Jump to content


Photo

Down the road for film


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 John Adolfi

John Adolfi
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 342 posts
  • Producer
  • Fulton, N.Y.

Posted 11 September 2007 - 04:01 PM

Has anyone heard any news about what to expect next in the field of film technology. Like is there going to be Vision3 film anytime soon?
  • 0

#2 Mitch Perkins

Mitch Perkins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 11 September 2007 - 04:50 PM

Has anyone heard any news about what to expect next in the field of film technology. Like is there going to be Vision3 film anytime soon?


http://www.kodak.com...e...1.4.7&lc=en

My guess is that new developments in filmstock would be closely guarded until release; it's hard to imagine the scientists who created Vision2 stocks sitting around waiting for digital motion picture imaging technology to catch up...if that's even possible. ~:?)

OTOH, everyone seems quite pleased with the Vision2 stocks, so maybe they're focusing on something else...

Mitch
  • 0

#3 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1584 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 11 September 2007 - 04:54 PM

http://www.kodak.com...e...1.4.7&lc=en

My guess is that new developments in filmstock would be closely guarded until release; it's hard to imagine the scientists who created Vision2 stocks sitting around waiting for digital motion picture imaging technology to catch up...if that's even possible. ~:?)

OTOH, everyone seems quite pleased with the Vision2 stocks, so maybe they're focusing on something else...

Mitch



I think that it would be cool if Kodak made their older formulations availabe, want a 70's look? get the stock they used...Want a nitrate look get some nitrate film!! It's not all about the K's you know.....


=Rob-
  • 0

#4 Mitch Perkins

Mitch Perkins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 11 September 2007 - 05:06 PM

I think that it would be cool if Kodak made their older formulations availabe, want a 70's look? get the stock they used...Want a nitrate look get some nitrate film!! It's not all about the K's you know.....
=Rob-


Man, 7240 was great for that. Everybody hated it except me an' Rick Palidwor. We used it for "Sleep Always". We never got a complaint that the movie itself looked ugly, just the stock...~:?) Did they have that in 16/35mm? Special order?

I've got a '79 Grand Prix I wouldn't mind running on nitrate film - short trips, straight up, y'know...~:?)

Mitch
  • 0

#5 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 11 September 2007 - 05:29 PM

I think that it would be cool if Kodak made their older formulations availabe, want a 70's look? get the stock they used...Want a nitrate look get some nitrate film!! It's not all about the K's you know.....
=Rob-


That 500T Expression seems kinda 70's ish...

And that 7299 scanning stock gives you all sorts of looks... even Kodachrome can be emulated with it. Every telecine house that works with it must have this box from Kodak that "dials in" different looks. Maybe that's the future... having stocks play well & do new tricks in the telecine booth.
  • 0

#6 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 12 September 2007 - 09:08 PM

And that 7299 scanning stock gives you all sorts of looks... even Kodachrome can be emulated with it.


Can you point me to someone who has actually emulated Kodachrome with it ?

I mean Kodachrome specifically, not some idea of "Reversal Looks" -- most of which are cartoon ideas of what reversal stocks look like....

-Sam
  • 0

#7 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1584 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 12 September 2007 - 11:57 PM

That 500T Expression seems kinda 70's ish...

And that 7299 scanning stock gives you all sorts of looks... even Kodachrome can be emulated with it. Every telecine house that works with it must have this box from Kodak that "dials in" different looks. Maybe that's the future... having stocks play well & do new tricks in the telecine booth.



I don't have that much faith in the computer, really. I think the catalog of recipies will be valuable in the future.

-Rob-
  • 0

#8 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 13 September 2007 - 09:20 AM

Can you point me to someone who has actually emulated Kodachrome with it ?

I mean Kodachrome specifically, not some idea of "Reversal Looks" -- most of which are cartoon ideas of what reversal stocks look like....

-Sam

I can't point you to anyone who's actually even used that stock. Not even a colorist who's worked with it. Makes me wonder if Kodak is really marketing it right (or if it even lives up to the hype).

I've never seen Kodachrome telecined that looks anywhere near as good as it does simply projected. Same with Kodachrome 35mm slides, they are really tough to scan properly because of the nature of the stock. Ektachrome 100D can look fine telecined, but Kodachrome always seems to have issues transfered to video.
  • 0

#9 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 13 September 2007 - 09:45 AM

Man, 7240 was great for that. Everybody hated it except me an' Rick Palidwor. We used it for "Sleep Always". We never got a complaint that the movie itself looked ugly, just the stock...~:?) Did they have that in 16/35mm? Special order?

I've got a '79 Grand Prix I wouldn't mind running on nitrate film - short trips, straight up, y'know...~:?)

Mitch


7240 was certainly available in 16mm. I have a bunch of old reels of it in my freezer. Sound striped too!
In fact it was one of the more common 16mm stocks. It was made for TV News, hence the name VNF, Video News Film, so 16mm would have originally been the main format I guess.

It was available in 35mm as Buffalo 66 was shot on it, but apparently they had immense problems finding anyone who could process it in 35mm. I think they had someone modify a processing machine in the end.
It was not a popular stock in 35mm.

I seem to remember that the grandmother by David Lynch was also shot on this stock.

love

Freya
  • 0

#10 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 September 2007 - 10:27 AM

I can't point you to anyone who's actually even used that stock. Not even a colorist who's worked with it. Makes me wonder if Kodak is really marketing it right (or if it even lives up to the hype).

I've never seen Kodachrome telecined that looks anywhere near as good as it does simply projected. Same with Kodachrome 35mm slides, they are really tough to scan properly because of the nature of the stock. Ektachrome 100D can look fine telecined, but Kodachrome always seems to have issues transfered to video.


Or if the Kodak box is all that unique anyway ---

Does any post facility aside from the one Kodak owns in LA (I forget which) use this thing I wonder ?


Kodachrome the perpetual enigma, can't reproduce it. 16mm prints on 7399 came closer than you might expect. When I shot Kodachrome tungsten slide film for some artists portfolios -- I remember for one artist I shot 6 exposures per piece so she wouldn't have to make dupes...

All that said I'd love to find a way to preserve or even fake it's unique property of color falling off to monochromatic in / near the toe -- a black and white feel to a color stock (and why it's critics call it 'muddy' - you really have to know how to expose for it -- another lost art ----)

-Sam
  • 0

#11 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 13 September 2007 - 12:36 PM

All that said I'd love to find a way to preserve or even fake it's unique property of color falling off to monochromatic in / near the toe -- a black and white feel to a color stock (and why it's critics call it 'muddy' - you really have to know how to expose for it -- another lost art ----)

-Sam


Here are some Kodachrome stills taken from 16mm transfered in HD on a Millenium machine last week. These sized down from the full 1920x1080 but you can see the color.

Facial skin tones are really nice and I like the different look in other colors... but it still doesn't come alive like it does when projected.

The main thing I like about Kodachrome is the archival qualities. I have slides from the 50's that look brand new while Ektrachrome slides from the same time period are barely viewable.

Posted Image

Posted Image
  • 0

#12 adam berk

adam berk
  • Sustaining Members
  • 168 posts
  • Director

Posted 13 September 2007 - 01:14 PM

Hey Will,

Do you have the ability to post any full resolution frames from that transfer?

thanks,
adam
  • 0

#13 Michael Lehnert

Michael Lehnert
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1086 posts
  • Other
  • London, UK / Basel, CH

Posted 13 September 2007 - 02:01 PM

I think that it would be cool if Kodak made their older formulations availabe, want a 70's look? get the stock they used...Want a nitrate look get some nitrate film!! It's not all about the K's you know.....
=Rob-


That is a very interesting idea, and would be a beautifully elegant solution for aesthetical visions for film projects, too. Artistically, it would make great sense!

I would also not rule out that some "visionary suit" (an oxymoron?) at Kodak might green-flag such an idea, in the appropriate business context and with good business timing.

However, I fear that this won't be anytime soon (as in "decades"). As long as chemical film producers like Kodak, Fuji and Polaroid have to fight an uphill struggle to convince other "suits" that cine-film has qualities that go beyond the basic numerical comparison to video formats (the K's, as it was put), they will be forced to continue fighting on what is in effect video's marketing battlefield: trying to increase resolution and push color reproduction in light with telecine technology.

And if you look at what Robert Richardson did in recreating the look of two and three stripe Technicolor for "The Aviator" digitally, it will be hard to convince people that the old recipes need to be revived. It would be interesting to see side-by-side how the scenes would differ if originally shoot on vintage Technicolor and done in post with Vision or Vision2, though.

Re. those HD'd K-40 pictures above: I must admit that I was not terribly unhappy to see K-40 go, at least for Super 8, as that film stock's dominance was really hindering this format to develop further as a cinematographic medium (at least here in Europe).
But seeing these pics make me quite itchy to see more K-40 shots, again. I second the motion for full resolution frames, Will.
  • 0

#14 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 13 September 2007 - 02:08 PM

That 500T Expression seems kinda 70's ish...


How so?

5254 ECN and 5247 ECNII were not pastel, but had a good healthy color saturation.
And they were contrastier than Vison II and Expression stocks.
& because there was nothing faster than 100ASA, they were frequenty pushed thus increasing contrast and grain.
  • 0

#15 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 13 September 2007 - 02:18 PM

Can you point me to someone who has actually emulated Kodachrome with it ?

I mean Kodachrome specifically, not some idea of "Reversal Looks" -- most of which are cartoon ideas of what reversal stocks look like....


I recll from Kodak data sheets for Eastman Reversal print stock, Kodachrome process, that KII and Ektachrome required different printer filter packs because one of the dye layers in Kodachrome was more transparent to infrared. That caused the KII colors to print differently than they looked to the eye.
A lot of timing reversal was done by eye. Therefore intercutting the two was not recommended.

Kodachrome reds often printed as an odd flat orange.
  • 0

#16 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 13 September 2007 - 02:27 PM

And if you look at what Robert Richardson did in recreating the look of two and three stripe Technicolor for "The Aviator" digitally, it will be hard to convince people that the old recipes need to be revived. It would be interesting to see side-by-side how the scenes would differ if originally shoot on vintage Technicolor and done in post with Vision or Vision2, though.


That emulated Technicolr did not look like real three-strip or two color (not two strip, it was on a single strip)
Technicolor, nor Cinecolor, which is what most of the two color stuff was really trying to emulate.
Cinecolor was two strip, but bi-pack is the proper term.

Hughes was a major investor in Multicolor which later became Cinecolor.
  • 0

#17 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 13 September 2007 - 02:52 PM

I recll from Kodak data sheets for Eastman Reversal print stock, Kodachrome process, that KII and Ektachrome required different printer filter packs because one of the dye layers in Kodachrome was more transparent to infrared. That caused the KII colors to print differently than they looked to the eye.
A lot of timing reversal was done by eye. Therefore intercutting the two was not recommended.

Kodachrome reds often printed as an odd flat orange.


Interesting; I wonder how this would translate to telecine.

Kodachrome I've seen printed to 7399 gives an orange cast to practically any underexposure of skin tones.

I have Kodachrome printed on 7387 I shot in the late 70's -- skin tone forget it but the reds are something the RED would envy :rolleyes:

-Sam
  • 0

#18 Michael Lehnert

Michael Lehnert
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1086 posts
  • Other
  • London, UK / Basel, CH

Posted 13 September 2007 - 05:28 PM

That emulated Technicolr did not look like real three-strip or two color (not two strip, it was on a single strip)
Technicolor, nor Cinecolor, which is what most of the two color stuff was really trying to emulate.
Cinecolor was two strip, but bi-pack is the proper term.

Hughes was a major investor in Multicolor which later became Cinecolor.


Thanks for elaborating on that and specifying the terminology. I appreciate that. With press packs and even industry news less and less concerned about precise reporting, an exact and clarifying source is worth a billion bucks. :)

I fear, however, that noone outside this board's circle might unfortunately care wether the color reproduction in "The Aviator" was bang on or like an attempt to reproduce a Monet with watercolours. Evoking the atmosphere of it is probably enough for many to be satisfied with the effect.

This also touches the point again that digital-post "film emulations" of earlier real-life "film emulsions" cannot reach or reproduce the original but are more like 2nd hand memories of an old story: a vague impression of how it seemed to be, but nowhere close to the original.

So, maybe if this realisation would be understood at some time in the future, filmmakers might want to shoot their 1970/80s period dramas on original new K-40, VNF or Eastmancolor often enough to make a business case for Kodak Park. B)
  • 0


CineTape

The Slider

Abel Cine

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Opal

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio