Introducing KODAK VISION3 200T Color Negative Film 5213/7213

Stay connected. Sign up for Email Updates from Kodak ShootFilm: http://www.kodak.com/go/emailinfo
The KODAK VISION3 Film family has raised the bar for high-definition capture with unrivaled highlight latitude, reduced grain in shadows, flexibility in post, and, of course, proven archival stability. Now, with the addition of KODAK VISION3 200T Color Negative Film 5213/7213, we've developed a film that performs superbly in both controlled interiors and in challenging high-contrast exteriors.

http://www.kodak.com/go/vision3 for more info!

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• film
• vision3
• motion
• picture
• kodak
• 200t
• tungsten

[kobayashiarmatron]

do you know what the main differences are between 5219 and 5213 other than one is 500T and the other 200T?

[KodakShootFilm]

@kobayashiarmatron Please contact your local Kodak Rep to discuss:

[TheHandOfFear]

@roblc11 "Watch and edit immediately". Yeah, I hear that one all the time. You can review and edit immediately with film too. It's called a video assist and it's been around for decades.

The fact is constant reviewing and editing on set just interferes. If you lack confidence in what you just shot and you can't get along without seeing it immediately your film is going to suffer regardless. Good directors and cinematographers know what they are running through the camera way beforehand.

[TheHandOfFear]

@roblc11 You seem to work in the doc world. Digital may be the "easy" option there, but it's the opposite in scripted films. Film is WAY WAY easier to shoot. Less hassle, faster progress from set-up to set-up on set and much more control in post makes for tonnes of time and money saved. That usually offsets cost savings provided by the medium. Costs that on a large production are already insignificant.

[TheHandOfFear]

@roblc11 I'd venture a guess that you haven't worked on many professional-level productions, in fact judging by your YouTube channel it's not what you do. Take it from someone who knows first-hand, when the quality of the final image matters digital is a compromise and can SEVERELY limit the ability to realize your creative vision. I talk from personal experience, I want to like shooting digitally, but after much trying the end result just doesn't cut it.

[TheHandOfFear]

@roblc11 Dominating the cinema industry hunh? Go to IMDb, look at recent and upcoming studio releases, note what the MAJORITY of them are shot on and then we can continue this discussion. Yes, digital is here to stay. But film is not going anywhere, the two are going to share the industry for a while yet.

[roblc11]

@TheHandOfFear I have to admit that film quality is the benchmark to measure all other motion images so you can't go wrong with shooting on film but using a digital cinema camera can save you money by eliminating film stock and processing costs, but the primary benefit of digital production is being able to watch and edit your shoot immediately.

[roblc11]

@TheHandOfFear @TheHandOfFear The digital age is taking over. It's something we all have to accept, especially when cameras like red one, red epic are dominating the cinema industry not to mention sony's new f65 that will blow the red cams away.

[TheHandOfFear]

Kodak makes amazing film stock. The noticeable difference in the look of films and TV shows shot with these stocks speak for themselves.

[TheHandOfFear]

@roblc11 But of course you could record raw output from the Alexa using a T-Link recorder. More expense, more time wasted on set, drastically more expensive costs in post, and then you still don't quite get those creamy highlights, vivid colors, and natural skin tones that you would have got with film.

Yeah, totally. Film is a HUGE waste of time.