The Last Colour Negative Motion Picture Film In The World: Kodak Vision 3 

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.

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.

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.

@@thomas_dries 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.

@@Kdkjdjewerdnxawhen 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.

@@shaunla.1098 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.

@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.

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.

This goes doubly so when also projected (recent example being Oppenheimer, that was shot, edited and projected photochemically)

Where did he say that. Not in the Res Demo.

They say Eastmancolor fades.

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.

Nah. that's fiction of film 'nope'

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?

@@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.

The title and video specifically talks about color negative

...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.

Oh how I wish you would tell us more about your experience.

You will know the moment you see crooked lightpoles.

@@phillipbanes5484”hipster talk” 🤡

Yes. You have to get the Rem Jet removed though. You have to send it to a specialist developer.

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.

And all other great directors shoot on digital.

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.

Is it really commercially available? I know that they bring it back exclusively for Euphoria

Nope

@@quincygray9659 ????

@@bljkhaikal That's the title. The film is actually titled "Nope" haha.

@@BloodyMunchkin hahaha ohhh 😂😂

Nope

@@quincygray9659 pardon?

@@lostinmusicalspace2480 that the name of the movie "nope"

@@quincygray9659 Who's on first?

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.

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.

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.

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.

There's Kodak PDFs about the stocks

Yooooo calm down. Use Google and shut up