All Activity

I think the size of grain in film images as opposed to digital has to be perfect for a particular project. It has to be just right. Just enough and it adds interesting texture. Too much and it's a distracting noise that does nothing for the story or the subject. For 16mm at the moment I'd go for Kodak film stock but so far, in this test by Mark Wiggins at least, I really like the look of the Orwo for 35mm. The level of grain seems to be good for a gritty, period drama story. It has an almost hand made, artisanal look but still a high quality look if that makes sense. That's my first impressions anyway, fwiw.

Externally by HDMI. My prior 5 camcorders and 6 camera bodies all met their HDMI output specs.

We've done lots of testing with NC500 and so has a few of my friends with the same results. We've had ultra long discussions here about the stock as well. I do know ORWO has done a lot of experimenting with new formulas that may work better, such as a yet to be released NC200. They also had the NC400 which came and went so fast, but the tests of those, were much better than the NC500. The video sample above, is nothing like any of our tests OR our friends tests of the same exact stock. So I'm slightly dubious of what we're seeing. Is it an all new prototype stock they haven't released yet or was it so heavily color graded, that you just can't tell and whoever did that, bravo! The main problem outside of the grain, is the yellow ish first layer of the emulsion. This balances the stock somewhere between daylight and tungsten, around 4000k, which makes it pretty much unusable without some sort of filtration or light source which matches the color balance. In most tests (ours included), nobody accounted for this issue, but clearly in the test above, those filmmakers did. I personally never did a test with the stock indoors under fixed studio lighting at 4000k. It's one thing I'm interested in doing with the remainder of my test stock we purchased when it was first released. At the time, they did not have 35mm available, so we only got 16mm and with the extremely poor quality, it was silly to invest more since we were buying the stock, unlike the reviewers who got it free. No matter what, we couldn't alter the color balance to get any decent skin tones out of it in broad daylight. Considering, we buy Kodak 35mm stock for half the price ORWO is asking for their loads, it's a no brainer what we'd shoot in the future. I also know the company does have some issues creating more stock since the first batch sold out. They haven't had any 16mm stock for sale in 8 months or so. There also hasn't been any word on updates to the stock or even a rebuttal from ORWO corporate from the video's we made, which got a lot of traction. I hear through the grape vine, they weren't happy with our tests and discoveries, which is kinda silly since I'm the target audience and wasn't paid to write a good review (something I would never do). To me, good products are very rare and if you're making a brand new film stock in 2024, it better be comparable to Kodak or it's not worth it.

Do you need to reference a specific film for your shot or does it just need to have a general "1920s" look?

I think it looks very nice. Would look fantastic also for 2 perf 35mm. Warm, earthy, with a slight grittiness and edge. Arty.

I'd side with Tyler on this one. For 35mm and smaller gauges especially, you're going to have a better experience even if you ultimately do a film out. And its arguably been better for a long time now. that being said I love the subtle gate weave on a print and still think that can be easier on the eyes when everything goes 100% right. And yes Im the sort of sociopath that will put a tiny bit of artificial gate weave on a master going to a DCP if they'll let me.

Haha no worries, I was just so confused I had to ask.

Well, photochemical finishing of an entire film today, even a short film, is very expensive and time consuming. Plus, when you're dealing with formats us mere mortal's can use (8mm, 16mm, 35mm) the benefit of perhaps making an answer print off the original camera negative for the purpose of showing your movie, where it's downright cool to watch personally, doesn't offer your audience anything unique really. So what's the difference? Well think about it from an optics and loss standpoint. If you print film to another piece of film, even a contact print, you lose quite a bit of resolution first. So if your 35mm negative is 4k, your answer print is 2k. Now you have to project that print, which is another loss. In the end, you probably have 1000 lines on the screen, even with the best 35mm answer printing. Sure, the grain will be softer and it will be a more pure color science, but you lose so much in the process, it seems hardly worth it, even for 35mm. Nolan gets away with it because he shoots large format and when you're dealing with a negative 5x larger than 35mm, the losses in printing/projecting, aren't quite as great. Plus, the IMAX projection system is higher resolution then a standard ol 35mm projector due to how the film is pushed onto a piece of flat glass when it's illuminated by the lamp source, which is also way more even. Even 5 perf 70mm was a huge jump forward in on screen brightness, but it struggles with a lot of the same issues 35mm does. With digital finish, your film is scanned at high res (hopefully greater than 4k) into the computer, preserving the entire resolution of the image AND with good digital imagers, the color science to boot. Then you finish your film digitally in even HDR and distribute digitally. If you want a print, you can simply have someone record one out on a Cinevator, which is a 2k machine, but the quality isn't horrible. It's actually crisper than any standard 35mm print and it retains much of the dynamic range in the digital source, something that's hard to do with a photochemical finish. Where I've been impressed with what Nolan and Tarantino have accomplished in recent years using photochemical timing, I don't think any of that technology is available to the mere mortals. I agree that some parts of Dunkirk and Oppenheimer look pretty good, I don't think the films over-all have a better look than the HDR UHD version I saw at home. Tenet on the other hand, looks stellar on film because from my understanding, they recorded the entire film out. So the IMAX and 5 perf prints, are absolutely flawless. I remember reporting at the time of its release, how damn good the timing was, best I had seen on film in a long time and no way done photochemically, the blacks were too perfect. In the end, if your audience is watching on a tablet, phone, laptop or TV, grading photochemically makes no sense. If your audience is watching a film print only and you will never have a digital version, there could be an argument for making a print if you had the cash, but I would STILL do a digital finish for the sheer fact of having more control over the finished results.

From your perspective, Have DI’s gotten better to where they are indistinguishable from a photochemically finished film ?

Wait, you bought a camera that can't capture it's entire list of frame rates internally?

Sorry, D5MKII, I'm so use to putting those numbers the old way lol

Yea I'm new to Nikon digital imaging cameras for sure, but everyone loves the Z9 and Z8 cameras, both MUCH newer tech. I'll say this much, the R5 we currently shoot digital on, has to be one of the worst cameras I've ever used in my entire life. It's absolute garbage, horrible borderline unusable noise floor with FPN and pathetically bad rolling shutter that can't be fixed. At least Nikon has the rolling shutter problem solved. You can't even remap Canon cameras to get rid of bad pixels, it automatically does it and if the automatic stuff doesn't work, then you're screwed. No way to fix it. DR is also pathetically poor as well, thanks to the high noise floor. To get HDR you need to take two images which are blended together, like... what? LOL So yea, I think all of these cameras struggle with this tech and you kinda just deal with them. I couldn't stand the GH4 and GH5 cameras FYI, I thought they were utter garbage when I've shot with them. Panasonic is 3-5 years behind everyone else with their tech. Color science was the worst of any modern digital camera I've shot with and the smaller imager, kinda negates the point of shooting digital anyway. The FF imager is where it's at, especially for wider shots, getting that sweet shallow depth of field. Sony begrudgingly fixed their color science issues over the last few years, so at least they've made a decent camera for once, codec withstanding. I look forward to playing with the Z9 when we get it, hopefully by the summer. We would get the newer version (Z8) but it doesn't have the heat dissipation aspects of the Z9, so video is limited. To me, the important things are in order; color science, codec, resolution and imager size.

Both the SSD and HDMI cable used are high end. They are definitely not the bottleneck.

Hi. I started shooting RAW footage recently and hit a brick wall. It seems hardware rated for 4K120 often cannot reach that benchmark reliably. For our Canon XF605 (can't output RAW), AVC and MP4 image quality is in some way tied to the scene complexity. Panning through a complex scene like an audience or 50 feet from trees drastically increases the 605's compression workload. Regarding 4K120, I first thought the Ninja+ was overrated and could not reliably handle RAW at 4K120. But now I'm beginning to think it is the Z Cam E2-M4's problem. Lots of juddering when panning through complex scenes at this high framerate. But... does in camera RAW processing bottleneck when the scene gets complex the way encoded footage does? or is RAW image processing workload (output to HDMI) independent of content?

Thanks for the info, do you know if directors in the early 2000’s who used cgi like Raimi for Spider man/ Peter Jackson for LOTR not release “show prints” for those films so they mask the cgi ? Did they use the N/IP/IN/release print stages to their advantage to cover the cgi ? Or did they make show prints that where closer to the negative no matter the quality of the cgi at the time ? Do directors releases show prints based on the quality of the vfx/cgi in general ?

Sorry did I just fall into a time warp to 2008 or are they reusing the 5DmkII name on another project?

James Shirley, The Maid’s Revenge (London, 1639). Like Stephen King’s Carrie, the character of Berinthia is wronged in love—and goes on a killing spree. No one is safe, not even her brother and sister. * sophisticated genre-splice Following a pile-up of stabbed and poisoned bodies, we reach the end of the play, and the suicidal murderess speaks : Berinthia. Oh father, my heart weeps tears, for you I die, oh see A maid’s revenge with her own Tragedy. The playwright’s plan recalls the duality of the wacky Revenger’s Tragedy;— Shirley proceeds more seriously. * hardcore death Catalina. I must hence, hence, farewell, will you let me die so? Confusion, torment, death, hell. —a much stronger wording of a similar sentiment from The White Devil : Vittoria. My soul, like to a ship in a black storm, Is driven, I know not whither. Catalina’s dismal death recalls the post-war hysterical death of a Hollywood superstar : Elsa Bannister. I’m afraid. Michael, come back here! Michael, please! I don't want to die! I don't want to die! * a modern woman Berinthia stabs her brother Sebastiano “upon his couch”—i.e., she kills him in his sleep; poisons her sister Catalina and also—as collateral damage—their maid Ansilva; then mortally wounds herself. In her own death-throes Berinthia echoes Vittoria of Revenger’s Tragedy—a tribute to Middleton : Vittoria. My soul, like to a ship in a black storm, Is driven, I know not whither. Berinthia. My soul is reeling forth I know not whither. * blunt nihilism Berinthia. It will be easy to die. All life is but a walk in misery. [ end of act 4 ] * Three years later, the London theatres are shut by the English Parliament.

it should also be noted that a photochemical finish when you're talking 65mm and imax film can make sense from a maximizing quality perspective. If you were to say scan 5 perf 65mm 50D and output it back to film, Im not sure if you're going to easily be able to get that printed at more than 4k. Higher resolution scanning is possible, but going back to film is the problem. You also have to account for DCPs maxing out at 4k (and the bitrate for 4k and 2k DCP is the same...), so you are arguably loosing resolution vs going fully photochemical and then back to a 65mm print. Now all of that being said, its not like they make super sharp glass like master primes for the 65mm and imax film formats. Imax likes to say their film has a resolution of something like 18k, but I dont believe any glass compatible with their camera system is capable of achieving that level of performance. The only lenses Im aware of that can pull that off are what they're using on that system for the Las Vegas Sphere

yeah you see why I like to shoot stuff with cameras instead of trying to draw or paint 😄 maybe it is a mutated lizard-roo of the radioactive wastelands, who knows 😄 the tail is important to mark out that it is supposed to be something from Australia. otherwise it would just look like a dog with short front legs 😄

Hi guys I have an LTR, S16 with an Aaton mount. It's working fine but I'm considering selling it so wanted to have it checked over. Also, I'd like to get the gate changed back to regular 16. I know it's possible to do this without a jig but I really don't trust myself. Does anybody know of a UK based tech that can at least change the gate and reset the mount? Thanks very much

Stanwyck. Hello, Mr. Neff. Aren’t you coming in? MacMurray. I’m considering it. Strauss. This is one of the most prestigious appointments in the country— Oppenheimer. With a great commute. That’s why I’m considering it. Groves. So you’ve got the job now? Oppenheimer. I’m considering it. When happens next? He who’s “considering it” walks into doom. * Q : Does Oppenheimer (intentionally) have engineered into it every decade of cinema history? * An ancient superstition warns us against leaving a book open indefinitely in our dwelling when we turn to other matters; such leads to bad luck. Lo and behold : When Stanwyck comes to MacMurray in the night (“See if you can carry that as far as the living room”), an open book, resting on its pages, is visible on a table beside Stanwyck on the couch. * (31:41) MacMurray readjusts his carpet so that everything looks perfect again—just after he makes the decision that eventually destroys his life. * (34:28) When MacMurray prompts the husband to sign the paperwork (“the applications for auto renewals”), Stanwyck moves across the room from one seat to another. Now the husband, for all of his blustering self-confidence, is unwittingly flanked by his two killers. Such is the Situation in The White Devil, 5.3.66–7 : While social-climbing Flamineo pronounces with brash bravado To reprehend princes is dangerous; and to over-commend some of them is palpable lying. he doesn’t realise he’s flanked not by two allies but, in disguise, the noblemen Francisco and (psycho) Lodovico, whose conspiracies eventually include Flamineo’s murder. Flamineo’s naive authority here is another early literary instance of the cringeworthy, which Scroob has already traced back to at least Sophocles.

that is hard to believe considering how absolute garbage the Z6 camera was. low quality sensors (bad pixels from the factory etc) and wrongly designed sensor electronics with random channel noise/flashing etc. The dynamic range was really poor, they claimed 14 stops and the real dynamic range was something like 9 stops or so... outright scamming as the real specs were so different from the published ones. Not the most reliable camera either, had to be rebooted now and then though still not that bad. Additionally their image processing was very poor quality, it could remove the black hole sun effect on simple highlight but complex highlights like overexposed tree branches had black edges all over the place as that confused the in-camera processing. Firmware updates did not help. I just got rid of the camera after the indie feature was shot, it felt like escaping the prison when the camera shop accepted it as a trade-in for the Panasonic I have had some years now. I mean, Panasonic cameras cost less and they never had these things, even the GH3 I first got in 2013 was fine with highlights and did not have reliability problems and bad pixels and no random flashing etc. It was just very reliable camera which delivered images, period. I traded it for GH4 in 2014 which I shot with for almost 10 years, all kind of making of stuff and such. Insanely reliable camera and most of the footage worked perfectly for the application. Just last month I traded the still-working and good condition GH4 for a slightly used GH5s because I wanted better dynamic range and codecs. I expect to use it as a backup and stills camera for years to come. It is just, pretty much everything but Nikon can be good for movie stuff, only the unreliability and unnecessary image issues drive people away. That said, some of these are the issues of the Blackmagic models too which is why they will never become real professional cameras and will always thay in the low-to-mid level indie and prosume use, maybe sometimes borrowed as a F or G camera for some action scenes in real movies but never used as a A, B or C camera. When shooting with the GH4, I could shoot about 2.5 hours with a single small onboard battery. that is insane compared to the pocket cameras which drained similar capacity LP6 battery in something like 20 minutes! if making indie shorts the Pocket would be better image quality wise than, for example, a GH5s but if you need to shoot somewhere remote it may sometimes be good to have a camera which survives the whole shooting day with 3 batteries instead of needing 20 batteries or huge Vlock workarounds to be able to manage without mains power

the FS7 was released after the F5 and F55 which were released in 2014. Same sensor than on the F5 but different processing and lower quality sensors overall, they had higher noise level than the F5 sensor had because seemingly they put the off-spec ones to the FS7's and saved the best ones for the more expensive cameras. The Canon C series cameras are weird indeed, I think they are meant for some kind of hybrid documentary+corporate use which they fit well after you get used to the weird camera shape and operating. I have handled tons of C300mk1 and C200 material, the C300 stuff looked generally really nice and was easy to grade even when the format specs on paper are pretty depressing... low bitrate long gop but when it looked really nice most of the time the audience did not care. very economic to shoot with, great for nature stuff and such. The C200 not that easy to grade, still very nice image quality overall after one gets the perfect grading settings locked down which takes time. most of the basic LUTs looked weird so manual work in post needed. Good camera after that. Not very competitive though when it came out. I know people who shoot feature films with them so very capable cameras still. The main issue with Canons, I think, is that they probably did not know well enough who they wanted to make the camera for so it is a bit of this, bit of that, difficult to figure out until actually shooting something with the thing (to reach that point it would need to be purchased or rented first which may not happen if people struggle to find out what the camera is about) The FX6 and FX9 type cameras are a perfect fit for TV documentary and reality work, even more so than the FS7 which was also extensively used for that purpose. If watching any kind of reality show which was shot in recent years you can spot it is the FX6 or FX9, almost all the time. For narrative action short some other kind of camera might be more tempting but the Sonys are absolutely killer for documentary/reality stuff. Not the cheapest cameras out there though so working-for-free projects would likely use something else.

Very interesting approach. Dirk Dejonghe was saying here recently that he did something similar on Kaurismäki's "Fallen Leaves".

Stanwyck and Titus MacMurray. If your husband’s a member. Stanwyck. No, he isn’t. And she rises out of her smoky, enchanting, soft fairy-tale glow;—and walks across the room, now in harder light, and thinking to herself; and storyteller Wilder stays with her while MacMurray unloads his spiel offscreen; stays with her, because, as with Titus in the silence between 119 and 120, Stanwyck, in her own conspiratorial silence, is birthing a monstrous plan.