Vision 3 is an incredible line of film stocks, and if it's the last one standing, it's a good option to have. It has so much potential, especially when processed strictly photochemically and projected on film, to create incredibly rich and bold colors while still remaining natural. A very rare thing these days, and so very special.
Not to mention the discipline it requires on the part of the filmmaker to intentionally create the shot before filming it. We've lost that with Digital.
@@35mm21 Very true. Tons of takes, tons of watching the dailies/rushes. Hell, even the video assist (not as we know it today) was available by the early 60s, if not earlier and used by Jerry Lewis since he would usually direct and star in his films and needed to know if the take was good.
@@35mm21 It is the same in principle. Filmmakers that understand what everyone does in a big budget production, realise thst it still needs to be done, isolate each function and maintain priorities, have a better chance at producing high quality results.
@@35mm21 Yes, there is a difference of scale. But resources are always limited. Good planning is solid education. Some things today are too easy and quality and method suffer as a result.
Thank you. That's the key fact that has been escaping to most new cinematographers that want to achieve that "film look" (that's 99% of them); the reason why even having all the color grading techniques available in the world to make video look close to film, video still looks like video at the end of the process; that reason is the difference in how film and video capture the details: PIXEL vs GRAIN. pixels are all perfect squares on the entire picture while grain is shaped like cells and vary from frame to frame. That's why video looks and feels sterile, synthetic, while film looks and feels natural, organic.
Thank you so much for making this indepth look at a classic film stock. It’s so fun that, as you say, we have the tools to emulate 90% the characteristics you get from these classic film stocks. With resources like this digital shooters can get closer and closer to the look and feel and even play with the physical shooting techniques. For example, I’d be excited to load a 200T emulation lut into my camera, set the tungsten and iso to match that film stock, and then use a physical filters and techniques to get the results I want. Practice like that could help me get ready to shoot with the real deal and not blow my $$ on a bunch of noob mistakes. People may complain like we’ve “lost” so much but I see it as a huge gain and with the ever increasing popularity with this beautiful aesthetic, hopefully we can keep these processes around for a long time to come.
5:05 yes, the film has to be identified but not because of its film speed. The ecn2 process just like E6 and C41 are standardized so every film that uses the (in the case of vision 3) ecn2 process goes in the same chemicals with the same developing times. Unlike b/w negative were almost ever filmtype has different developing times and give different results in chemicals from different companies. God im so happy that the color processes are standardized.
Do not let there being one last color film stock be misconstrued. In some aspects, all you might need is one but more than one would be excellence! However with one color film stock remaining, there is the possibility to push or pull that film to achieve a Speed that is no longer being newly manufactured. Also, there is the bleach bypass process as well. I know we hear these "Film is hanging on by a thread" stories & content, but chances are Film will always be around, even if it is just B&W film. I have been using film & only film (I am a professional still-photographer) for the last 25 straight years. The concept behind the invention of film back in the 19th Century was that all we ever needed was one Speed of emulsion to use at a time. Photography is very pragmatic, I know we become excited with the gear talk, but all you need is one camera, one lens, one kind of film & one source of light, & you will find your way from there.
Film has become absurdly expensive both for photographers and video. The amount of rolls you need to buy/develop to beat out the cost of buying a great versatile digital camera is decreasing rapidly.
I agree, film photography has gotten really expensive, that being said, I have found a way to play the system. :) I have a Bolex H16 (non reflex) that I plan to covert to super 16mm soon. While I do occasionally shoot short films with my Bolex, I’ve found that pre-conversion I can get about 4000 still photography frames if I use the Bolex as a still photography camera. On top of producing really cinematic looking photography with the classic ‘film still’ look, it’s also unbelievably affordable. I just looked on eBay and for a pack of 5 rolls of Portra 400 it’s around $60-$70 at minimum. For a roll of Kodak vision 3 250D in 16mm it’s the same price. However with the Portra you’re paying $70 for 180 frames. Where as you get 40 frames a foot with the 250D and it’s 100ft of film. I'm not sure how converting my Bolex to super 16mm will affect the frames per foot count, but even if it lowers the number im almost positive it will still be a better value than a 5 pack of Portra 400.
@@Hxxrtbrxxk that is some helpful mathematics, thanks for sharing. As for myself, I have been going off of my experience. We leave in an instant gratification age (well Photography was always about instant gratification even with film, because it is compared to Painting). This instant gratification or eagerness tend to overlook the step by step process. I have mentored other film photographers & have had a lot of photographers reach out to me with advice on how to start off in Film Photography & I always tell them: You do not need a Leica. You do not need Ektat, Portra or CineStill. You do not need to rush through learning about film. I also tell them: Borrow or find an inexpensive film camera. Use Kentmere, Fuji Color or Arista EDU. Go to a film lab, drop your film off & ask the film tech questions. After a few trips to a film lab, you will know if you need to invest in your own darkroom or continue to focus in on just photographing on film.
@@owRekssjfjxjxuurrpqpqsswhen I had communication with Kodak, I told them that they were disregarding the consumer film community. It is like after their Ektachrome success, & then the Pandemic, they decided to increase their prices, hugely. I even mentioned that they should have a 120 film for consumers (right around the time they mentioned their Kodak Gold on medium-format). Their Kodak Gold on 120 is priced reasonably but with Kodak's track record, I would not be surprised if they spike up the price. Finally I told them that their greed to make film a boutique business is going to push their comeback away. ILford understands the consumer & the professional film photography worlds. How? Kentmere is inexpensive & it gives the new film photographer a chance to get comfortable with Harman's emulsion & as film photographers grow with Kentmere, they will flow right into HP, FP & Delta. Kodak used to have that with Colorplus & Gold but their price increases have made that learning about film difficult, price wise. If Fuji film focus in their color film stock, they could bring in those who use Kodak, because their prices are lower than Kodak.
@@shaunlaisfilm I agree completely with what you said in regards to shooting film on whatever camera you can and with whatever film you can afford. I think we can both agree that brands really don't matter. I had saved up years to buy a Leica M3 and Leica glass. I fell for the classic "this will make me a better photographer" trap. When I got it, it was all I shot with for a month and then I just completely stopped using it. I sold it a few months later. Meanwhile I use my second hand $5 Holga, which is held together with rubber bands, duct tape and the power of wishful thinking, just about everyday and I love it... Michael Kenna has a book called Holga that is full of pictures he took with his Holga and they are absolutely awe inspiring. A perfect embodiment of the adage: "It is not the camera but the eye's of the photographer behind it that takes a good picture". I also read your response to the other commenter on this thread @Emsye, and I appreciate what you said about Ilford! They don't seem to get enough credit, they really are extremely consumer oriented and familiar with the film industry, they take an active interest in the wants and needs of their customers and the community as a whole. To illustrate this point, I also practice Wet Plate Collodion and without a portable darkroom it's virtually impossible to use the process outside of a studio setting. Thankfully Ilford offered a solution not too long ago with a portal darkroom tent. Something I don't imagine any other film company would release. I'm aware this is something people have DIY'ed for a long time but I have neither the time or the tools to make one myself. I love Ilford.
Beautiful Essay as always! I really do wish that demand for older stock occurs, to achieve that look physically and they make them again, because the old look, especially Alfred Hitchcock color era looked beautiful. I do understand, its also cameras, lenses and lighting and costume and set colors that add to it. I know its easier to achieve on digital, but ive personally loved digital when its not trying too much to look like film, because it makes it look cheaper and it actually IS cheaper. Same goes for Film trying to look more digital, with modern lenses and cleaner stock. But it depends on what look the filmmaker wants, so to me, id use the medium I want the actual look of. VHS for VHS and so on.
@Phillip Banes Yeah you can always achieve the look digitally and those wish to, its their choice, but for me, id hate to for example add a VHS look to a digital movie, if i made one, id just shoot on VHS. The idea and experience of getting it naturally because of the medium and process is fascinating.
@Phillip Banes Which one? The classic ORWO color film? Technically it's way inferior to, say, anything by Kodak or Fuji, regarding color fidelity, but it looks artistically very pleasing to my eyes. The mood is very similar to what people are trying to achieve in certain types of color grading. And isn't an artistic look the reason why we use film in the first place?
@Phillip Banes yeah, makes me sick too. Same with the almost completely desaturated colors. It was done by people who discovered a new toy: color grading in software from inferior 2K scans. These were the 2000s for you.
@Phillip Banes Well accuracy has almost always been Agfa/OrWo’s thing. Kodak and Fuji always abstracted reality to create a more pleasing look. While accuracy can look good it’s almost always wrong for narrative work. You need to abstract things to make them more emotionally accessible to audiences. And Kodak’s and Fuji’s have been amazing at portraying realty in a way that may not be scientifically accurate, but feels emotionally authentic and truthful. Look at Dunkirk, that’s not what the real world looks like, but exactly how the world of the movie should feel. Not so say that cinematographers haven’t been able to be quite accurate with Kodak or Fuji stocks. It’s all very very nuanced. Just a few printer points here and there.
I hope with all of my being that film can stick around. After being able to shoot it on a couple of projects now, It's truly THE way to shoot. Everyone is so focused, the image is gorgeous, and i just like holding a light meter.
Great video. As always. But I think Steve Yedlin talks about grain in his resolution demo, and 65mm doesn't mean it is less grainy than 35mm. grain depends on other factors. Not just size.
I'm old and I prefer digital, but you kids have fun with the old stuff. I generally won't know how you shot it, but I will notice when it looks pretty. Surr did an amazing job on that new Fuji mirrorless.
Right, when film has become as clean as digital, they are faking the old grainy film look with 16-mm. Isn't this the clearest indication that film proponents do not look for film look in general, but for specific artifacts attributable to a particular era of film production?
I like the Portra 160,400 and 800 film stock for still photography, with its high exposure latitude. It can be overexposed without being overexposed and burned out. It would be cool if Kodak adapts this film stock for cinematic film. Furthermore, it could make a good job.
I was, as a photographer, looking for more information about use of it on my field but was amazing to know a little the use of this stock on it's original purpose. Now I'll be following the channel because as said I love movies too. Regards from Brazil.
You forgot about black and white film, Eastman 5222 or “double-X” that some films like “lighthouse” and “the French dispatch” are still using in the modern age!
PTA and Nolan still finish on film. Meaning they print film directly onto print or intermediate film and color time in an analog way. The digital version for their movies is either a scanned, timed inter positive element or negative carefully transformed and graded to look like the print. Their master format is the analog print. Also color negative film doesn’t really have an inherent look anymore since you can do all sorts of things with it in the digital color grade. The only way to see the look they’ve been designed towards is to print the negative or use a print film emulation LUT. That is because much of the look of an analog film is determined by the display preparation transform, meaning the print stock, scanner, or way the scans have been treated. A good example for that is The Northman, which has colors that look more like the Alexa than what we typically associated with Vision 3 films. Films like Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation or A Quiet Place have been graded digitally but still use a very print like transform to achieve an analog look. And many films like Mission Impossible: Fallout or No Time To Die don’t use a print transform but still achieve an analog look. One case where you can actually see a print in the digital version is The Hateful 8. It is the only movie from Tarantino since Jackie Brown that was finished photochemically and they’ve decided to scan an actual print instead of an inter positive element for the digital version. But Nolan’s and PTA’s digital version all look very close to prints too. Especially the SDR versions.
@@HBarnill “Tarantino also asked you to forgo the use of a digital intermediate, which gives cinematographers enormous control over adjusting shots, and even parts of shots, in postproduction.” -Robert Richardson interview with the LA Times. He also goes into further detail in the Kodakery Podcast. Obviously any digital version of a film movie goes through a digital intermediate, even those that have been scanned from the print because white balance and contrast need to be set and professional motion picture film scanners don’t deliver in a ready to watch format. But the master version of The Hateful 8 was analog, Ultra Panavision 70. I saw the roadshow print earlier this year and it hadn’t been struck from the original camera negative so there was some generational loss visible. Still looked great tho.
It would make sense that Vision 3 is meant to be scanned or transferred to a film print, but the only way to see the look it was designed for would be with say a Resolve 2383 LUT?
@@EM-ve9bh A 2383 LUT would be the closest digital equivalent. Don’t know how good the Resolve 2383 LUTs are. I know the Resolve Arri Log-C LUT is pretty trash.
@@VariTimo Hmm I guess this is where I get confused. I've always been told that Vision 3 stocks all scan very very flat. Which is better for color grading. When doing a film out, the film is scanned, the images are color graded and then transferred back to 2383 positive film print. What would a 2383 LUT do to your scanned film? Or it wouldn't be needed?
@@EM-ve9bh Serval things. A movie film scan is flat because the scanner scans in Log to record as much image data onto a file as possible. It has nothing to do with color grading. Professional colorists almost never work with untransformed Log footage. A 16 Bit linear file has as much information as a 10 Bit Log file. For a film out the image is a digital file then. So the transform can be whatever you want because it gets transformed to be able to be printed again. And the footage is never filmed out to print stock. It always gets filmed out onto intermediate stock to make a negative, which is then contact printed onto print stock. Print film LUTs have been invented to stay consistent with the print look even when doing a DI. A good print out should look almost identical to what you’re seeing a digital screen. The LUT simply transforms the digital scan to have the colors and contrast that a print stock would give. You could scan a neg and film it out onto intermediate stock to have the colors of the original neg to be colored during printing. That’s how Nolan does it with his VFX shots. When doing a photochemical print like Nolan and PTA do, without a DI, the print stock determines to look. When doing a film out the print stock is simply the medium on which the final image is recorded, it won’t impose a look. People just liked the way print film looks and used that for their DI. It has little to do with the fact that it’s been filmed out again, other than the fact that they wanted the look but with the tools of a DI.
5:00 by the way two Eastman 35mm tungsten balanced stocks with a sensitivity of 100 and 125 ASA were really popular in the 80s, especially in the US, and they were both marked 5247
I like digital cinematography as much as the next guy. And I love the different visual styles of the Alexa, Red & CineAlta cameras. But at the end of the day, I still prefer the look of film. There's a magic to film that I think digital will never achieve.
Sad how color negative motion picture became more irrelevant but at that moment ironically got „replaced“ with a weird nostalgia hype that tries to mimic motion picture film (film convert, dehancer, LUTs) and so on.
And ironically, Vision3 is very low grain, because it was developed when Kodak was on the brink of bankrupcy, so they tried to emulate "digital" to compete with it. The low grain look is not very nice and is a reason why I shoot lower speeds and push to increase grain. There are very few directors that approach digital as its own thing. One I can think of is Michael Mann, who doesn't try to make his digitally shot films look "filmic". They look very different. The other one is the recently deceased Godard, who always embraced new technology. From when video came, and then DV, and then digital cameras and then later the phone. His first feature film was shot on a photojournalist film at 400 ISO and camera aimed at photojournalists (because the gears on regular motion picture cameras couldn't be used with the Ilford film at that time, since the sprockets were perforated differently) to eliminate the need for lighting outdoors (and even indoor scenes only used like 2-3 lights). The mobility and cinema whenever and by whatever means was the mantra of Godard's filmmaking, and I sincerely hope it doesn't die out with him.
Could you please make video of how film looks out of camera before colour grade?? And compare with digital camera before and after colour grade...curious to see how much work goes into it to get the film look ..many thanks
It's crazy that the demand is so high that companies are literally cutting this up and repackaging it with their own name! Clearly film's not dead. I hope the prices go down to "let me eat once a month plz" levels.
All major feature films are backed up on photochemical film stocks, while ORWO has issued some new color negative film based on AGFA XT320, so your title is now no longer accurate. Good video!
Vision3 is Eastman Stock. The different varieties of Vision3 are the newest and also last Eastman Stocks made using the ECN-2 process. ECN stands for Eastman Color Negative.
If only physical film are getting cheaper then I also would want to try one but no, they’re getting out of reach for most beginner. Thanks to Hollywood, we now got a nearly 1:1 match of film emulation on a digital realm. You can match everything on digital camera or in post with much broader flexibility.
Can somebody explain me, untill when or have the older 35mm Films been published always straight out after development how they had been recorded? or have they been always graded in some way in the old Days (Contrast lifting etc.)? And when newer 35mm Films were scaned completly, in with computer-format have the been scaned to still contain good information? (sure it was/is not jpeg format) Thanks!
you said strongness of grain is due to the size of the film, but cant you also emphasize grain by exposure? from my understanding a dop could emphasize grain by underexposing the footage. Thanks for the interesting content.
I believe he said that relating to the moment when we watch the film on a screen in comparison to a film with a different gauge. Films in the same stock has the same size of the grain when processed equally. As the grain acts like a pixel, in a 65mm film, you have a much higher number of grains, but the size of each one, is the same. It's like watch a 480p video on a huge tv and then watching it in 4k. It's not the underexposure that alters the size of the grain to bigger, but the process of pushing it in the development.
*It's digitalization that analog film looks that good* Super 8 and 16mm in particular benefit from digitalization. All the shortcomings of the analog format disappear and only the fantastic look remains.
The look of film is sorta inversely proportional to it's guage because grain and halation and light scattered in emulsion is the same number of microns from super8 to IMAX. Digital sensors are becoming so good, commercial top enders blow way past 35mm. New films like Tenet or Nope still on celluloid need to be large format to hold up. Probably now, with prototype cameras films are being made with 12-16k sensors hitting IMAX+ benchmarks. But if you shoot 65mm, especially fine grain, you get that color quality but it will be more like a UHD digital look. In trying to beat digital film could get a more clinical digital style.
Vision 3 sounds the closest to the old hard to get Kodak Aerocolor, since the 1930's. No wonder the favorite cheater film dried up. Aerocolor developed AN6, a military process that bypassed Kodachrome. Both negatives and positive prints cross to digital and magnetic images better than direct digital recording. This means film masters best.
Yeah, should have mentioned the Ectachrome they brought back in 2017. But I'm sure he left out the B&W stocks since the name of the video is the last COLOR negative motion picture film in the world. Which is not really true for long either as ORWO is bringing out a whole new range of stocks very soon.
I was just wondering do you have to have a high I.Q. to get into cinematography, the reason why I ask is because I have a very low I.Q. below average and failed at school but I really love movies and would love to learn cinematography but feel I don't have the smarts for it.
It's funny how the late 2000's Kodak Vision 3 introduction video you can still find here on RUclips looks WAY more filmic than 90% of the movie extracts you've shown on your video - they look cinematic, not filmic. Ask the laymen, they'll mistake most of these shots for digital. I don't know if it's because no one cares to do traditional grading on a copy print before scanning it but, god, most of the Vision 3 movies I've seen might have a good photography but they lack the depth of you used to see "back in the day". Even Euphoria is too clean - but how could it be otherwise, the new Ektachrome is just like what digital could be if color sensors were designed to have a soul and not just sharpness. Even S16mm 500t is great on a fresh copy print : but most of the negative scans are a lackluster bunch of grain and paleness. A money issue I guess...
@@truefilm6991 Define "beautiful" and "artistic" in relation to a bunch of pixels. My point, you can get exactly the same image with present-day digital as film save for skew, jello and flash-banding. But the last issue is being fixed as well, there are CMOS-based cameras with global shutter.
@@TinLeadHammer Yes it has been done in the movie Knives Out, including fake grain, halation, contrast curve, highlight roll off and even gate weave as it occurs in a 4th generation 35mm print. It still isn't quite right. Call me an old fart.
@@TinLeadHammer exactly. On film, we try to avoid grain like the pest. The gate weave is also horrible. To address the first, we use the lowest ISO possible, slightly overexpose and color grade carefully. Weave or jitter can be stabilized in post.
Red Rocket would have been a good example for modern 16mm films - amazing looking film
Vision 3 is an incredible line of film stocks, and if it's the last one standing, it's a good option to have. It has so much potential, especially when processed strictly photochemically and projected on film, to create incredibly rich and bold colors while still remaining natural. A very rare thing these days, and so very special.
I still lament the loss of the Fujifilm stocks. I would love to see an IMAX 70mm feature shot on Eterna or Velvia.
I prefer old kodak, the vision 3 is too modern, bring no emotion, imo
@@Jon8ight about Vision 3 50D agree, but 3 250D is a beautiful film.
just shot my senior capstone film entirely on Vision3, absolutely stoked for the scan
So, how was it?
Not to mention the discipline it requires on the part of the filmmaker to intentionally create the shot before filming it. We've lost that with Digital.
definitely, but i also think digital allowed more filmmakers to develop the run n gun style of shooting
@@brianparody420 fax
@@35mm21 Very true. Tons of takes, tons of watching the dailies/rushes.
Hell, even the video assist (not as we know it today) was available by the early 60s, if not earlier and used by Jerry Lewis since he would usually direct and star in his films and needed to know if the take was good.
@@35mm21 It is the same in principle. Filmmakers that understand what everyone does in a big budget production, realise thst it still needs to be done, isolate each function and maintain priorities, have a better chance at producing high quality results.
@@35mm21 Yes, there is a difference of scale. But resources are always limited. Good planning is solid education. Some things today are too easy and quality and method suffer as a result.
Thank you. That's the key fact that has been escaping to most new cinematographers that want to achieve that "film look" (that's 99% of them); the reason why even having all the color grading techniques available in the world to make video look close to film, video still looks like video at the end of the process; that reason is the difference in how film and video capture the details: PIXEL vs GRAIN. pixels are all perfect squares on the entire picture while grain is shaped like cells and vary from frame to frame. That's why video looks and feels sterile, synthetic, while film looks and feels natural, organic.
This goes doubly so when also projected (recent example being Oppenheimer, that was shot, edited and projected photochemically)
Thank you so much for making this indepth look at a classic film stock. It’s so fun that, as you say, we have the tools to emulate 90% the characteristics you get from these classic film stocks. With resources like this digital shooters can get closer and closer to the look and feel and even play with the physical shooting techniques.
For example, I’d be excited to load a 200T emulation lut into my camera, set the tungsten and iso to match that film stock, and then use a physical filters and techniques to get the results I want.
Practice like that could help me get ready to shoot with the real deal and not blow my $$ on a bunch of noob mistakes.
People may complain like we’ve “lost” so much but I see it as a huge gain and with the ever increasing popularity with this beautiful aesthetic, hopefully we can keep these processes around for a long time to come.
5:05 yes, the film has to be identified but not because of its film speed. The ecn2 process just like E6 and C41 are standardized so every film that uses the (in the case of vision 3) ecn2 process goes in the same chemicals with the same developing times. Unlike b/w negative were almost ever filmtype has different developing times and give different results in chemicals from different companies. God im so happy that the color processes are standardized.
Do not let there being one last color film stock be misconstrued.
In some aspects, all you might need is one but more than one would be excellence!
However with one color film stock remaining, there is the possibility to push or pull that film to achieve a Speed that is no longer being newly manufactured.
Also, there is the bleach bypass process as well.
I know we hear these "Film is hanging on by a thread" stories & content, but chances are Film will always be around, even if it is just B&W film.
I have been using film & only film (I am a professional still-photographer) for the last 25 straight years.
The concept behind the invention of film back in the 19th Century was that all we ever needed was one Speed of emulsion to use at a time.
Photography is very pragmatic, I know we become excited with the gear talk, but all you need is one camera, one lens, one kind of film & one source of light, & you will find your way from there.
Film has become absurdly expensive both for photographers and video. The amount of rolls you need to buy/develop to beat out the cost of buying a great versatile digital camera is decreasing rapidly.
I agree, film photography has gotten really expensive, that being said, I have found a way to play the system. :)
I have a Bolex H16 (non reflex) that I plan to covert to super 16mm soon.
While I do occasionally shoot short films with my Bolex, I’ve found that pre-conversion I can get about 4000 still photography frames if I use the Bolex as a still photography camera.
On top of producing really cinematic looking photography with the classic ‘film still’ look, it’s also unbelievably affordable.
I just looked on eBay and for a pack of 5 rolls of Portra 400 it’s around $60-$70 at minimum.
For a roll of Kodak vision 3 250D in 16mm it’s the same price.
However with the Portra you’re paying $70 for 180 frames. Where as you get 40 frames a foot with the 250D and it’s 100ft of film.
I'm not sure how converting my Bolex to super 16mm will affect the frames per foot count, but even if it lowers the number im almost positive it will still be a better value than a 5 pack of Portra 400.
@@Hxxrtbrxxk that is some helpful mathematics, thanks for sharing.
As for myself, I have been going off of my experience. We leave in an instant gratification age (well Photography was always about instant gratification even with film, because it is compared to Painting).
This instant gratification or eagerness tend to overlook the step by step process.
I have mentored other film photographers & have had a lot of photographers reach out to me with advice on how to start off in Film Photography & I always tell them:
You do not need a Leica.
You do not need Ektat, Portra or CineStill.
You do not need to rush through learning about film.
I also tell them:
Borrow or find an inexpensive film camera.
Use Kentmere, Fuji Color or Arista EDU.
Go to a film lab, drop your film off & ask the film tech questions.
After a few trips to a film lab, you will know if you need to invest in your own darkroom or continue to focus in on just photographing on film.
@@owRekssjfjxjxuurrpqpqsswhen I had communication with Kodak, I told them that they were disregarding the consumer film community.
It is like after their Ektachrome success, & then the Pandemic, they decided to increase their prices, hugely.
I even mentioned that they should have a 120 film for consumers (right around the time they mentioned their Kodak Gold on medium-format).
Their Kodak Gold on 120 is priced reasonably but with Kodak's track record, I would not be surprised if they spike up the price.
Finally I told them that their greed to make film a boutique business is going to push their comeback away.
ILford understands the consumer & the professional film photography worlds.
How?
Kentmere is inexpensive & it gives the new film photographer a chance to get comfortable with Harman's emulsion & as film photographers grow with Kentmere, they will flow right into HP, FP & Delta.
Kodak used to have that with Colorplus & Gold but their price increases have made that learning about film difficult, price wise.
If Fuji film focus in their color film stock, they could bring in those who use Kodak, because their prices are lower than Kodak.
@@shaunlaisfilm I agree completely with what you said in regards to shooting film on whatever camera you can and with whatever film you can afford.
I think we can both agree that brands really don't matter.
I had saved up years to buy a Leica M3 and Leica glass. I fell for the classic "this will make me a better photographer" trap.
When I got it, it was all I shot with for a month and then I just completely stopped using it. I sold it a few months later.
Meanwhile I use my second hand $5 Holga, which is held together with rubber bands, duct tape and the power of wishful thinking, just about everyday and I love it...
Michael Kenna has a book called Holga that is full of pictures he took with his Holga and they are absolutely awe inspiring. A perfect embodiment of the adage: "It is not the camera but the eye's of the photographer behind it that takes a good picture".
I also read your response to the other commenter on this thread @Emsye, and I appreciate what you said about Ilford!
They don't seem to get enough credit, they really are extremely consumer oriented and familiar with the film industry, they take an active interest in the wants and needs of their customers and the community as a whole.
To illustrate this point, I also practice Wet Plate Collodion and without a portable darkroom it's virtually impossible to use the process outside of a studio setting.
Thankfully Ilford offered a solution not too long ago with a portal darkroom tent. Something I don't imagine any other film company would release.
I'm aware this is something people have DIY'ed for a long time but I have neither the time or the tools to make one myself.
I love Ilford.
THANKYOU for keeping film a big part of your channel.
Beautiful Essay as always!
I really do wish that demand for older stock occurs, to achieve that look physically and they make them again, because the old look, especially Alfred Hitchcock color era looked beautiful. I do understand, its also cameras, lenses and lighting and costume and set colors that add to it. I know its easier to achieve on digital, but ive personally loved digital when its not trying too much to look like film, because it makes it look cheaper and it actually IS cheaper. Same goes for Film trying to look more digital, with modern lenses and cleaner stock. But it depends on what look the filmmaker wants, so to me, id use the medium I want the actual look of. VHS for VHS and so on.
@Phillip Banes Yeah you can always achieve the look digitally and those wish to, its their choice, but for me, id hate to for example add a VHS look to a digital movie, if i made one, id just shoot on VHS. The idea and experience of getting it naturally because of the medium and process is fascinating.
ORWO is about to release a new 500 speed color negative motion picture film in all formats from Super 8 to 65mm.
Yep. Eagerly awaiting it. The classic ORWO look is great. You can see it in old East German movies and tv shows.
@Phillip Banes Which one? The classic ORWO color film? Technically it's way inferior to, say, anything by Kodak or Fuji, regarding color fidelity, but it looks artistically very pleasing to my eyes. The mood is very similar to what people are trying to achieve in certain types of color grading. And isn't an artistic look the reason why we use film in the first place?
@Phillip Banes yeah I know. Teal and orange. Oh boy....
@Phillip Banes yeah, makes me sick too. Same with the almost completely desaturated colors. It was done by people who discovered a new toy: color grading in software from inferior 2K scans. These were the 2000s for you.
@Phillip Banes Well accuracy has almost always been Agfa/OrWo’s thing. Kodak and Fuji always abstracted reality to create a more pleasing look. While accuracy can look good it’s almost always wrong for narrative work. You need to abstract things to make them more emotionally accessible to audiences. And Kodak’s and Fuji’s have been amazing at portraying realty in a way that may not be scientifically accurate, but feels emotionally authentic and truthful. Look at Dunkirk, that’s not what the real world looks like, but exactly how the world of the movie should feel. Not so say that cinematographers haven’t been able to be quite accurate with Kodak or Fuji stocks. It’s all very very nuanced. Just a few printer points here and there.
I hope with all of my being that film can stick around. After being able to shoot it on a couple of projects now, It's truly THE way to shoot. Everyone is so focused, the image is gorgeous, and i just like holding a light meter.
Great video. As always. But I think Steve Yedlin talks about grain in his resolution demo, and 65mm doesn't mean it is less grainy than 35mm. grain depends on other factors. Not just size.
Where did he say that. Not in the Res Demo.
I'm old and I prefer digital, but you kids have fun with the old stuff. I generally won't know how you shot it, but I will notice when it looks pretty. Surr did an amazing job on that new Fuji mirrorless.
Oh how I wish you would tell us more about your experience.
You will know the moment you see crooked lightpoles.
Very interesting to learn the use of 16mm nowadays is dictated by the low grain of Kodak 500...
Right, when film has become as clean as digital, they are faking the old grainy film look with 16-mm. Isn't this the clearest indication that film proponents do not look for film look in general, but for specific artifacts attributable to a particular era of film production?
I like the Portra 160,400 and 800 film stock for still photography, with its high exposure latitude. It can be overexposed without being overexposed and burned out. It would be cool if Kodak adapts this film stock for cinematic film. Furthermore, it could make a good job.
Now I wanna learn how to shoot on film. This is so cool and very informative. Glad I subbed a long time ago... Also hello from Cape Town
There are hand-cranked IMAX cameras..? That’s the main thing I learned from this video!
Nah. that's fiction of film 'nope'
I was, as a photographer, looking for more information about use of it on my field but was amazing to know a little the use of this stock on it's original purpose. Now I'll be following the channel because as said I love movies too.
Regards from Brazil.
You forgot about black and white film, Eastman 5222 or “double-X” that some films like “lighthouse” and “the French dispatch” are still using in the modern age!
The title and video specifically talks about color negative
PTA and Nolan still finish on film. Meaning they print film directly onto print or intermediate film and color time in an analog way. The digital version for their movies is either a scanned, timed inter positive element or negative carefully transformed and graded to look like the print. Their master format is the analog print.
Also color negative film doesn’t really have an inherent look anymore since you can do all sorts of things with it in the digital color grade. The only way to see the look they’ve been designed towards is to print the negative or use a print film emulation LUT. That is because much of the look of an analog film is determined by the display preparation transform, meaning the print stock, scanner, or way the scans have been treated. A good example for that is The Northman, which has colors that look more like the Alexa than what we typically associated with Vision 3 films. Films like Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation or A Quiet Place have been graded digitally but still use a very print like transform to achieve an analog look. And many films like Mission Impossible: Fallout or No Time To Die don’t use a print transform but still achieve an analog look.
One case where you can actually see a print in the digital version is The Hateful 8. It is the only movie from Tarantino since Jackie Brown that was finished photochemically and they’ve decided to scan an actual print instead of an inter positive element for the digital version. But Nolan’s and PTA’s digital version all look very close to prints too. Especially the SDR versions.
@@HBarnill “Tarantino also asked you to forgo the use of a digital intermediate, which gives cinematographers enormous control over adjusting shots, and even parts of shots, in postproduction.”
-Robert Richardson interview with the LA Times.
He also goes into further detail in the Kodakery Podcast.
Obviously any digital version of a film movie goes through a digital intermediate, even those that have been scanned from the print because white balance and contrast need to be set and professional motion picture film scanners don’t deliver in a ready to watch format. But the master version of The Hateful 8 was analog, Ultra Panavision 70. I saw the roadshow print earlier this year and it hadn’t been struck from the original camera negative so there was some generational loss visible. Still looked great tho.
It would make sense that Vision 3 is meant to be scanned or transferred to a film print, but the only way to see the look it was designed for would be with say a Resolve 2383 LUT?
@@EM-ve9bh A 2383 LUT would be the closest digital equivalent. Don’t know how good the Resolve 2383 LUTs are. I know the Resolve Arri Log-C LUT is pretty trash.
@@VariTimo Hmm I guess this is where I get confused. I've always been told that Vision 3 stocks all scan very very flat. Which is better for color grading. When doing a film out, the film is scanned, the images are color graded and then transferred back to 2383 positive film print.
What would a 2383 LUT do to your scanned film? Or it wouldn't be needed?
@@EM-ve9bh Serval things.
A movie film scan is flat because the scanner scans in Log to record as much image data onto a file as possible. It has nothing to do with color grading. Professional colorists almost never work with untransformed Log footage. A 16 Bit linear file has as much information as a 10 Bit Log file.
For a film out the image is a digital file then. So the transform can be whatever you want because it gets transformed to be able to be printed again. And the footage is never filmed out to print stock. It always gets filmed out onto intermediate stock to make a negative, which is then contact printed onto print stock. Print film LUTs have been invented to stay consistent with the print look even when doing a DI. A good print out should look almost identical to what you’re seeing a digital screen. The LUT simply transforms the digital scan to have the colors and contrast that a print stock would give.
You could scan a neg and film it out onto intermediate stock to have the colors of the original neg to be colored during printing. That’s how Nolan does it with his VFX shots.
When doing a photochemical print like Nolan and PTA do, without a DI, the print stock determines to look. When doing a film out the print stock is simply the medium on which the final image is recorded, it won’t impose a look. People just liked the way print film looks and used that for their DI. It has little to do with the fact that it’s been filmed out again, other than the fact that they wanted the look but with the tools of a DI.
I shoot with Kodak Vision 3 on 35mm cameras and it looks 👌
5:00 by the way two Eastman 35mm tungsten balanced stocks with a sensitivity of 100 and 125 ASA were really popular in the 80s, especially in the US, and they were both marked 5247
They say Eastmancolor fades.
I like digital cinematography as much as the next guy. And I love the different visual styles of the Alexa, Red & CineAlta cameras. But at the end of the day, I still prefer the look of film. There's a magic to film that I think digital will never achieve.
@@phillipbanes5484”hipster talk” 🤡
Some of the best (Hollywood) directors still shoot film. Tarantino, Nolan, Spielberg, Paul Thomas Anderson, Sam Mendes.
And all other great directors shoot on digital.
How do you decide what film stock to use say in a fluorescent mixed lighting set up?
Sad how color negative motion picture became more irrelevant but at that moment ironically got „replaced“ with a weird nostalgia hype that tries to mimic motion picture film (film convert, dehancer, LUTs) and so on.
And ironically, Vision3 is very low grain, because it was developed when Kodak was on the brink of bankrupcy, so they tried to emulate "digital" to compete with it. The low grain look is not very nice and is a reason why I shoot lower speeds and push to increase grain.
There are very few directors that approach digital as its own thing. One I can think of is Michael Mann, who doesn't try to make his digitally shot films look "filmic". They look very different. The other one is the recently deceased Godard, who always embraced new technology. From when video came, and then DV, and then digital cameras and then later the phone. His first feature film was shot on a photojournalist film at 400 ISO and camera aimed at photojournalists (because the gears on regular motion picture cameras couldn't be used with the Ilford film at that time, since the sprockets were perforated differently) to eliminate the need for lighting outdoors (and even indoor scenes only used like 2-3 lights). The mobility and cinema whenever and by whatever means was the mantra of Godard's filmmaking, and I sincerely hope it doesn't die out with him.
Memoria such a good film
And now we have that new process with Dune and The Batman to combine some of those more organic film qualities into the DI.
...which are?
@@Kevon420 I don't know about Batman but with Dune they decided to shoot on Alexa LF transfer to 35mm Vision3 and then scan it back again to digital.
@@Fedorevsky They could make it twice as good by repeating the process again.
Thanks a lot for this well made video! Such great info ❤
Could you please make video of how film looks out of camera before colour grade?? And compare with digital camera before and after colour grade...curious to see how much work goes into it to get the film look ..many thanks
Please sir make video on using light meter in moving shots ..... please sir....
It's crazy that the demand is so high that companies are literally cutting this up and repackaging it with their own name! Clearly film's not dead. I hope the prices go down to "let me eat once a month plz" levels.
the only thing i want to know is what movies you used in the "B-Roll" shots ??
thanks for the video explanation👍🏻
German Adox are currently in the process of releasing a brand new motion picture film “ColorMission”
it's a shame there are not more variations of Film stock, especially as the only one left is similar to Digital Film than traditional Film.
Kodak's Ektachrome reversal film is not a Vision3 stock, but it is commercially available. Marcell Rév shot a lot of season 2 of Euphoria on it.
Is it really commercially available? I know that they bring it back exclusively for Euphoria
All major feature films are backed up on photochemical film stocks, while ORWO has issued some new color negative film based on AGFA XT320, so your title is now no longer accurate. Good video!
I did not know there was only the possiblity to shoot on Kodak vision 3 these days. Thought they still do the Eastman stocks
Vision3 is Eastman Stock. The different varieties of Vision3 are the newest and also last Eastman Stocks made using the ECN-2 process. ECN stands for Eastman Color Negative.
Great video.
But how can we still keep the 5254 look like the Godfather in modern films ?
If only physical film are getting cheaper then I also would want to try one but no, they’re getting out of reach for most beginner.
Thanks to Hollywood, we now got a nearly 1:1 match of film emulation on a digital realm. You can match everything on digital camera or in post with much broader flexibility.
Can somebody explain me, untill when or have the older 35mm Films been published always straight out after development how they had been recorded? or have they been always graded in some way in the old Days (Contrast lifting etc.)? And when newer 35mm Films were scaned completly, in with computer-format have the been scaned to still contain good information? (sure it was/is not jpeg format) Thanks!
what's the name of the movie you use as b-roll In the introduction? in the desert...
you said strongness of grain is due to the size of the film, but cant you also emphasize grain by exposure? from my understanding a dop could emphasize grain by underexposing the footage. Thanks for the interesting content.
I believe he said that relating to the moment when we watch the film on a screen in comparison to a film with a different gauge. Films in the same stock has the same size of the grain when processed equally. As the grain acts like a pixel, in a 65mm film, you have a much higher number of grains, but the size of each one, is the same. It's like watch a 480p video on a huge tv and then watching it in 4k. It's not the underexposure that alters the size of the grain to bigger, but the process of pushing it in the development.
*It's digitalization that analog film looks that good*
Super 8 and 16mm in particular benefit from digitalization. All the shortcomings of the analog format disappear and only the fantastic look remains.
What about Ektachrome?
Awesome & Thanks :)
The look of film is sorta inversely proportional to it's guage because grain and halation and light scattered in emulsion is the same number of microns from super8 to IMAX.
Digital sensors are becoming so good, commercial top enders blow way past 35mm. New films like Tenet or Nope still on celluloid need to be large format to hold up. Probably now, with prototype cameras films are being made with 12-16k sensors hitting IMAX+ benchmarks.
But if you shoot 65mm, especially fine grain, you get that color quality but it will be more like a UHD digital look. In trying to beat digital film could get a more clinical digital style.
What is the movie at 9:22 ?
I thought Kodak was still producing Ektachrome, Tri-X, and double-X besides Vision.
perfecto
Cool Video!
What is power window? Give me some URL.
would it be posible to use these film stocks in a stills camera?
May i ask what is the movie name 0:30?
It's definitely possible for digital footage to be softened with effects like blur, halation can be replicated with a pro mist filter.
A+ 🎞️
Name of the movie?
That is such a weird room to do film editing in.
What movie at 8:22 .???
Anyone happen to know the film at 5:39?
I have 2 cans of kodak Vision 3 500T 5219 that I want to use to shoot still photos, how can I make it work?
Yes. You have to get the Rem Jet removed though. You have to send it to a specialist developer.
Vision 3 sounds the closest to the old hard to get Kodak Aerocolor, since the 1930's. No wonder the favorite cheater film dried up. Aerocolor developed AN6, a military process that bypassed Kodachrome. Both negatives and positive prints cross to digital and magnetic images better than direct digital recording. This means film masters best.
0:18 what movie is that from?
Nope by Jordan Peele
Be the Voice Of Iranian people🕊 #iran #women_life_freedom #مهسا_امینی #زن_زندگی_آزادی #مرد_میهن_آبادی
It's not the last film stock available. Kodak also still makes EKTACHROME color reversal film. They also have 2 B&W stock. Double X and Tri-X
Yeah, should have mentioned the Ectachrome they brought back in 2017. But I'm sure he left out the B&W stocks since the name of the video is the last COLOR negative motion picture film in the world. Which is not really true for long either as ORWO is bringing out a whole new range of stocks very soon.
@@Fedorevsky I'd also like him to talk about B&W stocks
@@gblatt8472 Yes, that would be cool
They're just mentioning the Color Negative stocks, not all the stocks period.
What movie was that in the beginning part of the video?
Nope
@@quincygray9659 ????
@@bljkhaikal That's the title. The film is actually titled "Nope" haha.
@@BloodyMunchkin hahaha ohhh 😂😂
Kodak engineer invents digital video recording, is ignored by Kodak leadership, and Kodak goes belly up. Classic.
👌👌
Wait, so there are no longer B&W motion picture film stock?
There are still. Kodak Double -X on 35mm and 16mm. Tri-X reversal on 16mm and Super 8 as well as Fomapan and Orwo on 16mm.
What’s the film at 6.52 where he’s loading film in the small tent thing?
Nope
@@quincygray9659 pardon?
@@lostinmusicalspace2480 that the name of the movie "nope"
@@quincygray9659 Who's on first?
I was just wondering do you have to have a high I.Q. to get into cinematography, the reason why I ask is because I have a very low I.Q. below average and failed at school but I really love movies and would love to learn cinematography but feel I don't have the smarts for it.
Having smarts helps in all things in life but you mainly need experience. Just try it and see how it works out. Best of luck!
@@wackywong Oh thank you for that, I definitely will, I really appreciate it.
Start with still photography
@@jltrack Oh thank you, will do, much appreciated.
Just spend a lot of time doing it. Like anything practice makes perfect.
It's funny how the late 2000's Kodak Vision 3 introduction video you can still find here on RUclips looks WAY more filmic than 90% of the movie extracts you've shown on your video - they look cinematic, not filmic. Ask the laymen, they'll mistake most of these shots for digital. I don't know if it's because no one cares to do traditional grading on a copy print before scanning it but, god, most of the Vision 3 movies I've seen might have a good photography but they lack the depth of you used to see "back in the day". Even Euphoria is too clean - but how could it be otherwise, the new Ektachrome is just like what digital could be if color sensors were designed to have a soul and not just sharpness. Even S16mm 500t is great on a fresh copy print : but most of the negative scans are a lackluster bunch of grain and paleness. A money issue I guess...
Meh. Aside of rolling shutter, modern digital cameras are as good or better than film.
Better technically, but not more beautiful or artistic.
@@truefilm6991 Define "beautiful" and "artistic" in relation to a bunch of pixels. My point, you can get exactly the same image with present-day digital as film save for skew, jello and flash-banding. But the last issue is being fixed as well, there are CMOS-based cameras with global shutter.
@@TinLeadHammer Yes it has been done in the movie Knives Out, including fake grain, halation, contrast curve, highlight roll off and even gate weave as it occurs in a 4th generation 35mm print. It still isn't quite right. Call me an old fart.
@@truefilm6991 I am all for highlights roll-off and whatnot, but I think that adding grain and gate weave is just stupid, these are defects.
@@TinLeadHammer exactly. On film, we try to avoid grain like the pest. The gate weave is also horrible. To address the first, we use the lowest ISO possible, slightly overexpose and color grade carefully. Weave or jitter can be stabilized in post.
Film is grounded, saturated, gritty whilst digital is clean but lacks that magic
Since this shit won’t see or reply comments ,anyone up here can suggest where I can study about technicalities of vision 3 or any filmstock?
There's Kodak PDFs about the stocks
Yooooo calm down. Use Google and shut up