HD KODAK film

A

Angrius

Carbonite Member
Okay so I saw this in the store the other day and thought I'd try it out. High Definition film? Hmm.

I bought a roll of 400 and I can't honestly say how "hi-def" it is, but I will say the quality is pretty damn sharp. I'll post some pics in a day or so.
Has anybody else tried this film? I tend to just stick to Fuji but I'll try anything once. Twice if she's into it. Three times if she brings a friend.:Drogar-Evil(DBG):
 
The kodak HD thing is interesting. I've heard it's their answer to fuji taking lots of their sales. From what i've heard, it isn't really anything special except a marketing scheme.
 
Technically 35mm film should have the same, if not **higher** "Rez" than HD. Marketing big time! remember it's only 1900 pixels across by 1080 vertically at best. That's not all that many pixels for a 35mm cam it would be close to a meager 2 megapixel digital cam. Don't know when the last time you tried to make a poster sized print from a 2mp cam was but I can tell you it won't compare to ANY 35mm still cam.
 
What would everyone say about what color film produces the best, sharpest colors? I know this is subjective, but I'm always looking to try new film. I shot a roll of Kodachrome 100 and the slides look good, but haven't got a print. Usually for negative I shoot Kodak Gold 100UC, very good film, IMO. I'm also shooting Fuji Sensia right now. Any other opinions?
 
Just thought I would pop in to answer two questions. First the Kodak HD film, really has nothing to do with video HD, it's just a term, that Kodak thought they would take advantage of. The kodak HD film is a 400ASA film that is supposed to have finer grain than most other 400 speed films. Havn't tried it, I don't like to mess around with silly marketing terms, therefore, the name of this film has really turned me off.
Second, 35mm still camera film and 35mm motion picture film are not the same. While the celluloid that is used for both is similar, still frame cameras take an image that is placed horizontally on the film, whereas moition picture cameras project a vertical image on the film. If you then crop the image to 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 you are losing more resolution. So comparing a motion picture frame to a 2 mega pixel camera is fine, but a 35mm still camera frame compares more to a 6-8MP camera.
 
I think if anything, there is a slight cut down of grain from what I can see with the photos I took. Not enough to write home about.
 
The Kodak 400HD pales in comparison to the professional grade Portra line of Kodak films. HD is finer grain than the crappy Kodak Gold or Max line, but that's not saying much.

Angrius, play around with the Portra stuff if you get a chance...you'll like it. Comes in varying degrees of saturation and speeds up to 800. I still prefer the Fuji NPS or NPC, but I'll shoot Portra if I'm trying to bump up the reds.

Example:
http://ruckusarts.com/photo/advertising_gallery/advertising_3.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top