Jump to content


Photo

New Vision3 stock


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Jon Kukla

Jon Kukla
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 399 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 March 2009 - 02:07 AM

Kodak 5207 - 250D Vision 3. Confirmed this morning to me by a very apologetic Russian representative who was offering to let me use their first rolls this week (due to a possible manufacturing defect with the batch of V2 we ordered). It is officially going to be introduced in April, apparently.

Edited by Jon Kukla, 30 March 2009 - 02:09 AM.

  • 0

#2 Adam Wallensten

Adam Wallensten
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Student
  • Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 30 March 2009 - 10:47 AM

I shot a roll of it last week and scanned it today. I was very impressed with it. It's quite finegrain and I was really impressed by the latidude. Kodak says that one of its qualities is that it good at mixing daylight and tungstenlights but I didn't try it. I tested it for an upcoming 20-minute short that I will shoot in two weeks. I've decided to shoot all daylight interior scenes on it.
  • 0

#3 Adam Wallensten

Adam Wallensten
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Student
  • Copenhagen, Denmark

Posted 30 March 2009 - 10:52 AM

Everything is shot in natural daylight. Sorry for the small pics.
  • 0

#4 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 30 March 2009 - 11:33 AM

Listen up, Kodak and Fuji: we don't need any new stocks - we need cheaper stocks! Why pour R&D into improving something that's already pretty darn good? Pour money into finding a way to do it cheaper instead.

We're fighting a losing battle here, and soon there won't be anyone left to introduce new improved stocks too since we'll all be shooting digital. If film could come down 50% in price, then it would have an edge and a longer future. As it is now, it has the same future as an LP record - yes, still available but nobody but club DJ's buy them.

Shooting on film has dropped easily 50% for me in just the last year. 16mm virtually gone. 35mm still holding on at the top level, but getting a tremendous beating from all flanks now - it won't be able to hold much longer. And in a recession to introduce yet another even more expensive stock.....
  • 0

#5 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 30 March 2009 - 11:52 AM

Listen up, Kodak and Fuji: we don't need any new stocks - we need cheaper stocks! Why pour R&D into improving something that's already pretty darn good? Pour money into finding a way to do it cheaper instead.

We're fighting a losing battle here, and soon there won't be anyone left to introduce new improved stocks too since we'll all be shooting digital. If film could come down 50% in price, then it would have an edge and a longer future. As it is now, it has the same future as an LP record - yes, still available but nobody but club DJ's buy them.

Shooting on film has dropped easily 50% for me in just the last year. 16mm virtually gone. 35mm still holding on at the top level, but getting a tremendous beating from all flanks now - it won't be able to hold much longer. And in a recession to introduce yet another even more expensive stock.....


Well, they are going to have to raise the prices no matter what. Silver is still very high, and prices for movie film are still far far less than if you were buying C-41.

So the R&D is more to justify their price increases. They'd have to raise the price even if there were no improvementsw with them.


But, I am curious, film defect? What kind? Did you shoot the film in the camera? Or was it a defect in the last batch they made?
  • 0

#6 tom doherty

tom doherty
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Student
  • u.k

Posted 30 March 2009 - 11:53 AM

I shot a roll of it last week and scanned it today. I was very impressed with it. It's quite finegrain and I was really impressed by the latidude. Kodak says that one of its qualities is that it good at mixing daylight and tungstenlights but I didn't try it. I tested it for an upcoming 20-minute short that I will shoot in two weeks. I've decided to shoot all daylight interior scenes on it.


thanks for the screenshots
  • 0

#7 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 30 March 2009 - 12:02 PM

Well, they are going to have to raise the prices no matter what. Silver is still very high, and prices for movie film are still far far less than if you were buying C-41.

So the R&D is more to justify their price increases. They'd have to raise the price even if there were no improvementsw with them.


But, I am curious, film defect? What kind? Did you shoot the film in the camera? Or was it a defect in the last batch they made?


Well, Agfa had a long ongoing research about trying to eliminate silver altogether from film and from what I understand they succeeded. I wonder what happened to those chemists and R&D people? Probably silenced by either Fuji and Kodak or the silver producers...

Also, there must be less silver in a slow stock, no? How come there's no price difference......?
  • 0

#8 Elliot Rudmann

Elliot Rudmann
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 208 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago

Posted 31 March 2009 - 02:21 PM

Well, Agfa had a long ongoing research about trying to eliminate silver altogether from film and from what I understand they succeeded. I wonder what happened to those chemists and R&D people? Probably silenced by either Fuji and Kodak or the silver producers...

Also, there must be less silver in a slow stock, no? How come there's no price difference......?


Interesting, I'd like to know more about that conspiracy (this isn't sarcasm, I am geniunely interested).

Also Adam, there actually is a price difference between the slower stocks and the faster ones, as seen on Kodak's motion picture catalog (you can download it here: http://motion.kodak....ation/index.htm )
Price of 1000' roll of 5219: $642.41,
Price of 1000' roll of 5201: $623.70.

Wow, Kodak. That's a real dealbreaker if you ask me. That's 1 extra roll of '19 I can buy for every 35000 feet of '01 I purchase. Great. Great. They definitely need to put some more R&D into constructing/designing materials that would allow for a cheaper filmstock. If film is continually seen as a luxury, I don't see how it can maintain a profitable future. Hopefully I'm wrong.
  • 0

#9 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 31 March 2009 - 02:33 PM

I do hope this becomes a Super 8 release, I'm already rather impressed with the VISION 3 500T. :)
  • 0

#10 David Rakoczy

David Rakoczy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1579 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • USA

Posted 31 March 2009 - 02:40 PM

It is not just the price of the neg.. consider the Transfer itself. If the idea is to equate obtaining an image by popping an HD tape out of a camera or transferring files - to having Film on a Tape or in some Codec, then the more obvious place to save is in inexpensive Quality Transfers and Data Management... though that will never happen as those artists deserve their wage... as well does their equipment... Seriously though, 16mm neg pricing is fine.. processing doesn't break the bank.. 35, well, most 35 projects have a 35 budget... sure half price would help as Adam mentioned... In the end, it is the $5 - $20k USD for a :30 spot (extra - Film to Tape/ Data Transfer) ) that hurts when trying to get a (smaller) client to go for Film instead of Digital and it is those (smaller) client projects that could really pick up Kodak's Market Share as there are far more (smaller) projects done every day as compared to high end projects.... foot for foot. Maybe we need a super low cost One Light Only Transfer House - FILM BURNER - that can turn your 1,200ft of S16 around to ProRes HQ on hard disk in less than an hour for under $100 :lol: ... ya, including sync sound... mixed... Live or Die by your Color Chart :P... for the brave only!

Both formats usually go through a Color Correction Session so that evens out. The only differences are neg cost (16mm is nominal though 35 coming down as Adam stated would help!), processing ( both nominal).. Transfer ?... ouch :o I shoulda bought a RED.... NOT!
  • 0

#11 tom doherty

tom doherty
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Student
  • u.k

Posted 31 March 2009 - 07:12 PM

I do hope this becomes a Super 8 release, I'm already rather impressed with the VISION 3 500T. :)


how is the vision3 500t super8? have any uploaded footage?
im not sure if this stock will meter correctly with a nizo 801 or canon 1014 xls, anyone know??

Edited by tom doherty, 31 March 2009 - 07:14 PM.

  • 0

#12 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 31 March 2009 - 09:05 PM

how is the vision3 500t super8? have any uploaded footage?
im not sure if this stock will meter correctly with a nizo 801 or canon 1014 xls, anyone know??



If they don't read it at 500, then either 400 or 250 I suppose. Which in either case is ideal. I have not shot the 19 in super 8, but plenty of the 18. That stock was great in super 8. Rather tight grain, given the format and speed. I suspect the 19 is even finer grained. The 07 would be nice, but you already have the 17 which is more than adequate for exterior use. I would like to see the 01 in super 8 from Kodak.
  • 0

#13 Anthony Schilling

Anthony Schilling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1053 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR

Posted 01 April 2009 - 12:27 AM

Well that will be OK, I like the 7205... I guess the 100T & 200T will be next to be upgraded, but the 7201 is based on V3 technology so will probably stay for a while. 7201 is what I'd like to see in S8. That's fine they are improving the latatude and grain of the neg stocks, but I keep sayong they should come out with some more specialty stocks. Stocks that have cool looks out of the gate, as opposed to having to put a bunch of english into it. A new 160T reversal would be a lot of fun... something with intense colors, really sharp, prime for cross processing. They should make a film that wants to be film, instead of playing the HD race with super low con, flatter stocks.
  • 0

#14 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 02 April 2009 - 07:14 AM

The problem is also in the transfer, as mentioned.

Now, let's be clear - there isn't a post cost difference between shooting film and HD in theory. It costs the same to grade Red footage in a color suite as it does film. However, in the real world, what happens on the cheaper productions is that the Red/HD footage gets taken into the production companies edit suite and some PA/Runner/Film Student (who's shown that he knows where the on/off switch on the computer is), gets to be in charge of the whole post, including the coloring! This happens a lot more than one thinks.

Now, it would be perfectly possible to transfer film as a RAW-all-the-info-there one light to a hard drive and let you have that to play with. Problem is that the telecine machines that can handle HD are always owned by higher end post houses - and they're not keen on giving up their coloring business to some nutjob in a basement. And the telecines that should be doing it - in labs around the world - are sadly old URSA's and Mark III's that can barely do SD.

There have been some solutions along these lines (Bono Labs etc), but normally the quality hasn't been that good and they built their own gear that hasn't been up to spec.

If someone bought a Northstar or a Spirit 4K and offered to transfer film to normal HD, they'd make a killing.
  • 0

#15 Adam Garner

Adam Garner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Other
  • Austin, TX

Posted 09 April 2009 - 12:53 PM

how is the vision3 500t super8? have any uploaded footage?
im not sure if this stock will meter correctly with a nizo 801 or canon 1014 xls, anyone know??


V3-500T Meters perfectly in my 1014XL-S, and the results are stunning really. I have some (though fairly compressed) footage here:


View on Vimeo

You may want to download the original (lower right). Performs great in lowlight, and razor sharp in daylight.
  • 0

#16 Elliot Rudmann

Elliot Rudmann
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 208 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago

Posted 09 April 2009 - 01:45 PM

If someone bought a Northstar or a Spirit 4K and offered to transfer film to normal HD, they'd make a killing.


It's funny you say that because the DI company I work for in Chicago is seriously starting to consider offering affordable (possibly beating Spirit hd rates) 16mm/35mm 2k dailies straight to QuickTimes, prorez or uncompressed (with one-light or scene-to-scene grading in our Baselight). We hate seeing our scanner go unused. The problem is our Arriscan, despite the amazing quality it gives, isn't exactly synonymous with "fast turnarounds" which is the only area where telecine wins out. I just always hated having to settle with telecine quality when I was in filmschool. Even with student discounts it got ridiculously expensive. Anyway sorry for the plug. We'll certainly be advertising on this site pretty soon.
  • 0

#17 andres victorero

andres victorero
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Spain

Posted 10 April 2009 - 10:52 AM

how is the vision3 500t super8? have any uploaded footage?
im not sure if this stock will meter correctly with a nizo 801 or canon 1014 xls, anyone know??



You can see a lot of videos shot on super 8 in Vimeo "Super 8 Group"

You can find this shot on Vision 3

  • 0

#18 Arni Heimir

Arni Heimir
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Other
  • Reykjavik/Barcelona

Posted 10 April 2009 - 12:21 PM

It's funny you say that because the DI company I work for in Chicago is seriously starting to consider offering affordable (possibly beating Spirit hd rates) 16mm/35mm 2k dailies straight to QuickTimes, prorez or uncompressed (with one-light or scene-to-scene grading in our Baselight). We hate seeing our scanner go unused. The problem is our Arriscan, despite the amazing quality it gives, isn't exactly synonymous with "fast turnarounds" which is the only area where telecine wins out. I just always hated having to settle with telecine quality when I was in filmschool. Even with student discounts it got ridiculously expensive. Anyway sorry for the plug. We'll certainly be advertising on this site pretty soon.


hi, what company are you working for?
  • 0

#19 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 10 April 2009 - 12:45 PM

On the '07 do we yet know if they'll be bringing it out for 16mm? so far I only see it for 35.
  • 0

#20 Chris Durham

Chris Durham
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 290 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • New York, NY

Posted 10 April 2009 - 12:58 PM

On the '07 do we yet know if they'll be bringing it out for 16mm? so far I only see it for 35.


I'm sure they will. the 500T is available in 16mm. Really looking forward to a 50D stock in this series.
  • 0


Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Opal

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Glidecam

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

CineTape

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

Opal