Sorry for the late reply, but we do have prints available for viewing in Hollywood. Contact your local rep for details by following the link in the description above.
I love to shoot my movies in techniscope (2 perf) one day soon. Most of my favorite movies were shot in that format. I love the gorgeous detail & qualities it gives out. I truly love #techniscope its my most favorite. I #love #moviemaking period, its my life. I'm a #moviemaker & I AM PROUD!!!!!
I'm really confused here. The presenter is saying he can't tell the difference between 2-perf and 3-perf in the shots at 8:48? There is a clear difference between the two. One looks far sharper. It's not even close. Was he watching this on a mobile phone screen or something?
I was searching for Konvas USSR 35mm motion picture camera and this footage by kodak came up. Was it filmed with a Konvas also or only with panavision?
Hello, Kodak, I have Arri 2C with JVC video assist on the left and I wanted to ask, could you please tell me what framerates would be for each type, 2-perf, 3-perf and just 35mm as it says on your Film Calculator (don't know what it means). Considering the picture height changing, with 3 perf supposedly taller than 2, how should I set my framerates? I basically want to shoot at 24, but Im confused which of the two would be ideal for it and how to frame through the viewfinder, to have the safe areas so the main composition doesn't get cropped. Thanks
If there were enough supporter I'm pretty sure it would be possible (maybe not now but in 10/20 years) to develop "Kodak Vision 4" which would be that good that even this footage (and a Sony 8k digital cinema camera) look extremely bad. But as long as people aim at digital cameras film will disappear...
This is a very helpful demo, but I would say that it is pretty obvious the 2-perf has less resolution than the 3-perf in the side-by-side, despite what the VO says. Having said that, I still would prefer the 2-perf over Red or any video look any day.
It's an illusion. Digital camera values don't hold up -- it's called digital rot. The need to backup, and backup the backup, adds to digital's cost. And then there's all the post that's needed. Digital film-makers forget the disciplines of film-making and end up with high shooting ratios, sometimes over 100:1 -- hell for us editors and not necessarily a better result. Finally, film best light doesn't need expensive grades. Film is wonderful and it would be a sad demise to lose it.
I’ve been in the industry for 20 years.... shot both 35mm and digital, on any budget it is still cheaper and easier to backup and post process digital than it is film. There’s no such thing as “digital rot” everything is kept in its raw format up until a DCP is made.
thinking about something is just electrons inside a chip that is smaller than a hair,makes me feel nervous that those data will last for long or not.Even though short term tests proved that digital storage devices are pretty durable under radiation exposure and magnetic exposure but an negative would be good in a world that has no computer.I love shooting film as an photographer.
Grain is a problem for broadcasters who compress for delivery to immensely popular platforms such as BBC iPlayer. Grain doesn't compress easily. But, yes, grain makes the film beautiful, so small, small grain is the goal to keep everyone happy. #ShootFilm
you should've demonstrated the differences between 2-perf and 3-perf as a split screen throughout the video, at least if not - then devoted a whole section. You only used it once at the end... come on.
It is, but it seems like it’s cropped to fit the aspect ratio of the 3 perf. I think the demo is demonstrating how you can use both for the same shoot with out much grain/quality difference. But a lot of people chose 2-perf for the economy of the stock. Basically, it’s a smaller frame on the film, therefore, more film to use which is ultimately cheaper. But like all things, it can be a creative or technical tool
Might have been the scanning from film to digital; if the resolution isn't high enough to capture the film grain clearly, it will look like a low bit rate due to compression.
I really like where Digital is going now looks wise, but you can't beat a film print.
this is not print stock, this is film stock
film will forever look better
Looks a little early 2000's-ish.... Pretty cool, actually!
That’s because of the duds hair.
No that’s because of the film
I really hate youtube compression
Would be cool if you could choose between compression settings depending on wifi speed.
wow I never realized 2 perf and 3 perf have the same aspect ratio.
beautiful. I wish I could live in this world. You need to have an old maiden aunt come in and interupt the couple just as they about to get bizi.
haha
Sorry for the late reply, but we do have prints available for viewing in Hollywood. Contact your local rep for details by following the link in the description above.
I love to shoot my movies in techniscope (2 perf) one day soon. Most of my favorite movies were shot in that format. I love the gorgeous detail & qualities it gives out. I truly love #techniscope its my most favorite. I #love #moviemaking period, its my life. I'm a #moviemaker & I AM PROUD!!!!!
The ideal world! I'd watch that movie, would love to help film it!
Best I have seen for a long time, good work.
I'm really confused here. The presenter is saying he can't tell the difference between 2-perf and 3-perf in the shots at 8:48? There is a clear difference between the two. One looks far sharper. It's not even close. Was he watching this on a mobile phone screen or something?
I would like to see someone experimenting with a 1-perf format, maybe add a fish eye lens for a panoramic field of view.
Unfortunately RUclips compression has just turned all the grain into a blocky mess. I can't really tell the difference at all because of it.
I was searching for Konvas USSR 35mm motion picture camera and this footage by kodak came up. Was it filmed with a Konvas also or only with panavision?
Glad you like it!
To me the 2 perf looks sharper gorgeous colours and highlighs!
Hello, Kodak, I have Arri 2C with JVC video assist on the left and I wanted to ask, could you please tell me what framerates would be for each type, 2-perf, 3-perf and just 35mm as it says on your Film Calculator (don't know what it means). Considering the picture height changing, with 3 perf supposedly taller than 2, how should I set my framerates? I basically want to shoot at 24, but Im confused which of the two would be ideal for it and how to frame through the viewfinder, to have the safe areas so the main composition doesn't get cropped.
Thanks
If there were enough supporter I'm pretty sure it would be possible (maybe not now but in 10/20 years) to develop "Kodak Vision 4" which would be that good that even this footage (and a Sony 8k digital cinema camera) look extremely bad. But as long as people aim at digital cameras film will disappear...
This is a very helpful demo, but I would say that it is pretty obvious the 2-perf has less resolution than the 3-perf in the side-by-side, despite what the VO says. Having said that, I still would prefer the 2-perf over Red or any video look any day.
It's an illusion. Digital camera values don't hold up -- it's called digital rot. The need to backup, and backup the backup, adds to digital's cost. And then there's all the post that's needed. Digital film-makers forget the disciplines of film-making and end up with high shooting ratios, sometimes over 100:1 -- hell for us editors and not necessarily a better result. Finally, film best light doesn't need expensive grades. Film is wonderful and it would be a sad demise to lose it.
This comment didn’t age well haha.
@@josephrhodes2896 You clearly don't know what you're talking about...
I’ve been in the industry for 20 years.... shot both 35mm and digital, on any budget it is still cheaper and easier to backup and post process digital than it is film. There’s no such thing as “digital rot” everything is kept in its raw format up until a DCP is made.
thinking about something is just electrons inside a chip that is smaller than a hair,makes me feel nervous that those data will last for long or not.Even though short term tests proved that digital storage devices are pretty durable under radiation exposure and magnetic exposure but an negative would be good in a world that has no computer.I love shooting film as an photographer.
@@sigmagamer364 so... you think film stock will last forever?
The fidelity of celluloid is unparalleled man!
Grain is a problem for broadcasters who compress for delivery to immensely popular platforms such as BBC iPlayer. Grain doesn't compress easily. But, yes, grain makes the film beautiful, so small, small grain is the goal to keep everyone happy. #ShootFilm
Processing and scanning needs to be made affordable for film to make a full return.
I WANT THIS CAMERA AND FILM, HOW CAN I BUY IT?
what camera was this shot on ?
Love Kodak. Love film whether it's 35mm, 65mm, 16mm, etc. #celluloid #photochemical #motionpictures
Nice !!!
very nice video .. thnx ..
you should've demonstrated the differences between 2-perf and 3-perf as a split screen throughout the video, at least if not - then devoted a whole section. You only used it once at the end... come on.
Film is alive in 2021
Colonial Street!
This little movie is adorbs!
sieg meow. no one has a 2-perf camera for sale. someone is hoarding them all.
I thought the perf was how much the aspect ratio was. Like 4 perf being 4:3 and 3 perf being widescreen
It is, but it seems like it’s cropped to fit the aspect ratio of the 3 perf. I think the demo is demonstrating how you can use both for the same shoot with out much grain/quality difference. But a lot of people chose 2-perf for the economy of the stock. Basically, it’s a smaller frame on the film, therefore, more film to use which is ultimately cheaper. But like all things, it can be a creative or technical tool
2 perf 4 me.
I think I'm a 2-perf kinda guy
It's pretty funny watching this in 1080p
3-perf is better
Life has grain. Life has no pixels.
Looks digital!
+rexcrossnet
it would if you have eyesight problems
Might have been the scanning from film to digital; if the resolution isn't high enough to capture the film grain clearly, it will look like a low bit rate due to compression.
you guys need proper understanding of youtube compression. This doesnt count as demo...
its nice to see white people in a film for once