting to come back to film after a long absence, and to now shoot comprehensive tests that I was utterly unable to do in my indie days. I learned a lot about Double X on the Lighthouse and I've gone in depth with the color stocks on The Northman. It was no surprise that  Double X (1959 technology) has a lot less shadow latitude than Alexa, even shocking in its limitations. However,  I expected a Vision 3 to behave radically different. In the end, from strictly a shadow latitude standpoint, the difference is less than I expected. It certainly has more shadow detail than Double-X, but so far looks like less than what I was used to with Alexa. Indeed, David, where film truly shines (aside from the overall subjective beauty) is in the highlights. This bounty of highlight information makes me inclined to shoot 5219 at ei250 and 5213 at ei100 or 125 to shift some of that extra latitude down the scale.

I've come to like lighting for a less sensitive medium with a narrower sweet spot. It's partially a reaction against the no-light grunge aesthetic that's been going on for a while, but most of all I enjoy working a little harder to develop my craft - to force me to bring more intention to each shot.

.

Aaanyway... I digress!

It's funny how film loves light , craves it- the more the better, while digital cameras are a bit like vampires and can't handle a sunny day.

 

J

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

There was a period in the late 1980's-mid-90's when some DP's rejected fast stocks and shot whole movies on 100T or then 200T (which came out around 1992.) It was interesting because they were using massive amounts of light but still creating soft light, so the images had a very polished look to them. "JFK" was the prime example, mostly EXR 50D and EXR 100T. "Batman Returns", again all EXR 100T for those big sets, "Peggy Sue Got Married", all on the older 5247 125T. Most of "Howard's End" was shot on EXR 100T (some 500T for night exteriors though.) The first "The Adams Family" and the first "Men in Black" all shot on EXR 100T.

I also love those late 70's / early 80's movies just before fast film came out in 1981-82, shot on 5247 125T, like "Alien" and "Blade Runner".

Of course, once digital came along, the interest in fine-grain slow stocks declined -- most people shooting film wanted grain in order to not look digital.  Except for the large format film shooters like Nolan or Branagh.

But then, there was "Grand Budapest Hotel" all shot on 200T. 

I shot most of "Love Witch" on 200T rated at 100 ASA but the hard light style made it a bit easier to get enough exposure for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, 5248 was a pretty one.

More recently, aren't the early and mid PT Anderson films all on slow stocks as well?

After shooting a whole movie at ei50 and 80, shooting night work at 125 doesn't seem so ridiculous anymore - that's the aim for the next movie. Shooting at that speed will also retain more color when shooting fire.

Did you not shoot 50D for your day work? There is a clear difference in grain, but interestingly I find the '13 to be sharper.

J

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Truth is that 1960's stocks were grainier than 200T (even though 50 ASA) so I was hesitant to switch to 50D for exteriors on "The Love Witch", 200T already seemed too modern-looking. I actually would have preferred if 100T was still available and if I could have afforded to push it all one-stop.

I remember when Vision-1 100T first came out, Kodak said it was the sharpest of all their stocks, so I'm not surprised that 200T is slightly sharper than 50D, but some of that may be perceptual, when an image lacks grain, it doesn't quite seem in focus because our eyes don't see sharp grain to tell us that it is in focus.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, David Mullen ASC said:

Truth is that 1960's stocks were grainier than 200T (even though 50 ASA) so I was hesitant to switch to 50D for exteriors on "The Love Witch", 200T already seemed too modern-looking. I actually would have preferred if 100T was still available and if I could have afforded to push it all one-stop.

I remember when Vision-1 100T first came out, Kodak said it was the sharpest of all their stocks, so I'm not surprised that 200T is slightly sharper than 50D, but some of that may be perceptual, when an image lacks grain, it doesn't quite seem in focus because our eyes don't see sharp grain to tell us that it is in focus.

Ha - yes, Lawrence in Arabia probably has the same grain as a film shot on 35mm today. I once heard a Kodak rep claim that 35mm 5298 has the same grain as 16mm 5219 - that seemed a stretch, but who knows. Recently I found that the real difference is sharpness of the presentation format - Fotokem states that even though 35mm negative is about a 4k format, a 35mm contact print brings it down to 2k. My recent tests of print vs DI confirmed this subjectively - it was obvious although I wasn't counting lines. After a few years away, it was almost shocking how soft a 35mm print looks to our 2020 eyes. However, while much softer, the print has a tonal depth that puts digital projection to shame - DCP looked like bath water by comparison. Albeit sharp bath water. The best of both was a 70mm print, of course. Boy oh boy. Sharp and smooth and rich all at the same time: you could fall right into it. So that's where watching Lawrence of Arabia as a 70mm print really pays off. According to Fotokem, a 70mm print from modern 65mm is about 5k, although the subjective result transcends numbers. My experience seems to validate 35mm to 70mm blow-ups; I previously didn't understand the point. 

Aaaanyway:

I'm sure the effort to make a modern stock truly look like a 1960s stock would take some gymnastics: underexposure, pushing, flashing red into the shadows, maybe an expensive round of IP/IN to reduce latitude and sharpness. The biggest period effect is brought from what you guys focused on: production design, costume, make up and lighting style. 

The published MTFs show 50D as a less sharp stock than 200T. My tests subjectively back that up when I look at two extracted TIFFs side by side.

Now we really digress.... ?

Jarin

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
9 hours ago, Jarin Blaschke said:

My experience seems to validate 35mm to 70mm blow-ups; I previously didn't understand the point. 

Many blow up prints were for 1st run theaters only, of which a hand full were made, right off the cut camera negative. So the loss in quality from the optical process was negated by the sharp OCN blow up. Also remember, before digital audio on film, the only way to get true 6 channel surround sound into a theater was on 70mm magnetic prints. The other thing about 70mm prints is that they held up longer, with less potential for damage being seen on screen due to the nearly 5x larger image. 

We've been very lucky to see a few modern 70mm blow up's from 35mm which have been astounding. The last one was "Phantom Thread" which was shot 500T pushed 2 stops and was finished entirely photochemically. Fotokem did a fantastic job doing the blow up's from the 35mm cut negative. They are crisp and beautiful prints with 24bit 6 channel digital audio. 5 perf 70mm is arguably the best film projection format, even when compared to others like IMAX because it doesn't require any crazy special equipment like IMAX does. 

9 hours ago, Jarin Blaschke said:

Fotokem states that even though 35mm negative is about a 4k format, a 35mm contact print brings it down to 2k

Fine grain 35mm retains around 5k, 500T is closer to 4k. 

Print resolution is measured in lines and Kodak has released many research papers on the subject. A contact print struck off the original camera negative retains around 2500 lines of resolution. However, one you go through the IP/IN process in order to strike mass amounts of prints, you're lucky to get 1000 lines out of the final theater-bound prints. 
 

9 hours ago, Jarin Blaschke said:

According to Fotokem, a 70mm print from modern 65mm is about 5k, although the subjective result transcends numbers.

Most 70mm prints were struck off the original camera negative, so yes prints are in the 4k - 5k range. Sadly, Kodak never really did a modern research document about resolution, so it's hard to quantify the exact resolution. Let's just say, when you watch the 5 perf print of Dunkirk, it appears to be similar sharpness to 4k presentations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
On 4/19/2020 at 5:52 AM, Jarin Blaschke said:

 it's particularly the endless highlights that make it look more lifelike.

...and there it is on a nutshell.....PERCEPTION....what is lifelike, what looks real, what doesn't, what do we like....t

reality = what the human eye can see or our memories tell us have seen - the eyes have the best dynamic range, no blown highlights, detail in shadows
cinematic = what we have seen in the big screen in our lifetimes forming our reference for the expression
texture = a romantic view of grain in images
hyper realism = watching something unfold before you as if you were watching it fro the window of your house
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

But film is rarely interested in creating hyper-real images with endless dynamic range, it can't really, it's still limited to 15-stops of DR at best for one thing, the shadow detail isn't great at times. We don't see grain in real life either.

If you wanted "hyper-real" you'd have to do something digital in HDR at super high frame rates (HFR), which is very unlike classic cinema.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I agree.....I detest hyper-realism (onslaught when u walk into TV shops) in anything other than sports on TV.....I watch, as a good European...football....(soccer) and that is great in 4K etc etc....but films.....no....I like flavour, texture and depth......give me the original Blade Runner (1982) over the sterile looking Blade Runner 2024 any time....Tarantino says Deakins just doesnt want to light anymore and thats why he uses Arri Alexa's hahaha.....

https://www.rogerdeakins.com/film-talk/tarantinos-comments/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2020 at 2:51 AM, Jarin Blaschke said:

... it was almost shocking how soft a 35mm print looks to our 2020 eyes. However, while much softer, the print has a tonal depth that puts digital projection to shame - DCP looked like bath water by comparison. Albeit sharp bath water ...

 

 

I remember being pretty amazed at how soft (lacking in sharp definition) some 35mm prints were at the cinema. But still, compared to today's digital cinema experience, the way Jarin has put it is a great description of the comparison, as I see it. DCP like bathwater, but sharp. People really should go to the trouble to see a film print whenever they can. In some regions that can be difficult to do, but if you love cinema it is definitely worth the trouble.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Stephen Perera said:

.Tarantino says Deakins just doesnt want to light anymore and thats why he uses Arri Alexa's hahaha.....

https://www.rogerdeakins.com/film-talk/tarantinos-comments/

 

I haven't seen BR 2049 but the trailer looks amazing. So I don't know why anyone would say that Deakins doesn't want to light anymore. I say, let people make their choices. I wouldn't choose the Alexa but so what? I'm not other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

I haven't seen BR 2049 but the trailer looks amazing. So I don't know why anyone would say that Deakins doesn't want to light anymore. I say, let people make their choices. I wouldn't choose the Alexa but so what? I'm not other people.

Mr. T was probably in an off mood or has spent too much time in too many interviews over the last 10 years arguing some point about shooting film, maybe he lost track of the argument he's trying to make. There are countless examples of how ASA 800 or 1600 has made certain DPs lazy or lack expression and intention in their "lighting." Look around at current trends. However, that particular day, chose the worst possible example: Roger bloody Deakins??? We all say silly things from time to time.

-

I think it's very reasonable to expect a professional cinematographer to work within 15 stops of latitude, and place 9 stops of tones within a finished frame. How much do you need?

-

I personally like both Blade Runners.

-

My kooky stab at why tungsten stocks tend to be sharper than daylight stocks is that silver halides inherently only see blue light; they need sensitizers to record green, and even more to record red. At least in black and white, at a given speed, an ortho film is sharper than a pan film, and to take it further, an infrared film is softest and grainiest of all. Tungsten stocks are more sensitive to blue light, which may have something to do with needing to "stretch" their capabilities. But color negative film is above my pay grade - any and all are welcome to shoot down such gibberish theories.

 

-Jarin

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

there you go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "tungsten stocks tend to be sharper".....I am convinced 500T is sharp as hell and probably the most 'expressive' film Kodak has available.....I love it....Portra 800 is also an INCREDIBLE film...try that one Jarin et al....but of course...didnt want to make any claims as Im in no way experienced enough in motion picture to say these things but yes my perceptions....it seems...are spot on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...