>Got this from a friend, thought I' pass it on, since frankly I don't know the answer to this
>I like to know what you know about Kodak Vision 35mm print film.Ê Here is an identification number that might help you - p4750(1870) EI.Ê Perhaps you can make some sense of it.
>I was able to procure approx. 4000ft of it.Ê It is print film, however.Ê I know print film is often used for shooting already exposed film either for effects or threatrical release prints etc etc.Ê How often do people use it for priniciple cinematography?
>Duraid Munajim Toronto, Canada
>I like to know what you know about Kodak Vision 35mm print film
>This is indeed "often used. . . for theatrical release prints etc". It is the basic stock-in-trade film stock that is designed and used for just that. The "Vision" name is now used by Kodak for nearlyt all their latest stocks, both neg and print.
>This describes the perforations. They are standard (long) pitch i.e there is 0.1870 inches between perfs, compared with camera negative at 0.1866in. Also they are rectangular and slightly larger than negative (BH) perfs, so you can look forward to rather unsteady images if you attempt to load your camera with this stock.
>I think it is only _very_ rarely used for principle photography, and only if you want a _very_ unusual result. You would need to expose with the EI rating in single figures, expect a _very_ contrasty negative with wildly erratic colours, and if you are looking to get a neutral grey, use at least 2 Wr 85 filters.
>By the way it goes through a different process than colour negative, and you would need to find a lab that was happy to run it for you.
Group Technology & Services Manager
>Considering that it has an Exposure index (ASA) of about 6 or 8, and that the perf pitch is all wrong for camera sprockets, and that it is "A" wind instead of "B" wind. I doubt that ANYONE can say they use it as camera original.
>But HEY, anything is possible.
>Joe Di Gennaro, SOC DP/Camera Operator Sherman Oaks, CA
> How often do people use it for priniciple cinematography?
>I used 3395 (16mm lo-con teleprint stock) last year on a short film - it was the director's choice for an extreme, cartoon-like contrast, and also because it is cheap compared to negative. I just got to see the rushes (dailies) recently after a long wait - tiny budget...
>you can look forward to rather unsteady images if you attempt to load your camera >with this stock.
>I'm not sure how significantly different 16mm print perforations are from neg, but 3395 ran fairly happily through an LTR7 - not much noisier than usual, and I didn't see any unsteadiness problems, although this might be different in a purely pin-registered 35mm camera without lateral guides.
>You would need to expose with the EI rating in single figures, expect a _very_ >contrasty negative with wildly erratic colours, and if you are looking to get a neutral >grey, use at least 2 Wr 85 filters.
>Ouch! 2 85s and single figure EI? Not a nice thought. We did indeed get a very contrasty negative, although this was supposedly a lo-con print stock. Consistent lighting for action was a nightmare - it was like the lights were out if the actors moved a foot away from their marks. Anything other than a mid-grey tone in the costumes either blew out or disappeared. I would suggest wardrobe and makeup tests! And lots of lights :-) We shot unfiltered, under tungsten light, and although I wouldn't like to judge colour from the budget one-light telecine I saw, it did appear mostly blue/magenta in cast - definitely not natural skin-tones - and was oddly desaturated. I was expecting more dramatic/erratic skewed colour. Although it was fairly impossible to control, when things worked right the look was very strong, also sharp and almost grain-free. I wouldn't recommend it as a first choice for an easy life, however - I think if this type of look is essential it would be much more safely achieved (if not quite the same) by duping to a high-con intermediate of some sort (Dominic?) or going the digital route.
>Tom Debenham writes :
>I'm not sure how significantly different 16mm print perforations are from neg, but
>The pitch is different (as in 35mm), being 0.2994in for neg and 0.3000in for print, but the perf shape and size is the same for neg and pos, so a non-pin-register camera wouldn't see much difference in neg and pos (refer back to the Ilford discussion lat week, pitch wasn't the issue there either).
>contrasty negative, although this was supposedly a lo-con print stock
>Look at the gammas: negative should be a little over 0.5. Normal print is in the 3.2 to 3.6 range while lo-con is only marginally less than that - around 2.8 to 3.0 from memory. THat's low for a print, but still a factor of several times negative gamma.
>colour from the budget one-light telecine I saw, it did appear mostly blue/magenta
>you'd get more correction on a telecine than on a graded print - but they would have had to lean hard on it to get anywhere close to neutral colour balance.
>and was oddly desaturated
>the dyes and dye sensitivities are expecting to see a film negative image with orange masking, not a natural-coloured image. There is a lot of desaturation going on because of crosstalk between the colour layers.
>single figure EI - you'd hope it would be fine grained!
>Fascinating description, Tom - and satisfying to see that your results fit perfectly with what theory can explain. I'm sure a good telecine colorist could give you a more controllable result - might not look exactly the same, but since you never know what you are going to get with this sort of experimentation, that isn't necessarily a bad thing - although it kinda takes the fun and surprise out of the exercise;-)
Group Technology & Services Manager
>I've shot both 16mm and 35mm Print Stock (87) and telecined both for commercials for the US and Europe. You can get looks like nothing else in the telecine. The colors can go whacked if you want or you can get some beautiful pastelly looks if you work for it. When you transfer it Black and White you seem to get a halation around the object/ Person... a sort of heavenly glow. I didn't take a look at the neg so don't know how it would project. It was a bit difficult getting the film in Germany... took about 2 minutes on the phone with the lab (Atlantik in Hamburg) to convince them that I had shot it in the states and that it would indeed run thru the camera. I showed a new trick to an old cinematographer friend that has since used it a couple of times. Figure it rated around a 4... but the idea is shot in daylight and wide open and you can't go wrong... Push a stop when developing.
>The guy that turned me onto it and has experimented is a great guy named Vinny Hogan at a lab in Miami called Cineworks. He is a great guy to talk to as he is really excited by what you can do with film. They have a web site www.Cineworks.com
>If you are going to telecine I'd say give it a shot... did a spot for Burma Shave and it gave a beautiful patina to the film.
>Dominic wrote :
> This isn't cml-lab after all (now there's a thought . . .)
>Now you've done it, oh boy!!
>Movielab Sydney, Australia.
>This isn't cml-lab after all (now there's a thought . . .) ....Now you've done it, oh boy!!
>Just keep it separate from cml-blamethelab...
>I recently shot a 16mm project on 3383 Vision Color Print Film. I rated the print film at an ISO of 3 and the exposure turned out fine. However, one thing I overlooked is the fact that print stock has no UV protective layer. When I received my print back everything was extremely blue, no other color could be detected. But I got a really great high contrast, high resolution B&W telecine out of the shoot!
>I researched this a little more and discovered some information published by Kodak on the recording of ultraviolet radiation which states "If it is blue to begin with, this effect is of little or no consequence. With other colors, however, the additional blueness may neutralize the original color or even make it appear blue. Neutral and near-neutral colors are more apt to be affected by such a shift, because of their saturation is low."
>So my question would be... If you use a No. 2B (ultraviolet absorbing filter) wouldn't this reduce the extreme color shift when shooting with print stock? Has anyone ever shot print stock by using a UV filter? If so what were the results?
>Tarina Reed Cinematographer, NC
>The speed of the blue sensitive layer of Kodak VISION Color Print film is MUCH faster than the green or red. This is because it was designed to be printed from a color negative having an orange mask, on a printer with a fairly low color temperature lamp. If you expose it without any filtration, most of the image will be in the blue sensitive layer. Even a UV filter like a Wratten 2B will not correct the mismatch. You probably need significant yellow filtration to bring the exposure into a fairly neutral position.
>Here is the data sheet :