Aristeidis Tyropolis

Your stills photography example was used in the context of your own personal anecdotal experience - I do not process at home. I personally get consistent results every time, but will absorb a miss from time to time and have ways to mitigate. So you want a digital camera, and suddenly you had an epiphany that film is not immediate and sometimes things go south, outstanding thinking, I'm sure no one has ever made the same realization. So something happened in 2022 which was adressed - great. So unclear and not prevalent and not consistent, excellent... Where? Can you please post screenshots? There is some remjet yes, but it's all accounted for, or pre-ordered - if you wanna buy something today is going to be 99.9% AHU. Doesn't change the fact that the movie was cancelled and redone many years later completely differently. Insurance aside, it was an important event to Gilliam regardless. A random Joe tries to minimize the risk to the degree they can, but is fully aware of the residual ones. I don't think your example is an indication of anything in particular, just an anecdote of the many you tend to present. So an unquantifiable statement that doesn't really mean anything to anyone with no way to prove anything. You made the claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence to that effect, please provide these "overwhelming" screenshots and posts - or it's just hearsay. No evidence to that effect. Some but others disagree, so it's just opinion. So pointless example then. I personally don't know anyone (especially average Joe's) that don't shoot footage to check lenses, stock and camera across the board. I don't, but just that's a matter of opinion and my ENTIRE point - you just think your way is the way others should follow, but the worst thing is that you think your personal realities are the realities of other people. I despise the digital look and the fact it needs curating to look acceptable, but that's just my opinion - you see how that works? This whole sentence sits in your imagination and has no reflection in reality. This is pivoting again and it's not what I said, you are making up your own strawman arguments again What "and" and "umm" and "oooh" are you talking about Tyler? Who asked? Nobody asked you or anyone for feedback or experiences or questions on AHU scratches on that thread, it was actually a very different question, you just rushed to post whatever, because you have some weird obsession in proving your confirmation bias, which frankly I don't get. You don't even let people have discussions anymore without you intervening with your "experiences".

Yours, it is your cameras Tyler, not everyone's cameras, you had a botched shoot and decided to extrapolate to kingdom come because your two cameras failed. I have like four of them of various vintage and capabilities, one was actually brought in with disintegrated light seals and a faulty capacitor, changed it myself, all good. And I have recently been enjoying ECN-2 processed in marvelous overkill 14K (Yes fourteen) flat scans, with zero problems across all my cameras. If one breaks (unlikely) I will either try to fix or work with the others - I shoot literally tons of rolls of different stocks like all the time. After almost twenty years shooting stills film I only had this one light seal issue with an ebay camera, which is now perfect. Yea, some of them break sometimes, so freaking what? Doesn't mean anything to anyone. Are they less reliable that digital cameras? Yes. So? Shot 50D, 250D, 200T last year one after the other, not a single glitch. You had some bad carts, so? Ok, so something bad happened, which only happened within your circle and the rest of the world failed to mention a thing. While I believe you had issues and that you do know some who also had some issues, I don't believe it was as widespread as you said without you (it's your claim) providing concrete evidence to that effect. Even if some remjet issues where prevalent in some productions it still isn't defining anything specific other than that occurrence and Kodak's intention to rectify part of those issues by introducing AHU (this is speculation I don't know if true). I would like to see evidence to that effect - I personally contacted labs in Europe and I've still to hear of widespread issues but I will update if I hear different. Define "nice". This is your opinion, in my view people shoot digitally because they want the capabilities of a digital camera package, with guarantees on recorded clips actually existing, being one factor which is kinda obvious, but it's hardly the defining factor. The fact that you deduced that creative risk is some sort of obvious superficial conduit that translates in the way you described it, is a bit hilarious - creative risk is taken from any person because THEY WANT TO TAKE IT not because they expect some quantifiable specific reward from the audience - that would be absurd, superficial and naive. Explain to us how is it taking extreme examples to prove a point a way to conduct a discussion about risk management? Can you provide evidence to that effect? So, they shot the whole thing without conducting a single test? I mean the whole thing with you choosing to describe the crying (I probably believe it) is a bit too much don't you think? Even if that person was the most unlucky person in the world, and did absolutely everything right, how is that not anecdotal? Terry Gilliam had a whole set destroyed by weather and a movie cancelled, how is that defining? Or is your statement that every independent 16mm production in L.A got screwed sideways by shooting film? So he didn't test any of the stock he bought? So? You can now buy like a DJI Ronin 4D, which is like a camera on a gimbal - can't get more ludicrously practical than that, footage looks agreeable, ProRes out of the box and super steady with like 98% of the people who watch "stuff" online on socials and on the streamers - you can even make it be like "hand-held" with a button as with all gimbals nowadays. Under that logic, why did you even buy that Blackmagic Camera, and use it with your expensive zoom to shoot trains and stuff on mountains or whatever, who even watches that stuff on ANY platform? Even if you have more professional gigs you could still do it with a package ten thousand times cheaper. Who even cares (as you say) about sensor readout speeds, none of it (as you say) translates directly to 99% of the average person. Even many of your B2B customers will struggle to tell apart two different 4k master edits from any professional camera nowadays. But it's not about that now, is it? You keep extrapolating actual facts (let's be fair, you are sometimes right), personal choices, random observations, anecdotal evidence, a mix of personal and professional experience, as an unassailable dogma that keeps creating a you/them dynamic that is not productive. You rushed to write on that other thread, that people have constant issues with AHU to a person that literally recorded 154 minutes of AHU with no problems and wasn't even inquiring about that at all. Why?

Thanks, I asked a few labs (two different ones) myself and they report no particular difference.

He (as claimed) shot what? fourteen 400' rolls, so that's 154 minutes of footage with no issues. While I surely believe there might be some people with issues, I highly doubt it is everyone and at all times. But I will report as well if any.

My question was not directed at you, nor was it specific about differences in look in color science.

Thanks so much for the update, I am in the process to shoot some mixed material as well.

Any issues with the footage itself?

Mine is the Tokina APS-C one, with F2.8 I guess with some similarities here and there, I did not see any crazy distortion other than the one specified from the manufacturer, dont understand the all caps, we are all familiar with field of view.

The only thing I don't like is that it doesn't go further! 😎 But for the money, its absolutely awesome, all controls are smooth and it can be pretty "reasonably"sharp at f4. It's my all rounder at the moment and contemplating getting the dirt-cheap 8mm (for EF mount, APS-C again) which is in fact a fish-eye, but can be made to "work" in certain scenarios. For more tele I have a full frame Tokina 24-80 for Nikon which is in fact an Angénieux design if I am not mistaken, that one is really, really well performing on 16mm

Have that one too, its Tokina edition which is the same thing really, that lens is for APS-C. Haven't noticed anything egregious, its quite soft at f2.8 obviously and requires stopping down a bit for sharpness, but that's another story. I am now using the Tokina 11-16 T3 mostly for wides which is really by all intents and purposes not "practically" distorting anything.

Sirat was incredible, and I believe should get extra credits for how the sound was designed and executed on that movie. That's maybe a 416. No, that's just your perspective, a movie is comprised on a myriad of tangible and intangible qualities with field of view, resolution, depth of field etc. being just one and not always necessarily defining. That movie is not any less or more "cinematic" than any other ever made in the history of cinema. So If I put an FX3 - with technically shallower DOF than an Alexa on same focal length - on a Steadicam, slap some good primes on there, find some talent, get a production designer, DP, a script about "something" all the crews and bells. Boom! I got "cinematic"? I don't disagree, or dispute 35mm having obviously more capabilities and resolution as you said, with significantly more wiggle room but that's a function of its properties, it's not necessarily correlated with whether something looks like a movie, because history has proved that that word is much more nuanced. Conversely, there's nothing necessarily preventing someone shooting on 35mm and approaching it and actually making it look as a documentary. There's much more fluidity if you don't see everything as a capability comparison.

I have shot from a variety of different equipment scenarios (and experience levels) beginning with Hi8 basically. I did what I could with the tools I had in front of me and could be afforded, but as explained earlier there wasn't a single time over the years that I did not yearn for shooting on film minus some work that was conceived to look a certain way. I super-hard disagree with your blanket "story was king" statement. Yes it was/is a guiding principle, for a large (the majority?) number of movies but far, far from all. Mainstream Hollywood is not the only place that produced movies and even through that, there were excellent artists that operated differently. I appreciate a host to different approaches to film making. The rest are projections of your mind that have never been stated, implied or alluded to with a healthy dose of loaded questioning that makes zero sense. Nobody reasonable thinks that any specific methodology "saves" anything on literally anything in life, not just cinema. I really don't understand the "automatic" filing system about people's intentions and possible outcomes. You're free to disagree on the approach, feel free to use the one(s) that work for you.

No. Please accept that there isn't one way to approach things in life. I have established my rationale well beyond what projects I am engaged in general and specifically - I will be posting updates.

I agree, if you look at cinematography break-downs over the past years, you'll see really professional people explain away all the motivational aspects of their lighting, in pretty similar ways, i.e., green cast on faces is about a person's psychology and/or situation being problematic, etc. It's all very clinical and straight out of a cinematography class that isn't interested in being particularly layered or deep. Having also difficulties accepting the placement of "everywhere" diffuse being some form of naturalism as it "refuses" even simple hard hitting sun rays as part of the image, pools of lights are simply forbidden. Wong Kar-Wai, as part of the select few that mastered mood, proved that you can introduce it as a character and make the story work through that.

I literally said that that the K3 is not suitable for short or full narrative (unless maybe very experimental stuff). I don't plan to do any of the above and my use will be strategic, sporadic over a long period of time and within very specific contexts. I don't plan any shooting lasting (with prep) any longer than 2.5 hours. I will start a diary thread to explain the process