Anyone try KODAK VISION3 250D 35MM MOTION PICTURE FILM (5207)

[Eric Rose]

Saw a review on Emulsion. Looks interesting.

 

[trendland]

Saw a review on Emulsion. Looks interesting.

Yes Kodak 5207 is a fine material. And it is the perfect "middle way" between Vision 3 50D wich is my personal favourite (extreme fine grain / extreme resolution / great colors ) and Kodak Vision3 500T wich is used allways in extreme lighted situations (night shots) with enormious ISO ability.
(Normal use is around ISO 1000 - 2000) some prefer ISO 4000.
And (to me ) 5207 is the much better choise in comparison to Vision3 200T.
(If you handle 250D with experience you may also use it in Thungsten light) but to make it clear that is in concern of mixed light [often you actually have a mix of thungsten with some daylight or let's say from Kelvin > 3200 for example Kelvin 3900 -- 4500.].
If you have "real" Thungsten light athmosphere you have a (better) need of Vision3 200T.

But (I guess) you will have c41 workflow - so colors are little different but is is looking nice.
But the Vision Films are expensive - you came a little late (2 years ago there you would have seen extreme cheap offers die to less demand. Meanwhile Kodak react and slowed production on a very smal volume. (But in fact 250D is the bestselling Vision emulsion) - next is 500T !

So if you will handle developing (several methods) it is a good alternate to Kodak Ektar 100.
And you have "exclusive COLORS"

bon chance

 

[trendland]

Saw a review on Emulsion. Looks interesting.

To cover out the use of daylight film in mixed thungsten light athmosphere :

This is a nice example (Babylon Berlin on Netflix) !
What you see as "white light" in the background isn't thungsten (it is a big HMI unit) but the "orange/gold" light effects you have most clear on the hat is "thungsten with Kelvin 3400".

with regards

PS : No worry Eric with Vision 3 you will not have such " gold/yellow " perhaps it is too much for you.
This here isn't filmed with Motion Picture Film it is digital from "Alexa mini" (ISO 1600) and of course some grading in post production was also in use (but not very much in regard of this effect the basement is the lighting).

So to cover out THIS IS THE SAME PRINCIPAL WAY WITH FILM ....(the use of Vision3 250D in mixed Thungsten) with nearly same effects. (On Vision Films is also allways coming digital post behind).

 

[peoplemerge]

It’s a lovely film, I shot a roll of it on 16mm about this time last year (100 ft = 2.5 min at 24 FPS ). Aesthetically exactly what you would expect out of a 250 speed portrait film from Kodak: perfect flesh tones, conservative contrast. I presume you are thinking of using it for still photography? Though it’s halfway between 160 and 400, you have remjet and the ECN2 chemistry to think of, and a EI intended for motion picture printing ( so cinestill ). The EI might work to your advantage if you want to for example shoot a high contrast scene like sunlight, but hope to print RA optically. If you are thinking of processing ECN2 yourself (which I haven’t quite done yet but I do believe I’m prepared), the only exotic chemical you have to contend with is Kodak Antifogger AF2000. Minimum order is 2 which leaves me one I can supply you, trade for a length of ciné film.

 

[hansblix]

Hey all. Saw your post. I spent the last few years shooting still on Vision3 and processing in ECN-2. I post a lot on Reddit and have a great deal of interest on how to process in the proper chemistry. I delved into this after being tired of color shifts with cross processing.

I started an indie ECN-2 lab that provides dev/scan and ECN-2 kits to spec. Check us out.

We were supposed to launch officially until the 15th but we have already been processing orders.

www.qwdlab.com

 

[trendland]

Hey all. Saw your post. I spent the last few years shooting still on Vision3 and processing in ECN-2. I post a lot on Reddit and have a great deal of interest on how to process in the proper chemistry. I delved into this after being tired of color shifts with cross processing.

I started an indie ECN-2 lab that provides dev/scan and ECN-2 kits to spec. Check us out.

We were supposed to launch officially until the 15th but we have already been processing orders.

www.qwdlab.com

Nice offerings BTW ! I would like to ask : concerning the price of scans (35mm) is it for a full film (36 frames) ?

with regards

 

[dmr]

This was one of the Vision 3 films but {blush} I forget exactly which number. It was a daylight medium speed. Processed in the Jobo in normal C41, rem-jet manually removed.

 

[wjlapier]

Old thread I found looking for info on processing Vision3 250D in C41. I saw a video where the guy was using a wet microfiber cloth to remove the remjet. The extra step to remove the remjet shouldn't be much of a hassle. Just curious how messy it is? How do you know you removed all of the remjet?

Nice photos of the bottles of wine.

 

[lantau]

Old thread I found looking for info on processing Vision3 250D in C41. I saw a video where the guy was using a wet microfiber cloth to remove the remjet. The extra step to remove the remjet shouldn't be much of a hassle. Just curious how messy it is? How do you know you removed all of the remjet?

I'm using a microfiber cloth with the film hanging vertically from a metal film clip (Mod54, it needs a tight grip). I fold the cloth twice and wet it with the prewash solution before I turn off the lights. It should be well moist, but not dripping.

I wipe the film down and then up, twice. I think I probably turn the cloth for the second go. I also make sure not to get the emulsion side wet. That should get off the remjet. I suspect that the water left on the surface will still be dirty. That is why I wash out the cloth under a faucet. Two more cycles of wipe and wash out again and another cycle.

Then wipe down the film with a paper towel to get the base dry. This never failed me, so far. But you have to be careful not to put too much of a pull on the film, otherwise it'll be on the floor.

Remjet is left under the clips, obviously. I cut off the film ends with the clips still attached and thread the dry film onto a spiral, which then goes into the tank. Done. It's a pretty clean afair. I usually don't have any drops on the floor.

This is what the film end under the clip looks like (never mind the dust, the piece has been lying around in the open for months).

 

[Cholentpot]

Old thread I found looking for info on processing Vision3 250D in C41. I saw a video where the guy was using a wet microfiber cloth to remove the remjet. The extra step to remove the remjet shouldn't be much of a hassle. Just curious how messy it is? How do you know you removed all of the remjet?

Nice photos of the bottles of wine.

It's a mess. A black inky carbon mess that gets everywhere. You'll need to scrub down the reel with a toothbrush before you reload for the stabilizer.

 

[dmr]

Old thread I found looking for info on processing Vision3 250D in C41. I saw a video where the guy was using a wet microfiber cloth to remove the remjet. The extra step to remove the remjet shouldn't be much of a hassle. Just curious how messy it is? How do you know you removed all of the remjet?

I just soak it in warm baking soda solution for a few minutes after the blix. Then put it in the sink and rub it off with my wet fingers. It comes off easily. Rinse it under warm running water and then do the stabilizer.

Uh, I guess I know I removed all of it if I don't get white blotches when scanning. Seriously, I just visually inspect it.

Nice photos of the bottles of wine.

Thanks. {blush}

 

[WDX_RED]

I recommend you... use pre-bath. It's a simple recipe. Most of the remjet run out in the first wash after pre-bath.

Prebath:
Water 100F / 500ml
Borax, decah. / 20g
Sodium Sulfate, anh. / 100g
Sodium Hydroxide / 1g

Also, you can use alternative pre-bath formula, 2 tablespoons of baking soda or washing soda, but it's not so effective and you will need to wash the film a lot more.

It will save your developer as well, it's not a good way to use contaminated developer.
Also, I had a problem with some strange stain on the film, especially 250D and 500T (not on 50D or Fuji F64D). It disappears after using a pre-bath.

ECN-2 recipe / Kodak VISION 3 250D / exposed 250ASA

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I just soak it in warm baking soda solution for a few minutes after the blix. Then put it in the sink and rub it off with my wet fingers. It comes off easily. Rinse it under warm running water and then do the stabilizer.

Uh, I guess I know I removed all of it if I don't get white blotches when scanning. Seriously, I just visually inspect it.



Thanks. {blush}

Love K.I.S.S. Not that anyone here is stupid. Was doing this 30 years ago not knowing there was a "better," more hassle way of doing it. Fingers, wet paper towel. The latter now makes me cringe, but we have microfiber now.

In those days I was very near Identicolor, one of the ECN2 labs selling film ends and processing. The prints were pretty bad, low contrast, the slides were great. I honestly cannot remember if I brought them any of my C-41 processed 5047? films or just did this as a lark.

Today, not an issue with the hybrid workflow. Scan and correct.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

1. 
   I have a roll of this, and 500T I bought three years ago, but then came The Big Move. Now that I am once again under the whip of Dominitrix Photogra, I intend to shoot them in the near future. Probably on a photo road trip end of this month to Big Bend Ranch State Park.
   
   I was using ECN movie films in the 1980's, packaged and sold by Identicolor in North Hollywood. Same premise as Seattle Film Works. I developed some myself in C-41 for the heck of it.
   
   Emulsive.com (not "emulsion," FYI) has a great overview of ECN films being used in still cameras. And they make an ECN2 kit. https://emulsive.org/articles/cinem...-of-motion-picture-film-and-still-photography
   
   It's obviously that there is a huge surge of interest in the ECN films. Now available in short rolls or in cassettes at many companies. CineStill removes the remjet (wonder how?) but is expensive AND the remjet is an important component of the film's characteristics. Anti-halation. If it was no longer thought necessary by Kodak or Hollywood, it would be gone.
   
   Honestly, are there significant real world differences between any other quality color neg film and ECN films? Probably very little, if any w/o the proverbial side by side comparisons.
   
   Kodak put it's T-grain technology into color neg films quietly over the years. I'm sure the mis-marketed 400 HD (High Definition) consumer film, 24 exposures only, was one. You couldn't get that definition with standard grain. I'm still shooting that, frozen storage, and am anticipating the day I need an alternative. I lean towards Portra 400...........but the ECN films are sure interesting. Especially the 250D.
   
   Kodak's financial well being depends very much on the continued use of their films in Hollywood. They support less profitable lines like the new Ektachrome, probably. The Vision line has been under constant improvement since it's introduction in 1997, hence now at Vision 3. The 250D came out a few years ago. A list of Kodak ECN
   films: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...#EXR_color_negative_(ECN-2_process_1989–1996)
   
   Here is the official Kodak page for the film with a 10 minute video comparing it to it's predecessor by a cameraman:
   https://www.kodak.com/US/en/Consumer/Products/Motion-Picture-Films/5207/default.htm
   
   I strongly suspect that there may be quality differences between, say, Ektar 100, Portra 400, Kodak and Fuji consumer offerings, and the ECN films, appropriately chosen. Not even talking about "a look," that is so BS highly subjective. You can buy a 400' roll of 250D (or any other offering) for a bit north of $300. That's $4.40 a roll, w/o shipping. Worth the time and hassle? You decide.
   
   Photo Warehouse/Ultrafine seems to literally just added a line of ECN films in cassettes and bulk. Sadly, no 250D. Beware to $50 bulk rolls, those are the pre-Vision EXR films.http://www.ultrafineonline.com/motipix.html In fact, there are really only two current offerings.
   
   With the hybrid workflow, there certainly can be a place for 250D.

• • 
    
    
    

 

[koraks]

Honestly, are there significant real world differences between any other quality color neg film and ECN films?

Different gamma, different gamma between the color layers, different dyes and therefore processing. I've been meddling quite a bit with ECN2 films lately and the real world differences with C41 are such that ECN2 is not a substitute in my opinion. I print RA4 BTW, which probably matters.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Different gamma, different gamma between the color layers, different dyes and therefore processing. I've been meddling quite a bit with ECN2 films lately and the real world differences with C41 are such that ECN2 is not a substitute in my opinion. I print RA4 BTW, which probably matters.

I can understand if printing to RA-4.

OTOH, plenty of people seem to do just fine what with the assorted differences and have done so for years. Less able to see? Less picky?

But if scanning, it's full fun ahead.

 

[koraks]

Less able to see - perhaps, but the differences are quite profound, at least in my hands. Probably says something about my competence with these materials. Then again, the blue shadows and warm highlights can sometimes work.

 

[Cholentpot]

1. 
   I have a roll of this, and 500T I bought three years ago, but then came The Big Move. Now that I am once again under the whip of Dominitrix Photogra, I intend to shoot them in the near future. Probably on a photo road trip end of this month to Big Bend Ranch State Park.
   
   I was using ECN movie films in the 1980's, packaged and sold by Identicolor in North Hollywood. Same premise as Seattle Film Works. I developed some myself in C-41 for the heck of it.
   
   Emulsive.com (not "emulsion," FYI) has a great overview of ECN films being used in still cameras. And they make an ECN2 kit. https://emulsive.org/articles/cinem...-of-motion-picture-film-and-still-photography
   
   It's obviously that there is a huge surge of interest in the ECN films. Now available in short rolls or in cassettes at many companies. CineStill removes the remjet (wonder how?) but is expensive AND the remjet is an important component of the film's characteristics. Anti-halation. If it was no longer thought necessary by Kodak or Hollywood, it would be gone.
   
   Honestly, are there significant real world differences between any other quality color neg film and ECN films? Probably very little, if any w/o the proverbial side by side comparisons.
   
   Kodak put it's T-grain technology into color neg films quietly over the years. I'm sure the mis-marketed 400 HD (High Definition) consumer film, 24 exposures only, was one. You couldn't get that definition with standard grain. I'm still shooting that, frozen storage, and am anticipating the day I need an alternative. I lean towards Portra 400...........but the ECN films are sure interesting. Especially the 250D.
   
   Kodak's financial well being depends very much on the continued use of their films in Hollywood. They support less profitable lines like the new Ektachrome, probably. The Vision line has been under constant improvement since it's introduction in 1997, hence now at Vision 3. The 250D came out a few years ago. A list of Kodak ECN
   films: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...#EXR_color_negative_(ECN-2_process_1989–1996)
   
   Here is the official Kodak page for the film with a 10 minute video comparing it to it's predecessor by a cameraman:
   https://www.kodak.com/US/en/Consumer/Products/Motion-Picture-Films/5207/default.htm
   
   I strongly suspect that there may be quality differences between, say, Ektar 100, Portra 400, Kodak and Fuji consumer offerings, and the ECN films, appropriately chosen. Not even talking about "a look," that is so BS highly subjective. You can buy a 400' roll of 250D (or any other offering) for a bit north of $300. That's $4.40 a roll, w/o shipping. Worth the time and hassle? You decide.
   
   Photo Warehouse/Ultrafine seems to literally just added a line of ECN films in cassettes and bulk. Sadly, no 250D. Beware to $50 bulk rolls, those are the pre-Vision EXR films.http://www.ultrafineonline.com/motipix.html In fact, there are really only two current offerings.
   
   With the hybrid workflow, there certainly can be a place for 250D.

• • 
    
    
    

I find using ECN as stills can be more finicky than C-41 films. If I don't nail the exposure the photo goes pretty grainy and messy. When I do nail it the results are quite spectacular.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I find using ECN as stills can be more finicky than C-41 films. If I don't nail the exposure the photo goes pretty grainy and messy. When I do nail it the results are quite spectacular.

I wonder why. The negative material is as advanced as anything in color negs, probably even THE most advanced. The remjet takes halation out of the equation. If it was was matter of the CD-2 vs. CD-4, Hollywood would have changed long ago. That leaves (per my first cup of coffee brain foggy list) contrast difference.

Yes, if you are trying to print the ECN films to RA-4 paper meant for the contrastier C-41 films, you might have problems. No, you will. The first and obvious is low contrast prints. This was the flaw in the Have Prints! Have Slides! of the Seattle Film Works and the N. Hollywood lab I used. But OTOH, low contrast prints don't show the grain as much.

If printed as intended onto a movie "print" material, i.e., slides, the contrast is right and the grain would be stronger.

But the fact is that if it's there, you can't escape it. Which comes back to my first point.

 

[Cholentpot]

I wonder why. The negative material is as advanced as anything in color negs, probably even THE most advanced. The remjet takes halation out of the equation. If it was was matter of the CD-2 vs. CD-4, Hollywood would have changed long ago. That leaves (per my first cup of coffee brain foggy list) contrast difference.

Yes, if you are trying to print the ECN films to RA-4 paper meant for the contrastier C-41 films, you might have problems. No, you will. The first and obvious is low contrast prints. This was the flaw in the Have Prints! Have Slides! of the Seattle Film Works and the N. Hollywood lab I used. But OTOH, low contrast prints don't show the grain as much.

If printed as intended onto a movie "print" material, i.e., slides, the contrast is right and the grain would be stronger.

But the fact is that if it's there, you can't escape it. Which comes back to my first point.

Digital scans.

It might have to do with shooting the 85B filters. Dunno, gotta test a few more rolls.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Digital scans.

It might have to do with shooting the 85B filters. Dunno, gotta test a few more rolls.

I really hate suggesting this as it surely runs towards insult, but are you scanning at a sufficiently high dpi?

I run 600dpi scans when all I'm after is tonal information and those look like Royal-X Pan. If you know what that is, then my suggestion IS an insult!

OTOH, 4800dpi, which is my max native resolution, suddenly........no grain. Either literally, or so to speak. I've tried interpolated 9600dpi for grins, no difference.

 

[Cholentpot]

I really hate suggesting this as it surely runs towards insult, but are you scanning at a sufficiently high dpi?

I run 600dpi scans when all I'm after is tonal information and those look like Royal-X Pan. If you know what that is, then my suggestion IS an insult!

OTOH, 4800dpi, which is my max native resolution, suddenly........no grain. Either literally, or so to speak. I've tried interpolated 9600dpi for grins, no difference.

This is the clearest that I get with 500T.

This is expired 200 re branded questionably stored film for comparison

I don't think my scans lack definition.