Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Watson View Post
Really? What makes you say that? My understanding, such as it is, is that Kodak based the previous crop of still photography color negative films on Vision 2 motion picture emulsions. I'm assuming (danger Will Robinson!) that the current crop is based on Vision 3.

When tweaked and optimized for still photography, I wouldn't think they'd go through a lot of effort to make still film worse -- what would be the point?

All that said, I did make a photograph five or six years ago (so two versions of Portra back from the current one) of a white flower in full mid-day sun in June. Measured 10 or 11 stops from shadow detail to highlight detail. And didn't show any kind of color cast or interesting artifacts.

That's the highest scene brightness ratio (SBR) I've ever found in my normal work. Then again, I'm not shooting inside a dark building wanting to keep the windows from blowing out either.

As to proof, I think it's incumbent on the one who wants it to do the testing. Have at it, should be interesting.

Yeah, it's not that it's worse, it's just for a different purpose. Like Matt King said, cinematic film stocks are designed to be very very flat. Like, if you were to scan the ungraded stock unknowingly, you would probably think something was fucked up it would be so flat. It's designed to capture as much detail as possible, then you basically grade it in post to bring out/reduce the image and mold it to be what you want it to look like. Basically.