Jump to content


Photo

Fuji jumping out of screen!!


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Rajavel Olhiveeran

Rajavel Olhiveeran
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • India

Posted 03 February 2011 - 11:39 PM

Hi artists!
Just tested kodak and fuji for my upcomg feature. Tested 250D for both. Barring all the other details as shadow detail, black levels and other technicalities which only a technician/artist can figure out......the colors were just popping out of the screen on fuji film. Even a lay man could spot the contrastg diff in terms of colors...though the other intricate details like blk levls shadow detail grain contrast may affect him in a subliminal level. So kodak seems like a subliminal stock. My first feature had tested fuji and kodak which was 5 yrs bak and black hair was nver black on fuji it was blue hinted. But now my 6th feature aftr so many years the vivid stock seems to hv black as black. Have always been kodak loyal. Now might experiment with fuji.
Wat do u kodak and fuji loyalties hav to say to that....
Goddd this Cinema even at this level also is so intriguing! Thanks artists. Great to be part of this forum !
  • 0

#2 Ian Cooper

Ian Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Other
  • England

Posted 04 February 2011 - 03:08 AM

...Tested 250D for both...
<snip>
...the colors were just popping out of the screen on fuji film...
<snip>
...But now my 6th feature aftr so many years the vivid stock seems to hv black as black....



Was it the new Fuji "Vivid 250D" you tested, or the "Eterna 250D"?
  • 0

#3 Rajavel Olhiveeran

Rajavel Olhiveeran
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • India

Posted 04 February 2011 - 03:44 AM

Was it the new Fuji "Vivid 250D" you tested, or the "Eterna 250D"?



Hi Ian Cooper, its the Vivid 250 D! thx
  • 0

#4 Ian Cooper

Ian Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Other
  • England

Posted 04 February 2011 - 03:51 AM

Hi Ian Cooper, its the Vivid 250 D! thx


Thanks,
  • 0

#5 K Borowski

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

Posted 04 February 2011 - 11:54 AM

Well, a contrastier stock is going to "jump off" the screen every time. That is what happens with increasing contrast. The lower-contrast stock has more flexibility.

You can far more easily add contrast than take it away. The negative-positive system has ben lowering the contrast of neg. film more and more to make them more flexible in the DI process, which 99.99% of film goes through in the studio system.



The amount of blue, however, has absolutely nothing to do with film stock and everything to do with timing. The only places you will get color differences is where the curves don't line up with one stock, but do with another.


I feel just as bad you chose not to go with Fuji, because the timer didn't pull all the blue out of someone's black hair as I do that you'e about to go with a Fuji sstock over a Kodak stock solely due to higher contrast. Art for art's sake is a nice motto, but you're like a painter chosing paints by what the marketing slogan is written on the box.
  • 0

#6 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 04 February 2011 - 12:54 PM

Low contrast and Kodak + DI suck we just end up seeing low contrast crap on the screen . If i want that why shoot film from Kodak ,just shoot electronic what ever type you want . Kodak have a death wish when it comes to Pro motion picture stock .
  • 0

#7 K Borowski

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

Posted 04 February 2011 - 01:19 PM

If you want higher contrast, use 5260 ('80? The 5279 replacement). The Vivid line that Fuji makes has higher contrast, but as a result gives scanners more trouble. I know someone that really disliked it for that reason. He said it was far more troublesome to post grade for television.



Everyone here knows I'm a Kodak guy, but I am not going to reduce myself to knocking Fuji. They both make excellent stocks and keep one another on their toes by means of competition. It is idiotic and stubborn for you to say that the world would be better off with only one manufacturer. I guarantee you that either Kodak or Fuji would get really lazy and start coating sh** if that were to happen.


Motion picture films have always been a lower contrast. Sorry John, but the ship has sailed on photochemical finishing. You're like eight years late to that party. I just hope that Kodak, Fuji keep continuing to make the intermediate stocks that allow it to continue it as an option. If you shoot color stills, they don't even make paper to print it optically anymore, with the exception of the stuff that they use at the one hour photos. Kodak's new DI intermediate stock, along with Fuji's show that they're transitioning all the labs away from being able to support cut-neg. finishes. So you have a high con. stock with no intermediate stock to make a master positive, and several different types of scanners that hate contrast, what are you going to do with your neg.?

I like optical printing too, but let's face it: Scanning has been here since the early 1980s, and that is what most stocks (including Fuji's) are designed for.




So much of the "religious" crap I hear on here with regard to Kodak or Fuji are actually lab issues, labs set up for one stock or the other, labs whose timers are used to seeing Kodak or seeing Fuji. Learn how timing works before you are so quick to blame the emulsion manufacturers for a timer having a bad day, or working 12 hours because the other guy was sick and just getting it all done as quickly as possible.
  • 0

#8 georg lamshöft

georg lamshöft
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Berlin

Posted 04 February 2011 - 01:28 PM

That might be slightly off-topic, but why don't Kodak or Fuji go all the "DI-way" and focus on stocks like 5299? It seems to have advantages to ignore optical printing and the necessary technologies within the film - you don't even need to differenciate Tungsten or Daylight-film? But 5299 doesn't seem to be popular?
  • 0

#9 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 04 February 2011 - 01:51 PM

Karl i didnt know you are a "Kodak" guy , its over the many years i had to use their stocks that were put on the market way before they should have been and caused lots of problems . When Agfa launched XT 320 and 125 it was wonderful but they were forced out of the market by you know who . Now Fuji are really on the ball . If low contrast is the way ahead why have Kodak made 5260 ? John
  • 0

#10 K Borowski

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

Posted 04 February 2011 - 05:48 PM

That might be slightly off-topic, but why don't Kodak or Fuji go all the "DI-way" and focus on stocks like 5299? It seems to have advantages to ignore optical printing and the necessary technologies within the film - you don't even need to differenciate Tungsten or Daylight-film? But 5299 doesn't seem to be popular?



52/7299 are DISCONTINUED.


So obviously the market has decided that is NOT the way to go. Instead of "HD Scan Film," they've gone with HD Video. They can only sell what people want. That strike in the U.S. in '08 didn't help their cause, the way the contracts were written so that shows could get around the strike shooting "video" (formerly live action, but now, obviously dramas on HD tape fit in under those rules in a situation the original contract writers didn't imagine.)


John, I agree with you that Kodak has done some stupid things, made some stupid decisions, pissed people off. I am in a situation now where I am in the same boat as you: They've discontinued some of my favorite stocks.


I don't know why other people are into high contrast films. I think they're, frankly, ignorant of the lab process, how all of their film is scanned, how scanners hate higher contrast ranges, and can't handle it, and are instead buying film based on stupid words like "Vivid" "Extended Range" "Vision" Big Numbers, like oooh, wow 500, instead of getting off the computer, buying 100-foot cans and shooting tests.

Lazy people + marketing = sales of the highest-priced stocks. Why else would the film students be shooting the grainiest, worst-looking, least compatible film for S16 (7219) instead of a film, like 7201 that would look really good in 1080P? Why is 100T, the finest-grained tungsten stock, that again would make S16 look really good in HD discontinued?

Why is '99, a film that is the most compatible with the current workflow, has the most latitude, the most ideal for scanning, discontinued?


I think it's almost entirely because Kodak, Fuji, make the most money by the foot for 500T stocks; that's what they're sellilng. So that's what people are (blindly) buying.

I think the only think high-con. films have going for them is that they look better with older, crummier glass. They are GREAT for optical printing/contact printing, but honestly who is finishing movies that way anymore?


"Inception" was the only cut-neg. movie I know of in the theatres in 2010. Maybe the next Batman movie will be cut-neg. Then I don't know if we'll ever see it again. And cut neg. is going to be harder and harder to do, now that the greedy theatres are eagerly ripping out and scrapping every 35mm projector they can, as fast as they can build new digital ones.

Remember "Murder, She Wrote?" That was the last time a finished-on-film television show aired in the U.S. It's been FIFTEEN years already!



So to answer your question, there's now logical reason that high-con. products are selling. It's all marketing and hype, not what will look best through the DI pipeline. I just hope Fuji is making as much money as they can in the short term, because in the long term it's only selling film short because high-con. products won't render the best result scanned.

They're making the most profits (I hope) at the expense of long term film sales, because only scanned film that looks better than HD is going to keep people coming back and shooting 35mm, 16mm when it costs their budgets more. Why spend more money for something that doesn't convert to HD as well as straight HD without the extra costs?

I really hope they have a better pitch than high-contrast and nostalgia, because the new generation looks up the meaning of Nostalgia on Wikipedia on their iPhone 4s. Hopefully they can come up with a film stock that says NEW NEW NEW.




And John, I know ECN-2 didn't look as good as ECN, but did Kodak really force Agfa out of the market, or did Agfa worry too much about their product and not the snazzy name on the box? I know Agfa also had the WORST color fading characteristics. Maybe it looked the nicest, but I wouldn't want to be in charge of archiving those neg.'s. . .

I wish we had 3 film manufacturers left instead of two. At least we can get print stocks from Agfa still, as well as the Chinese. At least there are some options left there, at least for now.
  • 0

#11 Antti Näyhä

Antti Näyhä
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Other
  • Belgium/Finland

Posted 05 February 2011 - 05:22 AM

If you shoot color stills, they don't even make paper to print it optically anymore, with the exception of the stuff that they use at the one hour photos.

They most certainly do. Both Fuji and Kodak.

I don't know why other people are into high contrast films. I think they're, frankly, ignorant of the lab process, how all of their film is scanned, how scanners hate higher contrast ranges, and can't handle it, and are instead buying film based on stupid words like "Vivid" "Extended Range" "Vision" Big Numbers, like oooh, wow 500, instead of getting off the computer, buying 100-foot cans and shooting tests.

Have you considered the possibility that maybe some people simply prefer the results they get with hi-con neg, compared to what they get by shooting lo-con neg and increasing the contrast in DI?

I don't really have enough first-hand experience to have a strong opinion myself; I just think you might be underestimating the DoP's who make different choices than you do. Would be great to hear some insight from people who like Fuji Eterna Vivid etc. even when going through a DI.
  • 0

#12 K Borowski

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

Posted 05 February 2011 - 02:55 PM

No offense, but you're wrong. I read an article where Kodak discontinued normal contrast optical color paper, and that Fuji reformulated theirs.

Kodak doesn't make any paper in sheet sizes, so you'd have to buy it 300 feet at a time and cut it down, anyway. Fuji is reformulated so that it still works optically, but isn't ideal. Kodak only makes "Ultra" which is designed for high-contrast prints. It's basically the same contrast as amateur paper coated on lustre surface.

Don't hold your breath that they haven't already stopped making that one, but put off announcing it until the supples run out.


Fuji's surface is still available in sheets, but isn't ideal for printing optically anymore. The minilab glossy, high-contrast, wonky color papers are the only ones that are designed now with optical in mind (and Ultra, which again is the same thing).



My choice? You didn't read what I said. I would go with a cut neg. every time, contact print. I'd want to make a finished print even if the intended product were HD television. But read about Kodak's new digital-optimized intermediate stock and read between the lines. Do they still make EXR print stock intermediate stocks?

When you're forced to do a DI, there's no choice. That limits what you can do with film, what you can get out of film, and the amount of contrast you can even get off of the negative and into the finished, timed file.
  • 0

#13 Tim Gray

Tim Gray

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 February 2011 - 08:05 PM

No offense, but you're wrong. I read an article where Kodak discontinued normal contrast optical color paper, and that Fuji reformulated theirs.

Kodak doesn't make any paper in sheet sizes, so you'd have to buy it 300 feet at a time and cut it down, anyway. Fuji is reformulated so that it still works optically, but isn't ideal. Kodak only makes "Ultra" which is designed for high-contrast prints. It's basically the same contrast as amateur paper coated on lustre surface.


Kodak makes paper for minilabs still. It is high contrast, but since it's all pretty designed to go through minilabs that expose from digital files, the contrast is adjusted in the pre exposure stage. So it's probably 'alright' to have only one contrast of paper. I'm sure you know this though...
  • 0

#14 K Borowski

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

Posted 05 February 2011 - 11:20 PM

Being designed for digital and contrast control is WHY I have been making these arguments that high-con. stocks are designed for a workflow that doesn't exist. If you read my posts completely, you'll see that I already said that it's easier to add contrast than to remove it.


We're talking about optical papers, optical intermediate stocks being discontinued. If you're going through a digital process ANYWAY, then griping that Kodak's stocks are flat and lifeless and digital-looking as your high contrast film goes through the DI process and a computer makes the contrast decisions for you and comes out looking worse because of it, is an irony.


If people want to lock in their exposures, contrasts, looks photographically, that is fine. But acting as if a high contrast stock through a DI is the same, standardized, unalterable contrast that is going to be maintained through a true optical or contact process is ill-advised.

Edited by K Borowski, 05 February 2011 - 11:21 PM.

  • 0

#15 Rajavel Olhiveeran

Rajavel Olhiveeran
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • India

Posted 06 February 2011 - 01:53 AM

Thanks All. Its absolutely Orgasmic to discuss with such great depth and i feel grateful to this forum and all the artists who has taken
time to discuss in detail and the sustaining members who is making this possible.

As i did the DI for the test footage of Kodak and Fuji more interesting things were visible. even as the negative was neutralised in basic terms
(without touching the saturation/contrast/blk levels) the Fuji had enhanced colours and more generated skin tones. but even the fresh negative(fuji) without correction could see the image popping out in comparison to kodak. thats becos of the high contrast i guess and also realised that the highlights were burning a little more than kodak givg more separation of the foreground from the back ground image. I would love to post here the shots that had been taken for comparison. will do soon.
but the midtones seem to have lesser detail in Fuji.....and becos of that contours of an object seem to lack the 3dim quality to it and reduces to a more flatten image...which inturn is creating the increased contrast levels (i think). for example....the flowy hair of a girl at a distance shows no dimension in Fuji and its jet black.....whereas Kodak shows greyer tones on hair (according to the way light takes on) and thereby shows dim and looks more natural.
another incident where a grey granite stone looks grey on Kodak...whereas the stone looks a little cool on Fuji....and if on DI you drain the blue off the Fuji image to make the stone grey the dusky skin tone of the actor shows increased levels of redishness and that comes in the way of maintaing a normal skin tone.
well....am working on more of the details and will post images of same soon.
kindly consider my opinions as very basic as this is the first time am comparing the stocks extensively and am sure there are million other variables which i might have missed to consider.......its been a continuous learning process for me at every level....
thanks all....
  • 0

#16 K Borowski

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

Posted 06 February 2011 - 01:16 PM

You've just described in layman's terms the very problems I alluded to as reasons why high-con. stock is NOT optimal for DI.

I'm not knocking high-con. stocks, I just wouldn't waste them on a DI. I'd go straight to print from cut neg. and skip all the BS if I wanted a high-con. look. There's nothing wrong with wanting contrast and locking it in while shooting, but realize what it is, how it works, and how digital and contrast don't get along.

The lowest contrast stock is the best one for scanning. Then you add the contrast in digitally and don't have contrast problems and color crossover problems it sounds like you are talking about.
  • 0

#17 Antti Näyhä

Antti Näyhä
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Other
  • Belgium/Finland

Posted 07 February 2011 - 06:57 AM

No offense, but you're wrong. I read an article where Kodak discontinued normal contrast optical color paper, and that Fuji reformulated theirs.

None taken. I thought you were saying that they've stopped making paper that you can use to make traditional color prints in a darkroom, period.

My choice? You didn't read what I said. I would go with a cut neg. every time, contact print.

OK, let me rephrase: several respected DoP’s are choosing hi-con stocks for DI projects all the time. You're suggesting that all these people are just clueless victims of marketing; I’m suggesting that at least some of them have actually done extensive tests and for some reason or another feel that the result benefits their project.

I completely understand your argument for lo-con stocks, but I’m still interested in the opposing point of view. Let’s hear it, folks – anybody?
  • 0

#18 Antti Näyhä

Antti Näyhä
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Other
  • Belgium/Finland

Posted 07 February 2011 - 07:17 AM

several respected DoP’s

Let’s name a few who used Eterna Vivid recently: Tom Stern (Hereafter), Dick Pope (Another Year), Phedon Papamichael (Knight & Day), Rodrigo Prieto (Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps) and Oscar nominees Matthew Libatique (Black Swan) and Danny Cohen (The King’s Speech).

It’s a shame none of them are forum regulars :)
  • 0

#19 georg lamshöft

georg lamshöft
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Berlin

Posted 07 February 2011 - 11:43 AM

Great artists make stupid technical decisions all the time.

What exactly were they looking for? For a specific look? I guess. They clearly sacrificed flexibility, but when they knew exactly what look they wanted and they can achieve it with a specific-look stock, does it matter? I have no idea. Black Swan was too grainy and too-little detail, IMHO.

But what does a film for a DI need? High MTF, tight grain, high dynamic range? Does a low-con film pushed to hard contrast in post lack tonal transitions in comparison to a "native high-con" stock?

Edited by georg lamshöft, 07 February 2011 - 11:46 AM.

  • 0

#20 K Borowski

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

Posted 07 February 2011 - 12:42 PM

Let’s name a few who used Eterna Vivid recently: Tom Stern (Hereafter), Dick Pope (Another Year), Phedon Papamichael (Knight & Day), Rodrigo Prieto (Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps) and Oscar nominees Matthew Libatique (Black Swan) and Danny Cohen (The King’s Speech).

It’s a shame none of them are forum regulars :)


As Georg says, I don't think they are making misguided technical decisions as the victims of marketing shooting Vivid. I think they're making misguided technical decisions putting these stocks through a DI (like shooting B&W neg. and putting THAT through a DI would be misguided; getting negative scanned without digital ice, higher contrast, higher grain aliasing sounds like a NIGHTMARE). You're losing all the advantages of these stocks and only adding disadvantages to the DI workflow. I'm not saying all of the look is lost, just that it's a look that is hard to get optically, but rather easy to get digitally, without the problems of color crossover.

It's tough to get any of Vivid's look to survive through a 2K process.


Let me put it another way: If the colorist were to apply a Vivid look to a low-contrast, easy-to-scan negative stock like Vision 2 100T (it's really just increasing the contrast slightly in curves) how many of you would be able to tell a 4th generation print apart from a 4th Generation print of real Vivid? I am betting we would all have trouble.

Contact-printed dailies, I'm sure it's another story.
  • 0


Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

CineLab

Visual Products

Abel Cine