Jump to content

Beyond VV


Daniel Porto
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Beyond VV:
The future of digital cinema

Firstly forgive my English I haven’t been to school since 2007.

How does it look? That’s the important question, that is the question that tells why we choose one image over another. For over a hundred years film negative has been the king of image quality but with digital cinema getting better and better over the years by all intents and purposes film capture by and large is on the decline. Less productions are shooting on film and less theatres are projecting film. But when it comes to the crunch digital produces a ‘better’ image than film can capture… All but with one exception: IMAX 15perf/70mm.

This document will explain why I think this is the case.
The photo on the previous page was taken from the pfhx.com website created by Phil Holland. This photo illustrates the difference between 35mm 4 perf and 70mm 15 perf. As you can see the field of view of the image plane of 70mm is drastically bigger than 35mm. I remember seeing my first 70mm print when I went to see The Dark Knight at the IMAX Melbourne screen (worlds 3rd largest screen)… it was magical, I sat 3 rows from the front and the image look so crisp and vibrant and sharp and almost 3D without the dual camera. It was simply breathtaking. So why does the image of 70mm look so much better than 35mm?

Bigger is better. There is no physical free lunch. A 50mm lens on a 35mm positive print is equivalent to the frame size of a 141mm lens on a 70mm positive.
Well Duh! So why is IMAX ‘better’ than 35mm. It is because of the longer lens! The 70mm negative has a larger FOV which in tern requires a longer lens more than used on 35mm. So yes you need a longer lens to get a similar capture on 70mm then what you would use on 35mm so what!?!?!

Take a look at object around you and study it. Look for details and even try and read the small writing on say a can of cola. Now go closer and closer. You are getting closer and closer and essentially getting tighter and tighter and more detail resolves and you can see the intricacies of the object. It’s really as simple as that. A longer lens on the wider digital sensor or film plane just resolves and shows more detail.

Currently VV seems to be the industry standard all except the Alexa65 which you can’t purchase anyway. I would argue that we should keep expanding our sensor sizes to at least the equivalent of IMAX 15perf 70mm. Better Images for everyone. And I’m sure there is some engineer right now chipping away at this very goal.

Written By Jed McKenna
randomnessjed@gmail.com

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
2 hours ago, Daniel Porto said:

 

But when it comes to the crunch digital produces a ‘better’ image than film can capture… All but with one exception: IMAX 15perf/70mm.

Because it is the holidays, I will try to be polite. But this is a garbage quote if I ever saw one. Who determined this and by what criteria did they determine it?

I may not like the film workflow much but the image quality and aesthetic is amazing and is the standard by which everything else is judged. Even on digital camera forums or comment threads on YouTube and Vimeo, most concede that film looks better but that digital cameras are a compromise based on other factors (not image quality).

Please don't open up another can of worms with the film vs. digital argument. This has already been settled many times before: 1) digital wins on convenience 2) film wins on absolute aesthetic, skin tones, color, etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

Interesting that every time a new digital camera comes out (Red especially), we have fanboys remind us of how much better digital is than film yet I notice I never see shootouts comparing their camera's images to that of film...strange isn't it? It is because they know that most of the population will prefer the look of film. Therefore, it is easier to have shootouts with other digital sensors since many sensors output a similar look with proper lighting, LUT, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

So I just visited Epcot, and viewed both the old and the new circle-vision 360 presentations.

Canada was presented in bland HD at best, with bland color and a bit of trick editing. 
 

China was presented in 9 screens of real projected 35mm. It was old, scratched, stained, and in very much need of restoration.  It was AWESOME! The colors were great, most prints were decent enough, optical dissolves were fantastic, it just felt very nostalgic and “right”.  
 

On other person in my party remarked that the China presentation was grainy, and old - mind you he is Chinese and commented that most of the presentation was filmed in the 90s and most of that stuff didn’t exist anymore. He also said that the Canada presentation was far superior because of the presentation. It was better to him, because it was new. 
 

This is the most present issue in these arguments, presentation.  It is quite difficult for most people to compare a photochemical workflow to a digital one.  We have cut out 80% of the photochemical process that gives us a final image. We then further take away films inherent qualities in the digital realm by using tools on that process that were not designed to manipulate film negative. 
 

I agree we should not argue film vs digital, but rather we should look at the end presentation. After all, I don’t care which camera body one chooses, laying in my bed, watching a show before sleep time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Jay Young said:

I agree we should not argue film vs digital, but rather we should look at the end presentation. After all, I don’t care which camera body one chooses, laying in my bed, watching a show before sleep time. 

One thing that I always laughed at is that when we shot film we were trying to make it look 'perfect' and when we shot digital we were trying to 'rough it up' a bit.... counter-intuitive really 😛

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

That essay shows a total misunderstanding of optics, the fact that you need longer focal lengths to achieve the same field of view of shorter focal length on a smaller format AT THE SAME DISTANCE does not mean you are focusing closer or getting tighter with more detail or any of that.

The only thing that using the longer focal lengths gives you in IMAX is less depth of field. That may give you the illusion of more detail since less of the frame is in focus, so what's left in focus pops out more.  IMAX has more resolving power because the negative is larger -- if the film and lens resolves "x" lines per millimeter, then more millimeters means more detail.

Other than the difference in lens designs here -- the large-format DNA primes used in this test have more corner fall-off, the real difference once you match field of view and distance is depth of field, which you can then match by stopping down the lens on the larger format:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Mullen ASC said:

Here's a simple concept: POSITION DETERMINES PERSPECTIVE / FOCAL-LENGTH DETERMINES MAGNIFICATION / FORMAT SIZE DETERMINES HOW MUCH OF THE PROJECTED LENS IMAGE IS CROPPED

I like to think of it like if you cut out a hole in a piece of paper the size of the film back and move it X mm from your eye, that will be your field of view for that size film back and focal length (X mm focal length).

Edited by M Joel W
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

My opinion means nothing because I'm not really a cameraman of any kind, let alone a director of photography, but I'll happily take a well specified super-35mm sensor over any of the bigger stuff because, in my view, the microscopically slight differences (I hesitate even to say improvement) are so trivial as to be massively outweighed by the inconveniences on almost all productions.

If you're perpetually working on stuff where your resources are effectively infinite, fine, but even then I think it's really just the tsar putting gold on his bread.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

That essay shows a total misunderstanding of optics, the fact that you need longer focal lengths to achieve the same field of view of shorter focal length on a smaller format AT THE SAME DISTANCE does not mean you are focusing closer or getting tighter with more detail or any of that.

i disagree david. put both cameras at the exact same position. 35mm camera with a 50mm, 70mm IMAX camera with a 141mm. Same field of view, same perspective, different depth of field. Now chuck a 50mm lens non the 70mm IMAX camera and then you need to move in closer to get the same field of view of the 35mm camera - the image looks sharper, better and clearer then having the 50mm on the 35mm camera... what are your thoughts david?

Edited by Daniel Porto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Daniel Porto said:

i disagree david. put both cameras at the exact same position. 35mm camera with a 50mm, 70mm IMAX camera with a 141mm. Same field of view, same perspective, different depth of field. Now chuck a 50mm lens non the 70mm IMAX camera and then you need to move in closer to get the same field of view of the 35mm camera - the image looks sharper, better and clearer then having the 50mm on the 35mm camera... what are your thoughts david?

Move in closer or zoom in closer?

Field of view is a function of film back size and focal length – camera position is an independent variable from both and will alter perspective, not field of view.

Ask yourself, what if the sun is in the background of your frame? Will moving the camera forward alter the size of the sun? Probably not much: only zooming in (changing the focal length) or altering the film back size will change the sun's size appreciably, unless you move in millions of miles....

That said, a large format camera at an equivalent field of view (longer focal length) will generally have a sharper image, but whether sharper is "better" is a question of aesthetic preference imo more than objective superiority.

Technically, it's a simpler question – sharper (large format) is technically "better." Aesthetically, imo it's more complicated. My favorite DPs (Kaminski in particular) favor a softer look, my favorite digital cameras (Alexa) have a softer look than Red or Venice, my favorite lenses (Cooke, C Series, etc.) are softer than Master Primes or T Series. So for me sharper is not "better." But that's just me.

I think you're conflating field of view with perspective and assuming everyone's preference is for technical perfection. Which might be rubbing people the wrong way.

I don't even totally disagree – I like the large format cinematography in the Master and Lawrence of Arabia a lot. But that's also because I like the cinematography in both films in general. Format is the last piece of that equation. And I also like the cinematography in Black Swan and the Celebration for that matter and don't think a larger format would serve either film well....

Edited by M Joel W
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, M Joel W said:

Move in closer or zoom in closer?

Field of view is a function of film back size and focal length – camera position is an independent variable from both and will alter perspective, not field of view.

Ask yourself, what if the sun is in the background of your frame? Will moving the camera forward alter the size of the sun? Probably not much: only zooming in (changing the focal length) or altering the film back size will change the sun's size appreciably, unless you move in millions of miles....

That said, a large format camera at an equivalent field of view (longer focal length) will generally have a sharper image, but whether sharper is "better" is a question of aesthetic preference imo more than objective superiority.

Technically, it's a simpler question – sharper (large format) is technically "better." Aesthetically, imo it's more complicated. My favorite DPs (Kaminski in particular) favor a softer look, my favorite digital cameras (Alexa) have a softer look than Red or Venice, my favorite lenses (Cooke, C Series, etc.) are softer than Master Primes or T Series. So for me sharper is not "better." But that's just me.

I think you're conflating field of view with perspective and assuming everyone's preference is for technical perfection. Which might be rubbing people the wrong way.

I don't even totally disagree – I like the large format cinematography in the Master and Lawrence of Arabia a lot. But that's also because I like the cinematography in both films in general. Format is the last piece of that equation. And I also like the cinematography in Black Swan and the Celebration for that matter and don't think a larger format would serve either film well....

yes 'better' depends on your taste but what do you think about my long lens theory? i think its true im watching my projector on my couch all good, go up to the wall and i can see all the pixels 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Daniel Porto said:

yes 'better' depends on your taste but what do you think about my long lens theory? i think its true im watching my projector on my couch all good, go up to the wall and i can see all the pixels 🙂

I think you're still mixing up field of view and camera position. 

If the camera is closer to the wall, the wall will appear sharper or easier to see detail in, but that's regardless of sensor/film back size. The wall is sharper to your eye when you walk up to it, that doesn't mean your eye magically grew in size or resolution.

When you push in (change perspective), it effectively magnifies closer objects like that hypothetical wall in frame, while distant objects such as the sun will remain effectively the same size. If you zoom in (change focal lengths) that's another story and the size of everything changes equally. Zooming in and pushing in are not the same and I think this is why David disagrees with you. And so do I.

If you want to see this difference between a zoom and dolly illustrated, look at the Vertigo zoom effect used in Vertigo and in Jaws. The "zolly" effect. Or just experiment with push ins vs zooms.

Even if zooming in and pushing in were the same, and they're not, "sharper" is an aesthetic choice more often than not. Do you think Aronofsky shoots S16 because he can't afford S35 or doesn't know any better? Or because it's appropriate for the look of his films?

So I think you're confusing perspective with field of view (confusing push ins with zoom ins) and also assuming we all prefer technical perfection over subjective aesthetic choices. So I disagree with you on two counts.

But all the same, yes, I agree that the larger format, field of view equal, the sharper the image. If sharpness is your goal, and it's fine if it is, go for it.

Edited by M Joel W
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a zoom isn't a comparison of format its one long image... im not saying that lenses look sharper when you zoom in with a lens. but i am saying that 70mm to 35mm comparison 70mm is sharper and i believe this is because of being able to get closer and still capture a whole image with a longer lens to boot. this is why 70mm IMAX just looks magical. anyway at the end of the day i hope someone makes a 15perf 70mm sized digital sensor and lenses... RED and Arri seem to be the most likely innovators in this way i believe 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moving a camera closer changes the perspective of the image. In effect, it magnifies the foreground and background different amounts. Changing the focal length (zooming) has a different effect, it magnifies both equally.

Zoom ins and push ins are not interchangeable. And this imo at least is a key part of a filmmaker's vocabulary. 

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think this is primary among the reasons David disagrees with you.

Regardless, if you like the look of wide angle large format photography and can use it effectively, that matters more than any disagreements we have about field of view vs perspective. If it works for you, go for it. I really really liked the wide angle large format photography on the Revenant, for instance. 

Edited by M Joel W
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, M Joel W said:

 

Zoom ins and push ins are not interchangeable. And this imo at least is a key part of a filmmaker's vocabulary. 

 

Yes i agree.

and yes its all personal preference. that why we have so many different lenses and so many different camera systems. i mean i still like shooting 16mm or 2K on the right project but to me for a 'better' image i will predominately prefer shooting IMAX and this doesn't even need to have any merit meaning that my belief that it is better could in fact be false and im trusting my gut too much 🙂

Edited by Daniel Porto
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
45 minutes ago, Daniel Porto said:

and yes its all personal preference. 

Yep, sure is. I personally love the look of 16mm and find it to be the most unique look in the cosmos. It has the beauty of 35mm with the grittiness of 8mm (without being too gritty). If I had my way, everything would be shot in 16mm; that is how much I like it. I think 65mm is largely pointless (my opinion only) and overly sharp and detailed tends to take away the suspension of disbelief (again, only my opinion). What isn't visible is often as important (or more so) than what is. Keep films magical and mysterious for the win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

Again this is a misunderstanding of how lenses work. You want to put on a “shorter” lens and move closer, fine, you can do that in any format. Perspective is determined by subject to camera distance, not by the focal length. If you like the perspective of being three feet away from the object and you like the field of view of a 50mm lens in IMAX, you can match that perspective and field of view in regular 35mm by picking the equivalent focal length and being the same distance — the only difference will be depth of field, which also may or may not be possible to match.

Just watch the video I posted.

Or read this:

https://www.yedlin.net/NerdyFilmTechStuff/LargeFormatMisconceptions.html

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
3 hours ago, Daniel Porto said:

i disagree david. put both cameras at the exact same position. 35mm camera with a 50mm, 70mm IMAX camera with a 141mm. Same field of view, same perspective, different depth of field. Now chuck a 50mm lens non the 70mm IMAX camera and then you need to move in closer to get the same field of view of the 35mm camera - the image looks sharper, better and clearer then having the 50mm on the 35mm camera... what are your thoughts david?

But if you move in closer with a 50mm lens on the IMAX camera then all you have to do is move in the same amount on a 35mm camera and use a 17mm lens and you’re back to getting the same image, just a different depth of field. The sharpness of IMAX comes from using a larger negative, it’s not the focal length and camera distance that creates the extra resolution of IMAX.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, David Mullen ASC said:

The sharpness of IMAX comes from using a larger negative, it’s not the focal length and camera distance that creates the extra resolution of IMAX.

yes but at the end of the day film has the same resolution in that the each grain is evenly dispersed over the entire image the same for 35mm and 65mm. its resolution is constant. at the end of the day whatever math you use to get there i guess im just saying im gonna shoot imax sized digital sensor majority, 35mm sized sensor for prime and some zoom shots where less weight is required and then finally with 16mm sized sensor for when i really need to be low weight taking advantage of the lighter super16 glass. 🙂

thats all really im trying to say i guess which is that im a camera nerd and very particular about what i like in that respect, lighting acting and everything else i tend to work with whatever is supplied by the universe 😛 🙂 whats your general 'rules' when it comes to creating an image David?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member
23 hours ago, Daniel Porto said:

But when it comes to the crunch digital produces a ‘better’ image than film can capture… All but with one exception: IMAX 15perf/70mm.

I mean, even the Alexa 65 doesn't get remotely close to the resolution of standard 5 perf 65mm negative. 

So one would argue, all the 70mm formats are superior in resolution to any current digital imager. 

23 hours ago, Daniel Porto said:

 I remember seeing my first 70mm print when I went to see The Dark Knight at the IMAX Melbourne screen (worlds 3rd largest screen)… it was magical, I sat 3 rows from the front and the image look so crisp and vibrant and sharp and almost 3D without the dual camera. It was simply breathtaking. So why does the image of 70mm look so much better than 35mm?

I mean IMAX projection has a lot of benefits. 

1) It has an extremely bright and even lamp, no 35mm projector gets even close. I'd argue no 5 perf 70mm projector does either. 
2) The projector has actual registration pins that lock it in place during the exposure, thus there is NO gate weave/wobble. 
3) The larger negative means the printing process has less degradation. So a 4th generation IMAX print, will look WAY better than a 4th generation 35mm or even 5 perf 70mm print. 
4) The large negative produces upwards of 12k AT THE SCREEN if of course, printed directly off the negative and low-ISO stock. 

Our standard 4 perf projection format is not a great format. Due to the optical soundtrack, there is quite a bit (2mm or so) loss of image size over what could be on screen, compared to the S35mm negatives most people shoot, especially these days. There have been several other 35mm formats, such as VistaVision, Cinerama, Fox Cinemascope, which all solved these issues in one way or another, but sadly none of them took off for theatrical. The "classic" Edison format is what remained, mainly due to compatibility and the ease of use. Even with the best 35mm projectors in the word, the format doesn't hold a candle to 70mm. 

On 12/25/2021 at 1:29 AM, Daniel Porto said:

Currently VV seems to be the industry standard all except the Alexa65 which you can’t purchase anyway. I would argue that we should keep expanding our sensor sizes to at least the equivalent of IMAX 15perf 70mm. Better Images for everyone. And I’m sure there is some engineer right now chipping away at this very goal.

Very doubtful for a multitude of reasons. The biggest reason is simply cost, who is going to shoot a 12k RAW image? Most movies are still shot with 3.8k Alexa Mini's and 4.4k Alexa LF's. Heck, movies shot on 35mm are generally scanned at higher resolution and cropped down to 4k for post. The reason is very simple; it's very costly to deal with the high resolution media and ya know what, that is just getting more expensive due to the chip shortages. All the benefits of the shallow depth of field look, can be achieved with the Alexa LF no problem, just watch "Joker", it looks like it's shot on IMAX. Just run longer glass at F2 (or less) and you'll get the look you're after. 

On 12/25/2021 at 1:29 AM, Daniel Porto said:

For over a hundred years film negative has been the king of image quality but with digital cinema getting better and better over the years by all intents and purposes film capture by and large is on the decline. Less productions are shooting on film and less theatres are projecting film.

Here is the skinny tho, what does digital cinema offer that you can't get at home? I have a UHD HDR TV with UHD HDR BluRay player and streaming media. A very small percentage of screens are TRUE HDR. A very small percentage of movies are finished in HDR. Also how many movies that go to the cinema's are entirely finished in 4k? Isn't that percentage still only like 40%? I haven't checked in a while, but most movies are still finished in 2k due to the cost of 4k visual effects. If anything home cinema is getting better and better, because Amazon and Netflix originals are nearly entirely 4k and HDR. Cinema has been pretty stagnant once Dolby Vision and IMAX Laser became the "high quality" standards. 

If you look at film acquisition, the last Bond film shot 2.7 million feet of camera negative. I believe that's record breaking for a standard theatrical movie. There are countless movies being shot on film, so many on 16mm it's nearly impossible to get film these days. On average, there are 40 - 60 theatrical bound movies shot on motion picture film each year world wide. That number may sound low, but it's been that way since film died at the end of 2013.

During the pandemic, there were several NEW theaters being constructed with film projectors. There have also been several theaters re-equipped with film projectors, including 15 perf. Yes, IMAX is putting projectors back into theaters and we've seen some very cool all-film IMAX festivals recently, including at the Darling Harbour theater in Sydney. Tho, they are re-constructing the theater, so don't know if the projector will stay. 

Where I wholeheartedly agree, standard 35mm multiplex projection is LONG dead... good riddance. We do have PLENTY of film projection, GOBS of it. Australia however has very little, so I get where you're coming from if you're focused on that region. However in North America and Central Europe, there are theaters everywhere that have film. Sadly Covid really put a dent in the film releases, there were 5 scheduled in 2020 and only one of them happened. One of them was pushed to Feb 2022, but "Licorice Pizza" came out right on schedule and they're doing a pretty wide release on 70mm and 35mm. It was projecting in LA for a month early on film only, NO digital screenings. The movie broke the record for most money made per screen for film-only prints since film died. The previous record was with Hateful Eight, due to it's 2 week pre-release on film only. If the studio's go back to releasing films ON FILM, like they were doing prior to the pandemic, as a "special treat" to audiences who care, I think we may see more releases. 

So I don't personally see a decline in film production and/or projection. I see shooting pretty stagnant and projection going back up again actually, tho of course still small potato's in the grand scheme of things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/26/2021 at 6:15 PM, Daniel Porto said:

thats all really im trying to say i guess which is that im a camera nerd 

There is nothing wrong with that at all - in fact I think about cameras, lenses, lighting and stuff all the time. But I respectfully suggest that you read carefully what David wrote in response. Your understanding of optics and so on is not accurate. I'm not having a go, I'm just saying, keep learning, keep questioning.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP, sure. Why not keep increasing the image quality...unless there are some sort of drawbacks. I just wish the same inventiveness went into making affordable film scanners.

And beside IQ, digital can make better film like emulations with dynamic grain characteristics and deeper blacks.

 

Weegee%20press%20photo%20D.%20D.%20Teoli

 

Weegee

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/25/2021 at 12:24 PM, David Mullen ASC said:

That essay shows a total misunderstanding of optics, the fact that you need longer focal lengths to achieve the same field of view of shorter focal length on a smaller format AT THE SAME DISTANCE does not mean you are focusing closer or getting tighter with more detail or any of that.

The only thing that using the longer focal lengths gives you in IMAX is less depth of field. That may give you the illusion of more detail since less of the frame is in focus, so what's left in focus pops out more.  IMAX has more resolving power because the negative is larger -- if the film and lens resolves "x" lines per millimeter, then more millimeters means more detail.

Other than the difference in lens designs here -- the large-format DNA primes used in this test have more corner fall-off, the real difference once you match field of view and distance is depth of field, which you can then match by stopping down the lens on the larger format:

 

 

Dunno why depth of field would be a deal breaker. If IQ is better, just juggle things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/26/2021 at 1:55 AM, David Mullen ASC said:

But if you move in closer with a 50mm lens on the IMAX camera then all you have to do is move in the same amount on a 35mm camera and use a 17mm lens and you’re back to getting the same image, just a different depth of field. The sharpness of IMAX comes from using a larger negative, it’s not the focal length and camera distance that creates the extra resolution of IMAX.

Gotta take into account the loss of generational dupe sharpness when you do film dupes, from working negs from the OCN, etc. I never compared cine' sharpness in the digital vs film arena. But I can say flatbed scanned 35mm still negative film, is only = about 3 or 4 mp with a P&S camera. It is relatively low res stuff. A 6mp digital camera with crop sensor beats out the 35mm film for sharpness.

What we need to see are real life cine' comparisons. I had the 35mm up to back up my claim, but Tumblr shut down my camera comparison website in 2019 and lost it all. Of course, tests have to be done by someone that has no iron in the fire. Or the 'film only' or 'digital only' devotees may skew results to match their own prejudices. I work in film and digital, so I don't care. I just go with what is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Forum Sponsors

Visual Products

DMX-iT

FJS International

Film Gears

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Serious Gear

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...