Jump to content


Photo

Anybody Used KODAK VISION2 HD Color Scan Film 7299


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Jonathan Bryant

Jonathan Bryant
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Athens, GA

Posted 25 July 2005 - 02:23 AM

What is it rated for? What does it look like? Would it work for regular 16mm?
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 July 2005 - 02:54 AM

What is it rated for? What does it look like? Would it work for regular 16mm?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


320 or 500 ASA.

Anything you want it to look like. It's very flat & soft, slightly grainy, but you can apply the look of different stocks to it in post with some preset color-corrections supplied by Kodak.

Sure, it doesn't matter if you shoot 16mm or Super-16 with it.

You just can't print it directly. It has no color mask. For telecine / scanning only.
  • 0

#3 Jonathan Bryant

Jonathan Bryant
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Athens, GA

Posted 26 July 2005 - 02:07 AM

320 or 500 ASA.

Anything you want it to look like. It's very flat & soft, slightly grainy, but you can apply the look of different stocks to it in post with some preset color-corrections supplied by Kodak.

Sure, it doesn't matter if you shoot 16mm or Super-16 with it.

You just can't print it directly. It has no color mask. For telecine / scanning only.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It sounds as though you are not crazy about it? Are the other stocks really better for telecine or does this VISION2 HD stock offer advantages to telecine?
  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 July 2005 - 10:39 AM

You'd have to test it yourself.

I don't really believe in the "one stock does all" approach, especially when that one stock is very fast. I mean, you can shoot '99 and select an '18 look for it in post, but then why not shoot '18?

'99 has a very, very wide latitude, which is great, but they should have made a slow-speed companion stock for it, but then that would negate their ability to say that "one stock does it all."
  • 0

#5 K Borowski

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

Posted 27 July 2005 - 10:46 PM

I've been looking for this stuff, but haven't found any at my usual film dealers, i.e. Film Emporium, Dr. Rawstock, etc. Is the only place to get it straight from Kodak? Does it cost about the same price per foot as other stocks, slightly more, slightly less? Also, is it standard ECN-2 process?

Regards.
~Karl Borowski
  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 27 July 2005 - 11:08 PM

Also, is it standard ECN-2 process?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Yes.

It's so new that it may not be available from dealers other than Kodak directly, I don't know. If you use it, Kodak is supposed to provide the telecine house with their LUT box add-on with the preset looks to match other stocks in their line-up.

Like I said, you can't print it and get acceptable color reproduction -- it has no color mask. Telecine / scanning only.
  • 0

#7 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 28 July 2005 - 10:15 PM

What is it rated for? What does it look like? Would it work for regular 16mm?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Here's the technical data for 7299:

http://www.kodak.com...1.4.4.4.4&lc=en

http://www.kodak.com...e/H-1-7299t.pdf

http://www.kodak.com...PCN040105_Q.pdf

It's a unique low contrast, very long latitude film intended for telecine/scanning using the special KODAK VISION2 HD Digital Processor:

Posted Image
  • 0

#8 K Borowski

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

Posted 29 July 2005 - 04:30 PM

I really wish you could get this kind of stock in 35mm so you could test it in an SLR or in one of those half-frame cameras since I assume only a telecine could properly invert the image. Wasn't the last telecine-only formulated film available in 35mm? I believe it was called PRIMETIME 640 or something like that.

Regards.
~Karl Borowski
  • 0

#9 Michael Most

Michael Most
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 765 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 July 2005 - 11:03 AM

I really wish you could get this kind of stock in 35mm so you could test it in an SLR or in one of those half-frame cameras since I assume only a telecine could properly invert the image.  Wasn't the last telecine-only formulated film available in 35mm?  I believe it was called PRIMETIME 640 or something like that.


You really don't want to mention that product to anyone who had the misfortune of having to use it.

Personally, I'm still baffled by the 99 approach. On the one hand, I can understand the desire of Kodak to cut down on the number of different stocks they need to manufacture, especially at a time when the consumer film market is rapidly eroding. On the other hand, I don't really see the advantage for anyone who has to use it, as it has "unusual" characteristics, requires specific equipment (provided by Kodak to facilities that need it, but specific nonetheless), a unique setup (fine if you're a facility that never sees any Fuji negative, not so fine if you're not), and cannot be printed for tests. The most it can do for you is offer you something "simillar" to 7218, and as David mentioned, if that's the case why not just shoot 7218 and not have the limitations? In many ways, I feel the same way as I did about the never-mention-its-name Primetime product - that it seems to be an elaborate solution in search of a problem. Which brings me back to the "because it's in Kodak's best interest" scenario......
  • 0

#10 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 01 August 2005 - 02:20 PM

The new Kodak VISION2 HD Color Scan Film 7299 has received interest and praise especially from nature and documentary shooters, who can't always control their lighting, and welcome the latitude and flexibility of the new film, giving better ability to achieve the "look" desired during post-production.

Kodak still makes a wide variety of color negative films with various speeds, balances, and "looks":

http://www.kodak.com...0.1.4.4.4&lc=en
  • 0

#11 K Borowski

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

Posted 02 August 2005 - 02:46 PM

Personally, I think it makes more sense to use a film like the '99 for TV-intended material rather than a negative film that is really designed more for making prints rather than scanning. I know that film scanners have come a long, long way, but I know that, at least with stills, people who scan tend to favor slides because sometimes the orange mask can lead to some noise levels on the digital file that the scanner produces. I doubt that '99 will replace traditional negative stocks, but I really do aplaud Kodak coming out with such a wide-latitude film that is optimized for scanning. I wish it were available in 35mm too though :-( However, I really wish that more people would shoot some so that poor folks like me can get some of those cheap short ends so we can test it out for ourselves. I really like that curve though John. The boys at EK did a nice job with that. I want to see if it really has that latitude.

~Karl
  • 0

#12 Filip Plesha

Filip Plesha
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1267 posts
  • Other
  • Croatia

Posted 02 August 2005 - 03:56 PM

Noise in negative scans is not due to orange mask, but due to the extreamly low contrast of the negative which needs to be processed by pushing the contrast up a lot, which also pushes the contrast of the noise from CCD's.

Both negative and slide scans start out the same way (same CCD, same raw scan data, only different post processing). So a scan of the negative give the same kind of image that you can view by eye on the negative (orange and low con).
The trouble is that CCD noise in this low con image is ALREADY in its "normal" contrast, and any increase in contrast pushes the noise more than it was as it came from the analog device.

The reason why slide film is popular for scanning is because it is such a straightforward job to do it if you have enough D-range on the device. You just scan it, take a look at the slide on the lightbox and make one or two minor adjustments. It's easy, it's fast and it gives instant out-of-the-box wow-scans.

It's more difficult to get wow-looking scans from negative unless you either have good scanning software, or you have access to raw scan data and some skill in photoshop.
  • 0

#13 John Pytlak RIP

John Pytlak RIP

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 3499 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Rochester, NY 14650-1922

Posted 02 August 2005 - 10:07 PM

From the demos I've seen, the graininess of the final image is very similar to a transfer made from Kodak VISION2 500T film, if the contrast and color "look" was adjusted to be the same. In other words, using a lower contrast negative does not entail a grain penalty when the final scene-to-screen "look" is a match.

I'll also argue that for scanning/transferring motion picture film, scanning a camera negative is always preferable to scanning a projection contrast reversal original.
  • 0


Opal

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Technodolly

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC