M Joel W

What camera are you using? You're trying to recover clips from the Gemini? At least in my experience they're available to read in OSX finder so long as you write clips to media or whatever the option is before turning off the Gemini. I think I misunderstood your question.

Re: 2K ProRes vs ArriRAW, there is no benefit to raw in terms of color or tonality that I see – if you get the exposure and white balance anywhere in the ballpark. There's no appreciable difference in dynamic range in my experience, either. And there's no highlight recovery algorithm as there is with Red and Black Magic. In terms of resolution, 2.8K is noticeably sharper and at higher ISOs, very subtly noisier than ProRes. Sometimes I think I prefer the look of 2K because I prefer a softer image. But I also prefer a little more texture and I like the flexibility of adjusting white balance and exposure in post; even if it should be easy to correct in Resolve, I like being able to adjust the raw sliders. Long story short, it's not much better. Despite all that, I always shoot ArriRAW, mostly for the sharpness, texture, and ability to dial in exposure.

Probably mercury vapor street lamps, which have since been increasingly replaced with LEDs.

I see both 365nm and 395nm LED lights on Amazon and the one I posted earlier I believe is 185nm and 253nm. Would higher frequency light work better? I am leaning toward a 395nm 10w LED light now.

I researched it a bit more on eBay, and apparently the Jansjo LED isn't a great option. That above UV light I have did work well, but it felt a little excessive/dangerous to look at compared with the UV LEDS – and it didn't work for my Voigtlander Zoomar. I think that UV LEDs like I assume your flashlight is are probably best, but I don't have a definitive answer or know if there's a best wavelength. As I mentioned, I have, or had, some lenses that have a slightly different tint (Voigtlander Zoomar, Tegea, 37-140mm Foton zoom) and I wonder if these have thorium in them or lanthanum, and if there is a way to "de-yellow" them as well, as I have not had as much luck. (I sold the Zoomar for this reason but kind of regret it now.)

I searched and didn't see an answer, but maybe I didn't look deep enough. I don't want to damage the lens. I have heard of some places that remove and treat just the thoriated element. In the past, I had luck using a light like this on some lenses: https://www.amazon.com/UV-C-Light-Lamp-Bulb-Ozone/dp/B081CMKVHR/ref=sr_1_34?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.t7SgdabuVcsPyTtVKq08BhHZDIOle6MX0QBnSg0c866ZVsFa_8cUArXK5E_tGdZfsg66W1Ik9_H9eNxjFoth-GZfiZw20JpvlRbBPW0TRm8TMnbDR0KXf7dVqXPMZsbUfABqetm5IRgrO1m2WYLzuJuYubLnfeHTcc7T5JhM20wxt-OFqARagMqFKlRwnDD7TWf2Cw6aDUkhipHdegAg6Dy-oi2ZI7hX_9vjLTQyc-ZNh2oWrxD2gq0GE73eBnP7U1L2HXexXhEhf6Cm2nSRmZ4ooMeLS6aYz88R2Sj17f8bbganKZlYdGCZJ_9lTQRIy87zjiAmWaLHYfnAbSadL88bpD1GwsL2iCIk3itK4p-7nnPOMLRNPtT0tqDVJalz0XeiBQOmmgg_yWo6SeAZWcAaminchAq-0eWtiLaW7R1WnM5Pj5en7epmWwNWoAXX.PaDBPRvg_ktAxo9AzYH2ijwjQGsPP-YkPbcO7FOx66M&dib_tag=se&keywords=uv+sterilization+light&qid=1742066122&sr=8-34 But I'd like to try something a little less intense. I can start to smell ozone with that, or maybe it's my imagination. I'm mostly working with a 35mm f1.4 pre-AI Nikkor. And 50mm f1.4 Fuji. Is there a specific wavelength you want? Can these lamps damage the lens? Lastly, where I have not had luck was with a Voigtlander Zoomar that had a slightly different tint. I have noticed two of my other lenses (Tegea 9.8mm and 37-140mm Foton Zoom) have yellow tints but these are more subtle. Is this due to lanthanum? Is it possible to anneal or reduce this or not worth it? I do not want to damage these lenses. Thanks.

I missed that. Looks like you’re right. I’m still going with different lens entirely because the metric focus marks are blue on the Aaton mount one? But I could be wrong about that, too.

It could be an Aaton mount, in which case it is likely possible to send it in for conversion. (I had my 7-63mm PL converted to Aaton.) The focus ring looks entirely different, though, so it's clearly not the same lens.

I sold it on eBay. All of this has been sold.

Looked great. How much of the atmospherics (the fog in the graveyard scene, the snowfall) was done in comp and how much in camera? Why did the mesopic filter reduce apparent saturation? Wouldn't band pass filters increase the apparent saturation of the image? For the candle-lit scenes, how much supplemental lighting was there in addition to the candles?

I’ve heard that Robert Richardson does something similar but with backlights, combing a hard backlight with a soft source nearby but more to the side to carry it and wrap it around a bit while maintaining the shape and direction.

Hi Camille, bad timing it just sold last week.

What are the rumors of a mid-tier Alexa?

These are still available. I'll sell the set for $1600 net to me if I can sell them before the end of the year.

Petter sure I was thinking the 17.5-75mm. I think Tyler is right.

I believe (at least the Arri standard mount version) was made for normal 16 but covers super16.

I think that looks good. If you think it looks good, don't worry about it. As others have mentioned, overexposing and bringing the imagine down in post will reduce noise, which might be desirable, similar to how shooting on a slower film stock would reduce grain. It would also mean you risk clipping highlights sooner, however. There is a famous story about how on Mad Max: Fury Road they overexposed the day for night sequences. Lubezki also overexposed (film) on the New World and eschewed color correction filters I believe. On the other hand, some DPs will underexpose the Alexa to shoot at an effective 1600 or 3200 ISO to introduce more texture. Others will add the grain in post. It's an aesthetic choice and there is no right or wrong approach so long as the image isn't completely blown out or underexposed. (Actually, that might be even more interesting.) Rating the camera at 200 ISO will achieve the same thing as overexposing 800 ISO by two stops if you are shooting in ArriRAW, only the viewfinder's image will appear two stops darker. So just shooting at 200 ISO is an option if you want a cleaner image (but you will clip highlights two stops sooner). Personally, I might do this if I'm shooting on a green screen and there are no highlights that risk clipping, but otherwise I wouldn't bother. But that's just me.

This isn't an S16 zoom, although it should cover S16 over most of its zoom range. I'm not sure how abnormal your results are but I believe it vignettes at some focal lengths even in the best case scenario.

That's what I thought until I spoke with the guy who runs Photons to Photos and he explained that things worked differently. He provides a chart with the ideal dynamic range on an APS-C and FF sensor (about a stop apart) but I'm not technical enough to understand. CineD's measurements corroborate his argument but I don't understand it so now I'm just appealing to authority. I shouldn't have chimed in since I don't understand this that well, except to say that underexposing S35 I think can contribute to a more "organic" look without resorting to shooting S16. And that I suspect if you measured each format with a Xyla chart, you would get different dynamic range ratings for S16 and S35.

This is a straw man argument. I never implied that the films were different. If someone else did, I missed it. I don't claim to understand this completely, but I strongly suspect that if CineD measured film the same way they measure digital, they'd find a correlation between the film's size and dynamic range in their testing. I also don't expect it would be the one stop per increase in surface area change digital appears to have more-or-less. Anyway, I shouldn't have chimed in. I treat film as if the dynamic range is the same regardless of size when I shoot, so clearly I don't disagree too strongly with you. But I do suspect that in practice you get more shadow detail (as defined by CineD or similar tests) with S35 than with S16.

Is the dynamic range of eighth-inch cassette tape the same dynamic range as two-inch tape (if it's the same tape, just cut to different sizes)? Or is there more hiss (noise) on the eighth-inch tape?

At least with digital, the dynamic range scales with sensor size (surface area). Not in a way I completely understand, to be fair. The S5 measures 0.4 stops worse in S35 mode compared with full frame: https://www.cined.com/panasonic-lumix-s5-ii-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-latitude/ Correlating with almost halving the surface area, which I'd anticipate would result in a 1 stop (not 0.4 stop) change? The ideal model for a full frame sensor vs APS-C sensor does predict about a 1 stop change: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm But that's for digital. I would be curious to see how CineD measures S16, S35, and 65mm for dynamic range. I suspect there would be a correlation between their measurement and surface area, but not the one I predict of exactly a stop each time you double it. Fwiw, they rate the Alexa Classic above the Alexa LF, but likely because of other variables (the Classic in ProRes has lower resolution and less noise thann ArriRAW whereas the LF shoots at native resolution rather than downscaling and probably is noisier as a result).

Are you sure? Is that true for film or also for digital?

I'm not sure if S16 and S35 have the same dynamic range. The way CineD etc. define dynamic range is by measuring the signal to noise ratio in patches on a Xyla chart with a certain cut off. And, in theory, if a patch on the chart is of a certain size on S35 then it has about a quarter of that area in S16 – so it should have about four times as much noise relative to the signal. And thus two stops less (measured) dynamic range. Of course, the signal has to be there in the first place and maybe there are diminishing returns with larger formats? I don't think you can keep doubling the area of the negative and doubling the dynamic range, too? Or maybe to an extent you can. And the loss of detail would all be in the shadows, so I suppose that's why overexposing S16 is encouraged. There's a vastly complex discussion here about archival choices and subjective impressions of media and nostalgia (from lighting to scanning vs optical prints to the differences in both print and film stocks to how things are graded for different exhibition media) so I think the complex answer would be – almost meaninglessly complex and subjective. The simple answer might be to underexpose to bring out grain, use lighting inspired by the era you want to emulate, and grade with older films as your reference. I'm also not sure if S16 and S35 have the same contrast. One area where digital sensors differ from film is that the mtf curve extinguishes with a softer rolloff with film, which might provide a feeling of texture or smoothness in fine details. (Lenses have mtf curves that roll off gradually, too, whereas digital sensors are closer to 100% mtf to extinction.) Some film stocks exceed 100% mtf at very low frequencies, too. So the contrast at low frequencies might be the same with S16 and S35, but fine detail might be resolved in S16 but more delicately. So it's not like 1080p vs 4K where the image is pretty similar overall but the finest details are thrown out in 1080p, I think it's more like the entire image feels a bit softer with S16 even where detail is resolved (but with lower contrast). I think in practice it's close enough. But maybe using older lenses with worse mtf and underexposing to bring out grain is a starting point to making S35 look more like S16 or like whatever impression of older films S16 stills gives you. And maybe using more hard light, then just grading by eye to match your reference.

I think that's the idea behind it! At least it's my interpretation of it. And it probably varies depending on the scene.