Introducing KODAK VISION3 200T Color Negative Film 5213/7213
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- Stay connected. Sign up for Email Updates from Kodak ShootFilm: www.kodak.com/g...
The KODAK VISION3 Film family has raised the bar for high-definition capture with unrivaled highlight latitude, reduced grain in shadows, flexibility in post, and, of course, proven archival stability. Now, with the addition of KODAK VISION3 200T Color Negative Film 5213/7213, we've developed a film that performs superbly in both controlled interiors and in challenging high-contrast exteriors.
www.kodak.com/g... for more info!
Kodak makes amazing film stock. The noticeable difference in the look of films and TV shows shot with these stocks speak for themselves.
Hard to believe that Vision3 200T is 11 years old. Even harder to believe that Kodak still hasn't got something new. I refuse to believe that V3 can't be improved upon. Time to start thinking about Vision4...
Agreed. I want a Vision4 as well
Film is simply the standard.
looks beautiful. you should make a 4k version of this.
Is there any place we could download a better copy of these kodakshootfilms at?
We get it, 35mm is better than 16mm. It's also exponentially more expensive. However these tests make both look so incredible. I am curious though, was a daylight filter used on the outdoor shots? It looked so incredibly accurate considering this is a tungsten balanced film.
Awesome, just awesome! Gorgeous looking, silky smooth yet highly defined detail. Well I'm confused: has this all been shot on Super16mm or 35mm? The RUclips data compression doesn't show the grain structure... :-/
+Christian Schonberger I'd say 35
+Walnut Spice Yep, I'd say the same. It just would be nice to have that in the description.
5213 is the 35mm stock
7213 is the 16mm stock
Thanks for the information. Found it out some time a go: Kodak/Eastman stocks have a four digit number to identify the exact emulsion. First digit 5 = 35mm; First digit 7 = 16mm (and on currently available stocks = Vision 3 color neg stocks and Tri-X B&S reversal = Super 8mm as well). Thanks.
@roblc11 But of course you could record raw output from the Alexa using a T-Link recorder. More expense, more time wasted on set, drastically more expensive costs in post, and then you still don't quite get those creamy highlights, vivid colors, and natural skin tones that you would have got with film.
Yeah, totally. Film is a HUGE waste of time.
I'd love to know what lenses were used on the 16mm stuff. It's very sharp and clean. At the height of my film usage, I got very low-gain results (shot mostly 7217 and 7212) but even my best prime lenses weren't that nice.
@roblc11 You seem to work in the doc world. Digital may be the "easy" option there, but it's the opposite in scripted films. Film is WAY WAY easier to shoot. Less hassle, faster progress from set-up to set-up on set and much more control in post makes for tonnes of time and money saved. That usually offsets cost savings provided by the medium. Costs that on a large production are already insignificant.
including the prices for everything from camera rental, film stock and processing, editing etc it is about 4 times cheaper to shoot on 16mm film than on an Alexa. So why go for 'the film look' when you can go with the real thing?
@roblc11 "Watch and edit immediately". Yeah, I hear that one all the time. You can review and edit immediately with film too. It's called a video assist and it's been around for decades.
The fact is constant reviewing and editing on set just interferes. If you lack confidence in what you just shot and you can't get along without seeing it immediately your film is going to suffer regardless. Good directors and cinematographers know what they are running through the camera way beforehand.
do you know what the main differences are between 5219 and 5213 other than one is 500T and the other 200T?
7213 is a great stock! Using it on The Reef, a stop motion animated film with a very demanding color and contrast range.
mainly saturation in the skin tones as well as range between shadows and highlights. Not too much difference.
Pity this is only 720p
@roblc11 Waste time? Like how you have to waste time with a DIT on set baking in looks for every set-up when, with a film camera you can just shoot it and worry about colour grading in post, where you should be worrying about it. And how about that time wasted trying to grade a shot where the look was baked in and wasn't quite what you wanted but you've lost the dynamic range to play with, where as if you had shot film you would have the full range of the negative to play with.
@kobayashiarmatron Please contact your local Kodak Rep to discuss:
A+
If you mean magnetic sound recording strips, no it does not.
Why is the guitar upside-down?
@roblc11 Dominating the cinema industry hunh? Go to IMDb, look at recent and upcoming studio releases, note what the MAJORITY of them are shot on and then we can continue this discussion. Yes, digital is here to stay. But film is not going anywhere, the two are going to share the industry for a while yet.
@roblc11 I'd venture a guess that you haven't worked on many professional-level productions, in fact judging by your RUclips channel it's not what you do. Take it from someone who knows first-hand, when the quality of the final image matters digital is a compromise and can SEVERELY limit the ability to realize your creative vision. I talk from personal experience, I want to like shooting digitally, but after much trying the end result just doesn't cut it.
skin tone is the selling point right
@roblc11 Please put down the crack pipe :/
thank you a lot!
I want to see that calculation pls :)
looks digital
I think what you mean is "this is what digital is mimicking" Vision 3 has been out for over ten years now. The first stock released in 2007.
That or you mean "it doesn't look like a tape telecine transfer which is what most people associate with "film"."
btw cinema is film AND NOT DIGITAL!!! (altough it has a DI postproduction, hopefully in at least 4k)
I'm sure Emmanuel Lubezki would disagree, seeing as he won three Oscars for Best Cinematography shooting on digital cameras. Roger Deakins has also switched to digital.