Anyone thinking of going digital and giving up on 16mm film...or vice versa?

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

51 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

As I said earlier, I dislike 16mm for narrative for this reason. I feel if the image is flat, it's not cinematic. For doc work it's ok, because you aren't working close to actors necessarily, so you can utilize longer lenses and create that bokeh much easier. If you use that same trick with narrative, it seems distant and especially if you're in a close environment, you are going to struggle. So 35mm is really the smallest film format I would use for narrative work. This of course exacerbates the cost, which is why for so many filmmakers, the decision to shoot on film goes out the window. 

Define flat, like what lack of shallow DOF?

So Citizen Kane is not cinematic? What about all the other successful films that are also "flat"? 

51 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

This has been my issue for the last 5 years, I was naive like you; "I won't shoot it, if it's not on film" and that attitude has basically led me to scrap multiple projects. After my last movie we shot on 35mm, I had been in pre-production on another film with the same writer/producer, did our location scout, casting, the whole 9. When I told him I wanted to shoot on 35mm and we needed a condor for the night scenes, he laughed and said the budget didn't exist. He wanted to shoot digital and I said no way, this has to be film and guess what, the project never happened. Had that conversation happened today, I would have made the movie and it would be out in the world. Instead, nothing came of it, the writer/producer eventually moved out of town and we haven't talked in 2 years.

Let me re-iterate, if you want something done a certain way - any way, whether that is film ,digital, stop-motion, animation, whatever go ahead and do it, there's no reason to justify your compromises, do what you want to do in any way you please and see appropriate.

I have personally zero reasons to not do a certain something a certain  way because literally nobody cares how I go about in doing it or not, so I might as well do it how I want to, there's zero naivete about it because the premise is completely different than someone that wants just to put something "out there". 

I will be totally Ok as a person if it never materializes, but will strive to the best of my humble abilities to make it a reality in the few ways that are non-negotiable for me.

Unfortunate events are part of life and define what we can or cannot do.

51 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

The funny thing is, if Kubrick was a decade younger, he probably would have embraced digital because he absolutely hated editing on flatbeds/film. He would have been one of the earliest conversion people, probably before Deakins. 

Many people have opined on that to be the case - but are basing that assumption upon Kubrick's technical acumen - which was of course ever present, being the catalyst to always choosing 'maximum' definition.

I personally doubt Kubrick would have followed - or preceded as you say, Deakins' approach based on the mere fact that Kubrick was heavily invested in immersion and mood, if you doubt this, study the ballroom scene in Eyes Wide Shut and how its effectively lit, it's the very antithesis of how Deakins does lighting - but of course, I fully accept that I am biased. 

Good to remember also, that Kubrick shot "Spartacus" in Super Technirama 70 and  "2001" in 65mm but not his other films. His approach was always of "fit for purpose" above all else vs Nolan's "IMAX or death" and he might have potentially selected digital as part of a certain "purpose".

Since the guy never got a chance to prove one thing over the other I am pretty sure that both of us are wrong in some fundamental way.

 

Edited February 25 by Aristeidis Tyropolis
clarity, side notes

[Giray Izcan]

In the film days, most of the stuff you see on Kodak's Instagram feed shot on smaller gauge especially would have been dismissed as a student project or a camera test at best. During the film days, including myself, always strived the achieve the "perfect" image, which is free of artifacts, excessive grain, acratches, flash frames.  These days, these are  some of the more important of reasons people shoot on film rather than its color reproduction and dynamic range etc - total hipster stuff. 

Cameras that are being used today would not have been seen in the pro world.. cameras like K3, Bolex etc... it was Arri, Aaton or at the very least Eclair or a CP. Nobody cared about daylight loads or cameras with daylight load only except for amateurs, students or as crash cam or something very specific.  Unfortunately, a lot of people go out of their way to include/showcase flaws and call it organic hahaha.. 

Edited February 25 by Giray Izcan

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

4 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

In the film days, most of the stuff you see on Kodak's Instagram feed shot on smaller gauge especially would have been dismissed as a student project or a camera test at best. During the film days, including myself, always strived the achieve the "perfect" image, which is free of artifacts, excessive grain, acratches, flash frames.  These days, these are  some of the more important of reasons people shoot on film rather than its color reproduction and dynamic range etc - total hipster stuff. 

Everyone here's wants to extract maximum definition, free of excessive grain, artifacts, scratches and flash frames to their best of their abilities with the equipment available to them using the best possible development/scanning options.

6 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

Nobody cared about daylight loads or cameras with daylight load only except for amateurs, students or as crash cam or something very specific.

Some of us unfortunately have to use them in the absence of 15-20 thousand euros that are required to acquire, lens and "dress" up an AATON XTR, SR2, etc. and can hardly justify rental prices, plus assistants that are needed to run them, plus insure them. They are precision instruments and are absolutely adored from the vast majority of the people here.

But alas, they are not always available to all. So we try the next best thing, which is smaller cameras, with crystal sync and daylight spools, trying as much as we can to not introduce quality problems down the line. Literally nobody serious cares (or wants) flash frames and scratches in their footage, organic in my mind applies to stuff like apples and eggs.

 

[Giray Izcan]

The Last Chapter, personal project that I shot in January. It is still in progress.

 

Edited February 25 by Giray Izcan

[Giray Izcan]

48 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

Everyone here's wants to extract maximum definition, free of excessive grain, artifacts, scratches and flash frames to their best of their abilities with the equipment available to them using the best possible development/scanning options.

Some of us unfortunately have to use them in the absence of 15-20 thousand euros that are required to acquire, lens and "dress" up an AATON XTR, SR2, etc. and can hardly justify rental prices, plus assistants that are needed to run them, plus insure them. They are precision instruments and are absolutely adored from the vast majority of the people here.

But alas, they are not always available to all. So we try the next best thing, which is smaller cameras, with crystal sync and daylight spools, trying as much as we can to not introduce quality problems down the line. Literally nobody serious cares (or wants) flash frames and scratches in their footage, organic in my mind applies to stuff like apples and eggs.

 

Professional productions rented/rent from reputable rental houses with technicians and replacement bodies if needed. Owner operators, mostly with 16, coughed up the money and bought relevant, dependable professional sync sound cameras and made the money back quickly, as more or less, aside from super low budget and tv work, was shot on film without any ifs or buts.. I say again the quality of stuff shot on film these days would have been unacceptable or would have gone unnoticed by everyone - without a doubt.   

Many "DPs" shooting on film these days don't even know how to light properly and shoot it like it's digital hence a lot of muddy looking projects.. except people praise all that on all the social media comments with remarks like " wow, gorgeous, exquisite or ORGANIC" Most of these dps would have got fired. Not every dp of course but overwhelming majority of stuff i see on social is straight up amateur quality and craftsmanship. Sorry.

Edited February 25 by Giray Izcan

[Giray Izcan]

Lastly, super 16, aside from a handful films , was not a desired or sought after format for its aesthetics - especiallyfor narrative. It was almost always chosen due to budget constraints and not the imperfections etc. Super 16 was shot to minimize grain and to mimic 35 as much as possible as opposed pushing for an extra grainy look, which s16 doesn't need help in that regard. Most people chose 200t over 500t due to grain issues and again to get the sharpest and the most 35 look out of the format. 

Edited February 25 by Giray Izcan

[Giray Izcan]

47 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

The Last Chapter, personal project that I shot in January. It is still in progress.

 

This was shot on film.. is it automatically a master piece?

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

22 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

Not every dp of course but overwhelming majority of stuff i see on social is straight up amateur quality and craftsmanship. Sorry.

No one here is extolling the virtues of social media short clips of any kind.

Just to re-iterate, no one here wants film because of scratches, screeches, tire marks or flash bangs, so to whom you are referring to?

16 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

Lastly, super 16, aside from a handful films , was not a desired or sought after format for its aesthetics - especiallyfor narrative. It was almost always chosen due to budget constraints and not the imperfections etc. Super 16 was shot to minimize grain and to mimic 35 as much as possible as opposed pushing for an extra grainy look, which s16 doesn't need help in that regard. Most people chose 200t over 500t due to grain issues and again to get the sharpest and the most 35 look out of the format. 

What is your suggestion here? Every film stock has different qualities, people choose the one that is more appropriate to the shooting conditions/look they're after.

As for whether it was desired I am sure there were plenty of TV shows such as Sex and the City, Malcolm in the middle, Monk, The OC, and others that did really great work on the format, I am also pretty sure that there were practicalities involved but there's nothing there to scoff at. 

As for the aesthetics there are a bunch of generalizations there in your statement and the complete and utter exclusion of Asian and European cinema.

Also Wes Anderson, Kathryn Bigelow (Got an Oscar for that one), Aronofsky would like  a word about that...

 

10 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

This was shot on film.. is it automatically a master piece?

Did anyone here ever alluded to any film being shot in any format being an automatic masterpiece? 

 

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

Define flat, like what lack of shallow DOF?

Flat means everything within a frame is in focus. 

1 hour ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

So Citizen Kane is not cinematic? What about all the other successful films that are also "flat"? 

Kane has lots of shallow depth of field shots, along with some incredible flat shots as well. It's a masterclass of using both to your advantage as a cinematographer at a time where reflex viewing just didn't exist. Plus at the time, actors faces needed to be clear at all times, it was just the style of the period. So any scene with multiple people, needed to be pretty flat as an industry requirement. Today we just achieve that with blocking and focus racking. 

There are plenty of great films that are very flat over-all, but that style of filmmaking is very old hat. Nobody prevents you from shooting that way, but most people would rather not. 

1 hour ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

have personally zero reasons to not do a certain something a certain  way because literally nobody cares how I go about in doing it or not, so I might as well do it how I want to, there's zero naivete about it because the premise is completely different than someone that wants just to put something "out there". 

I will be totally Ok as a person if it never materializes, but will strive to the best of my humble abilities to make it a reality in the few ways that are non-negotiable for me.

So what I gather is that you'd rather NOT be creative if you aren't allowed to use certain tools. 

1 hour ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

Good to remember also, that Kubrick shot "Spartacus" in Super Technirama 70 and  "2001" in 65mm but not his other films. His approach was always of "fit for purpose" above all else vs Nolan's "IMAX or death" and he might have potentially selected digital as part of a certain "purpose".

Kubrick was a director for hire on Spartacus. 

The film was shot on Technirama which is anamorphic VistaVision style 35mm. I'm sure Kirk Douglas himself made the deal WAY before the original director was fired. I also know for fact, Kubrick hated working on the project, but Kirk Douglas really pressured him to do it. The film is the least Kubrick movie made, it feels like a generic Hollywood fodder outside the cinematography. 

2001 was shot on 5 perf 65mm because Douglas Trumbull and Kubrick felt the visual effects would be far superior on large format. At the time, compositing on 35mm was very poor and doing reductions from 65mm to a 35mm string out, didn't really save anything. It made way more sense to make the film large format from the get go and give the audience a real experience. The Road Show version that Kubrick intended, was immediately rejected by MGM during its first screenings to executives, with over 27 minutes of added footage. This is why the theatrical cut today, seems like an intermission is not needed, the original theatrical cut was entirely different and FAR more nerdy, with a 10 minute black and white science intro and 17 minutes of other scenes of space life. So it was very much a "technical" reason why Kubrick used 65mm for capture. 

Nolan's movies make a lot of money, so the studio hands him the keys and says "good luck". If you've noticed, nobody else has shot an entire movie on 15P yet, Nolan will be the first and probably only person to ever do it as the 3 minute loads really slow things down production wise. Frankly, after seeing One Battle on IMAX, I'm shocked VistaVision isn't used more for IMAX dialog scenes. Especially with 50D, the audience would never notice. 

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

Some of us unfortunately have to use them in the absence of 15-20 thousand euros that are required to acquire, lens and "dress" up an AATON XTR, SR2, etc. and can hardly justify rental prices, plus assistants that are needed to run them, plus insure them. They are precision instruments and are absolutely adored from the vast majority of the people here.

You aren't shooting sync sound scenes with a H16, K3, Bolex, Arri S/M or Scoopic camera. So worrying about accessories and crew members makes no sense. Also, hate to break it to ya, but the Aaton and Arri sync sound cameras are quick change magazines, they don't need to be threaded on set like the daylight spool cameras, so you actually need LESS people. 

You also don't need super 16, standard 16mm SR's with batteries and a standard 16mm B mount zoom lens, will run you under $5k if you look around. CP-16R and Eclair ACL 1.5/2.0 are WAAAYYYY less money. I recently got a CP for $700 bux and a ACL 1.5 for $1500, both with lenses (already sold). So the idea that you need a fancy camera is a fallacy. I shoot with my Beaulieu 2016 in standard 16 and crop the top and bottom off to match S16 scenes and nobody notices. That camera is the best daylight spool camera ever made by the way. 

Yes they are precision instruments, but they're pretty robust, especially the SR's. I've been across this country with my XTR Prod and pair of Beaulieu's, in the scorching heat of summer and negative temps in winter. Everything just works like a charm, proof is in the results of the myriad of films we shoot every year. 

So putting up a roadblock which prevents you from acquiring a better camera system due to cost, seems counterintuitive to what you're actually pitching to the rest of us. 

1 hour ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

But alas, they are not always available to all. So we try the next best thing, which is smaller cameras, with crystal sync and daylight spools, trying as much as we can to not introduce quality problems down the line. Literally nobody serious cares (or wants) flash frames and scratches in their footage, organic in my mind applies to stuff like apples and eggs.

I guarantee you have; soft focus, scratches, dirt, burns and unstable footage that comes off your K3. I have yet to work on a K3 that the first complaint is one of those 5 things. Even heavily modified S16 K3's with PL mounts, they still have the same issues because the camera is poorly built and over time it just gets worse and worse due to the design flaws. 

You'd be shocked how many people utilize those things in their finished films to PROVE they shot on film. 

To people like me who won't even use an out of focus, dirty,, scratched or unstable shot in a finished product, it's madness seeing clients take the outtakes and use them as the "A" takes, just to spice it up because it's too boring without those outtakes. :shrug: 

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

16 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Flat means everything within a frame is in focus. 

I thought so, why is that old hat? I am not obsessed over anything in particular, but the shallow DOF cinematic argument is really rather superficial in on it self and also rather old too, but that's just my opinion. 

19 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

So what I gather is that you'd rather NOT be creative if you aren't allowed to use certain tools. 

I can be and strive to be creative in many different ways every day, I recently even started experimenting with a Nikon F4 and "overclocking" it with Lithium batteries and burst shooting with really good results for a specific segment in my project, but will probably switch to an F5 as it's a bit faster.

I am not going to change the way I decided to shoot my project because I really don't have to, plus things are progressing. If I can't, for any reason I can't, it's done.

26 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

So it was very much a "technical" reason why Kubrick used 65mm for capture. 

I know it was, I alluded so to that effect, I am simply also saying that he also didn't need it for his other projects so he didn't use it.

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, Giray Izcan said:

Lastly, super 16, aside from a handful films , was not a desired or sought after format for its aesthetics - especiallyfor narrative. It was almost always chosen due to budget constraints and not the imperfections etc. Super 16 was shot to minimize grain and to mimic 35 as much as possible as opposed pushing for an extra grainy look, which s16 doesn't need help in that regard. Most people chose 200t over 500t due to grain issues and again to get the sharpest and the most 35 look out of the format. 

Yep, it was mostly a requirement due to budget, outside of a few projects like; Jackie, Hurt Locker, The Wall and Black Swan, where the filmmakers used 16mm for the documentary feel. I personally love 16mm for documentary filmmaking, the lightweight cameras with SUPER LONG zoom lenses, they really sing man. 

I just umm, like you feel that 35mm kinda hits the sweet spot for narrative. It just looks like a movie. 

Here is a 35mm "look reel" from my last 35mm narrative, tho not final color. You can see how it just looks like a real narrative. 
 

This is probably the nicest 16mm demo material I have, demo from our 2023 October shoot from Colorado. 
 

 

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

20 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

You aren't shooting sync sound scenes with a H16, K3, Bolex, Arri S/M or Scoopic camera. So worrying about accessories and crew members makes no sense.

I am, with my Crystal Synced camera with sync sound. But it's a doc, will be conducting sound tests next week with 32bit float audio using Lavs. Will also look at blimping if it can be made practical or really needed.

20 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

So putting up a roadblock which prevents you from acquiring a better camera system due to cost, seems counterintuitive to what you're actually pitching to the rest of us. 

I am not pitching camera systems to anybody here, all I am saying is that you use what you intended to use based on what you believe makes sense to you and is afforded by your circumstances. 

20 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I guarantee you have; soft focus, scratches, dirt, burns and unstable footage that comes off your K3

I had some scratches, but this was solved, no burns whatsoever at any moment in time, focus was an issue in initial testing but is also fine now.

I have 4K Resolve shots that are as clean as they can be for 16mm on my tests.

Won't use that camera for a feature film - not possible, but totally doable for  shots spread over a long period of time.

 

Edited February 26 by Aristeidis Tyropolis

[Karim D. Ghantous]

SATC looks fantastic. I wish that Downton Abbey was shot on 16mm. No matter, it was a great show.

 

Edit: we also need to remember that some of the best shows ever made were, for better or worse, shot on video cameras. Golden Girls, Fawlty Towers (all indoor scenes), and so on.

Edited February 26 by Karim D. Ghantous

[Giray Izcan]

25 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

I am, with my Crystal Synced camera with sync sound. But it's a doc, will be conducting sound tests next week with 32bit float audio using Lavs. Will also look at blimping if it can be made practical or really needed.

I am not pitching camera systems to anybody here, all I am saying is that you use what you intended to use based on what you believe makes sense to you and is afforded by your circumstances. 

I had some scratches, but this was solved, no burns whatsoever at any moment in time, focus was an issue in initial testing but is also fine now.

I have 4K Resolve shots that are as clean as they can be for 16mm on my tests.

Won't use that camera for a feature film - not possible, but totally doable for  shots spread over a long period of time.

 

Sync sound with a coffee grinder of a camera.. that makes sense.. all that effort to make it work, you coukd easily acquire an NPR or and ACL with proper 400ft loads and steadiness.

[Giray Izcan]

1 hour ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

No one here is extolling the virtues of social media short clips of any kind.

Just to re-iterate, no one here wants film because of scratches, screeches, tire marks or flash bangs, so to whom you are referring to?

What is your suggestion here? Every film stock has different qualities, people choose the one that is more appropriate to the shooting conditions/look they're after.

As for whether it was desired I am sure there were plenty of TV shows such as Sex and the City, Malcolm in the middle, Monk, The OC, and others that did really great work on the format, I am also pretty sure that there were practicalities involved but there's nothing there to scoff at. 

As for the aesthetics there are a bunch of generalizations there in your statement and the complete and utter exclusion of Asian and European cinema.

Also Wes Anderson, Kathryn Bigelow (Got an Oscar for that one), Aronofsky would like  a word about that...

 

Did anyone here ever alluded to any film being shot in any format being an automatic masterpiece? 

 

You are talking about TV shows, which only the lower budget ones opted to shoot on s16.. there is a reason Monk's pilot was shot on 35 and the same thing with Sex and the City.. Believe me, if those productions were budgeted to shoot on 35, they would have, but it is TV and s16 is good enough.

[Giray Izcan]

1 hour ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

No one here is extolling the virtues of social media short clips of any kind.

Just to re-iterate, no one here wants film because of scratches, screeches, tire marks or flash bangs, so to whom you are referring to?

What is your suggestion here? Every film stock has different qualities, people choose the one that is more appropriate to the shooting conditions/look they're after.

As for whether it was desired I am sure there were plenty of TV shows such as Sex and the City, Malcolm in the middle, Monk, The OC, and others that did really great work on the format, I am also pretty sure that there were practicalities involved but there's nothing there to scoff at. 

As for the aesthetics there are a bunch of generalizations there in your statement and the complete and utter exclusion of Asian and European cinema.

Also Wes Anderson, Kathryn Bigelow (Got an Oscar for that one), Aronofsky would like  a word about that...

 

Did anyone here ever alluded to any film being shot in any format being an automatic masterpiece? 

 

Funny.. I thought you were going to call me out and say it is digital because I shot it in raw on Sony f55. The only thing I did in post was to use CST to change the color space to Cineon Log and applied a film print lut that comes with Davinci and mimicked 1 light photochemical finish in terms of controls.. just color balanced to my chart. I set the camera at 4000 amd dropped the nd9 so the ASA got knocked down to 500 ASA, which I rated at 320, very much like shooting and lighting on film. Exact same lighting as if I was shooting on film.. 

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

I think the problem I see sometimes in this discussion is that people seem to think, that having a conviction over an  artistic approach means something.

It really doesn't, there's no inherent meaning to any of this stuff. We simply use the options we think work within the context we aim to operate in. There are no roadblocks, it's just choices.

5 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

Sync sound with a coffee grinder of a camera.. that makes sense.. all that effort to make it work, you coukd easily acquire an NPR or and ACL with proper 400ft loads and steadiness.

You are free to follow that path. As you could be free to say anything of value for the projects you simply  pasted in the forum, with no explanation. 

 

6 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

Believe me, if those productions were budgeted to shoot on 35, they would have, but it is TV and s16 is good enough.

Actually no I don't believe you because you don't  have any evidence for your statement, plus it's full of platitudes.

3 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

Funny.. I thought you were going to call me out and say it is digital because I shot it in raw on Sony f55. The only thing I did in post was to use CST to change the color space to Cineon Log and applied a film print lut that comes with Davinci and mimicked 1 light photochemical finish in terms of controls.. just color balanced to my chart. I set the camera at 4000 amd dropped the nd9 so the ASA got knocked down to 500 ASA, which I rated at 320, very much like shooting and lighting on film. Exact same lighting as if I was shooting on film.

Call you out on what? you trash-pasted some stuff that I admittedly didn't really watch much, other for two secs, I simply immediately answered to your zero-sense statement.

[Giray Izcan]

7 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

I think the problem I see sometimes in this discussion is that people seem to think, that having a conviction over an  artistic approach means something.

It really doesn't, there's no inherent meaning to any of this stuff. We simply use the options we think work within the context we aim to operate in. There are no roadblocks, it's just choices.

You are free to follow that path. As you could be free to say anything of value for the projects you simply  pasted in the forum, with no explanation. 

 

Actually no I don't believe you because you don't  have any evidence for your statement, plus it's full of platitudes.

Call you out on what? you trash-pasted some stuff that I admittedly didn't really watch much, other for two secs, I simply immediately answered to your zero-sense statement.

Ahahaha ok..

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

6 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

Ahahaha ok..

Sure thing, thanks for your insights.

28 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

very much like shooting and lighting on film. Exact same lighting as if I was shooting on film.. 

My apologies, I was able to see literally two seconds because Vimeo was skipping. I saw a guy opening a door and a shot under a bridge.

I didn't see any particular lighting effort to speak of, the two shots I did saw looked a bit like a super grainy bleach bypass look but it was quick. If you want me or others to take a close look feel free to spend five seconds explaining your creative goals in this project and spare us the rest. 

 

 

[Giray Izcan]

7 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

Sure thing, thanks for your insights.

My apologies, I was able to see literally two seconds because Vimeo was skipping. I saw a guy opening a door and a shot under a bridge.

I didn't see any particular lighting effort to speak of, the two shots I did saw looked a bit like a super grainy bleach bypass look but it was quick. If you want me or others to take a close look feel free to spend five seconds explaining your creative goals in this project and spare us the rest. 

 

 

Maybe you can spare us your attitude and maybe show us what you've shot so maybe we can see your expertise and hopefully learn something from you.

[Giray Izcan]

13 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said:

Sure thing, thanks for your insights.

My apologies, I was able to see literally two seconds because Vimeo was skipping. I saw a guy opening a door and a shot under a bridge.

I didn't see any particular lighting effort to speak of, the two shots I did saw looked a bit like a super grainy bleach bypass look but it was quick. If you want me or others to take a close look feel free to spend five seconds explaining your creative goals in this project and spare us the rest. 

 

 

Thank you by the way as far as your comments about my lighting goes. The idea behind good cinematography for the most part is having a non-intrusive lighting so it doesn't come before the story.,  the whole place was lit, everything was lit for intended contrast ratios. This is something you have to learn if you are serious about shooting on film. As a cinematographer, you are there to tell stories that support the director's intent without worrying about showcasing your lighting skills.

Edited February 26 by Giray Izcan

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

2 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

Maybe you can spare us your attitude and maybe show us what you've shot so maybe we can see your expertise and hopefully learn something from you.

Maybe you can spare us your last minute posts that prove nothing.

Please check your attitude instead, you made statements such "as this discussion makes no sense" if it doesn't why are you in it?  Why do you even care?

This thread is about our thoughts on the medium not who has the most expertise. But since you haven't read it you wouldn't know.

 

[Giray Izcan]

No, believe me I have been reading all your comments, which is why I asked you if you were like a new filmmaker who just started shooting on film and can't stop talking about it. Maybe you didn't catch that. I mean don't get me wrong I love film I always prefer filmbut i'm with Tyler as far as like if the budget is there I'll always shoot film but I will not let go of production quality just to feed the camera.

Edited February 26 by Giray Izcan

[Aristeidis Tyropolis]

Just now, Giray Izcan said:

No, believe me I have been reading all your comments, which is why I asked you if you were like a new filmmaker who just started shooting on film and can't stop talking about it. Maybe you didn't catch that. I mean don't get me wrong I love film I always prefer film by those who like I'm with Tyler as far as like if the budget is there I'll always shoot film but I will not let go of production quality just to feed the camer

The thread is literally about being passionate about film shooting over switching to digital.

7 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

Thank you by the way as far as your comments about my lighting goes.

The fact that you immediately assume that I am not aware that lighting should be non intrusive and serve the director's intention is very interesting, I don't do critique because no one asked, but I was primarily being polite.

This is not a thread that I will post personal projects, but I promise that I will do so in the appropriate section, provide a description and ask for opinions

To that end I will be posting my NC500 and NC200 tests in the relevant section the following month and promise to update on my audio tests as well.