New Kodak Vision 3 stock, 5213/7213 200T

David G. Smith

David G. Smith

Steak Knife Member
Kodak has introduced its new Vision 3 medium speed tungsten balanced stock, 5213/7213. Looks like it is going to replace 5217/7217. Nice little demo video. It looks to be tighter grained, with better color reproduction (Less yellow) and some marginally better dynamic range.

 
im literally sad. I dont think i will ever have the oppertunity to shoot on film again. ITs been 4 years since i've shot 35, and that was BEFORE the REDONE. I really dont think it will ever happen again.
 
Finnegan said:
But film processing costs aren't going down, and that's the tipping point.
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth. I did a quote last winter for a feature to be shot on Super 16mm, 10:1 shooting ratio, and the cheapest I could get the fixed cost (Camera, lenses, support rental plus raw stock, processing and best light transfer-to HD files) was $60K. The producer ended up going with an F3.

TimurCivan said:
Yea but I've yet to find a digital camera with a soul.
Click to expand...

I like to prefer to it as "MOJO"!!!

I like to think about it in the bases of terms. One uses a precious metal to make an image and the other makes images with sand: silver nitrate vs. silicon imaging chips. I know, I know, I know... that does not mean that much, but I like the imagery.
 
David G. Smith said:
I like to think about it in the bases of terms. One uses a precious metal to make an image and the other makes images with sand: silver nitrate vs. silicon imaging chips. I know, I know, I know... that does not mean that much, but I like the imagery.
Click to expand...

It's pretty amazing what the alchemists can make out of sand these days, though. :-)

Like many, I started out as a film guy, and was pretty much the last of my peer group defending it. But by the early '80s, it was clear that the distribution of my stuff was mostly going to be on TV, and for a total independent financing everything out of his own pocket, even then the cost of film and processing was killing me. A side effect of making the jump to video was that I got to shoot a lot more (both in the sense of more projects, and higher ratios on the ones I did), and that continuous practice made me a better filmmaker. Ironic that I had to step down to a lower quality medium to make that happen.

When I show my students film cameras, projectors and sample movies these days, they react as if they were documents written on parchment with a quill pen ... I'm afraid we will be the last generation ever exposed to movie film at all.

- Greg
 
Too true. Last Jan 26 I was present at the last picture showing at a 100yr old theatre here in Sydney, 1911-2011. It started out as a vaudville theatre and the last session was a Wed. 9pm, 'Unstoppable' (sic) About 60 of the previous staff turned up and we toasted the art deco place in champagne.

Interesting to watch the reactions of the different ages, you can imagine the results. Yep the *kids* will miss a few memorable things including the smell in the projection rooms, the noise of the film ratcheting through etc.

Pity, and it was one of the best sounding theatres in Sydney. Time moves on.

Cheers.
 
I'm sure the last steam powered ship crew said the same thing about coal....

You're right time, goes on.
 
Well, I admit I am a bottom feeder, guerrilla filmmaker and there is no way that I could shoot film now, but I am so glad that I did start on film, shooting Super 8mm then moving up to 16mm. I feel that I am very fortunate to have at least one 16mm feature under my belt. My experience with 35mm is unfortunately limited to ACing on a few commercials, but that was great. I do try to keep up with the advancements that Kodak and Fuji are up to. I pitch film for projects all of the time, but the economics, in the pond I swim in, just do not justify film in most instances. Digital is my present, and definitely the future for all of us, but film is still, IMHO, the gold standard.

Raster, I feel ya, for sure. As far as the current state of the art, I personally think that digitally projecting content shot on film, in the commercial theaters I have been in, is crime. I won't go see a movie, that I know was shot on film, in a digital theater. I did it with "No Country For Old Men", first seeing it projected digitally at a commercial theater, then seeing a projected film print and there was no comparison.

Ahhh, shucks... I don't want this thread to ramble off to the "Film vs. Digital" argument....

Hey, Ya'll.... Kodak has introduced a new stock, and it looks great. Let's leave it at that.
 
I think Film will always be around, though. You're right - technology advances in both directions, Film and Digital.

It is a completely different feeling on set when you're shooting Film as opposed to Digital, and I think for some filmmakers that will never go away, and it could even be passed down.

Not to head in the Film v Digital direction, but I also don't see Film going away soon because of its still dominant resolution over Digital. Arguably, the Epic, with its 5k imaging and HDRx technology, is very close to 3-perf 35mm film, but it still falls short of 65mm and 70 mm film in terms of resolution, which is physically four times the size of 35mm. And, of course, it doesn't touch IMAX.

I think until it reaches that point, Digital will still be second to film in terms of the "gold standard" David mentioned. When that time comes, Film may turn into a chosen effect like filters in front of the lens; for getting a gritty look in-camera, what's better than S16mm?
 
Well..... Alexa....

and the F3 when it has Slog ALMOST has a soul... sort of like a pot bellied pig.... You know they amost have a soul, where as dogs definitely have something going on behind the eyes....
 
Film is commitment.

On a low-budget indie production (especially shorts), it can put the fear of God into anyone with a stake in the image rendered from it. At least that's how I remember feeling shooting 35mm on my 'thesis film'. (the most pretentious film school term of all) When I called action and truly heard the camera "roll", it was commitment. It was scary, and also exhilarating. I had to trust my DP and focus on other things. There was also mystery because there was no instant gratification.

Expensive as hell, but imbued with soul because shooting the format gave some gravitas to the process. It didn't make me a better filmmaker, just maybe a little less distracted.

But what do I have to show for it? An SD DV master letterboxed in a 4.x3 format. Ugh.



Digital ='Brave New World'. But it sure is fun to keep participating in "progress"!
 
Film won't be around forever, because it is an expensive process.

In order to be profitable, film will either have to be made in great batches and sold to many people for reasonable cost or will have to be made for a few people at an exorbitant price.

Think of Kodak. They have the know-how, experience and technology to design film stocks and manufacture the film. But what happens when the corporation recognizes that it is not profitable anymore? That day is rushing towards us at an ever increasing speed. Kodak and Fuji are companies thus they won't be making film emulsion at a financial loss just for the sake of art or making some old cinematographers happy.

See the problem? The truth is, Kodak and Fuji need product demand in order to make a profit. The more films go Digital, the less demand there is. If things continue down this road, the giant companies who make film emulsion will evolve with the market and drop motion picture celluloid film production. Then what? We can form a hipster collaborative film-art-house company and make our own celluloid film in basement laboratories. We'll probably make a crappy reversal film emulsion worthy of an intro-to-film class. And it will cost you $100/foot.

Because of the complicated and sophisticated nature of making high quality modern film stocks, the corporations will abandon it when it no longer is a profitable business. Not because they don't want to, but because they have to. And we are not capable of making a good modern film emulsion on our own. Film will die.

I'm sorry.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top