Re: [photo-3d] Vision Redux

[Herbert C Maxey <bmaxey1@xxxxxxxx>]

> What do you mean "not as good as Kodacolor"?  In what way?  The Kodak 
> Vision
> motion picture film is every bit as good as consumer products of 
> similar
> sensitivity in terms of resolution, color, gamma, linearity, grain, 
> etc.,
> and in some case better.   

Vision is good, but it is NOT designed for still work. People do use it,
but it takes effort to get the best possible quality from the material.
Everything mentioned above is applicable to motion picture photography,
not still photography. 

If you were to mix slides made on this 
> material
> with slides made in the same camera by the same person with either 
> negative
> or positive consumer film, I doubt that anyone could tell the 
> difference.
> In fact, the MP product can be enlarged more than any consumer film 
> before
> the image falls apart.  Have you ever seen what slides made from 
> consumer
> films look like if projected 30 feet wide on a theater screen?  

Yes I have. If well done, they look great. Keep in mind that projection
of large images taxes any film. A well made Kodacolor or other slow color
negative films images are as good as it gets for high magnification. As
for comparison you mentioned above, you can't be serious. Slide film such
as Kodachrome will most certainly will be better. I invite you to make
some tests between Vision and Kodachrome sometime. Use the same camera,
lens and a tripod, and photograph a scene. Kodachrome will win.

Vision and other MP Films is re-spooled for 2 main reasons: It is cheap
to purchase from people selling "'ends"; and it is cleverly marketed as a
film for both prints and slides. I have seen it offered at pennies per
foot. You are also limited by the processing and printing. Not every lab
can get the best from this material.

Incidentally, a photographer named Ernst Haas, using Kodachrome and a
Leica, made a photograph that became the first Colorama ever made from
35mm. It hung at Grand Central Station and measured 18 x 60 feet.

Finally, with a few exceptions, no MP Frame is tack sharp. Take a look
sometime and this will be apparent. MP Frames do not necessisarily
enlarge well as still images. 

> And remember, typical motion picture  cameras use less than half the 
> film area
> that a still camera uses (Academy aperture is smaller than a single 
> one-eye
> view frame from a Realist; even Super 35 is about the same size for 
> flat
> films, and half the size for 3-D films).

There are many different formats for motion pictures. 65MM/70 MM, Super
35, and more. Academy Aperture is smaller to make room for the
soundtrack, recorded inside the frame. There is Panavision and
Vistavision, both still used, that are 8-Perf. Then there are formats
such as Anamorphic which look odd and distorted.

Bob