M Joel W

Night for night (no grade beyond a LUT):

https://vimeo.com/749452544

*pretty well for me as a viewer, obviously I haven't got the resources to even attempt anything similar 

41 minutes ago, David Mullen ASC said:

Here's the thing -- if you ever go out into the deep desert under a full moon on a clear night, it feels like a day for night scene in a movie.  The problem is that most viewers don't have that experience with moonlight.

The main difference I've noticed is that moonlight has a warmer color temperature. I compared day for night and night for night with the fastest equipment I could get my hands on. The main difference isn't the shape of the light, it's that moonlight is warmer.

The cinematic convention is for a darker sky. (With night for night, the sky is typically black.) The above process seems convoluted in the extreme, but at the same time – it worked pretty well for me.

55 minutes ago, Robin Phillips said:

I use Ultra 16s typically and am neurotic about maintaining maximum sharpness on my cameras. I also almost always overexpose a little bit to get the smaller grains to expose, which helps some. Do I think there is a full 4k worth of line pair resolution with that mix? no, but Im convinced its beyond 3k. I've also done test where I've run the same film through a 2k scan and then a separate 4k scan and there is a quality difference. As such I advocate for a 4k scan even if you're looking at a 2k finish.

That all being said what you get out of the scans depends on the film stock, lenses, exposure choice, stability of the scanner, stability of the camera etc. Change any variable and the pipeline choices might change. 

That makes sense. I was looking at handheld 500T footage and all I could see was more grain texture, but even that is a difference. That's a great kit. I don't have access to quite as nice a set up so I'm content with 2K scans unless someone else wants to pay for it.

The reason I posted was figuring out what format to shoot in. But removing my own choices from this (which are based on time and budget) I have noticed that I have a preference for a certain level of sharpness from the entire system. These ultra-sharp large format digital cameras with wide open vintage lenses on them look wrong to me. Too much fine detail, and a mushy image otherwise. Meanwhile Good Time or Suspiria or Her or the Lighthouse I think look great by matching older (but not too soft) lenses to a moderately soft imager. U16s look great with S16 film. I think Greig Fraser has found great techniques to take the edge off of large format high res digital, but they're also expensive and convoluted for the average person to employ. Doesn't really matter, just something I noticed while researching what format to shoot in.

As for diffusion, I have some Classic Soft filters. I'm thinking 2.8K ArriRAW, Mk1 standard speeds, 800 ISO but underexposed and pushed a half stop, no post halation or grain, and Classic Soft filters. Wide open for night, t5.6 outside. I feel like the diffusion filters and underexposure will add some grain and halation without having to do a "film look" pass in post.

I agree in principle but not in practice; if I had unlimited resources I'd prefer the 4K scan – but the extra cost at the lab combined with the extra cost in post offers diminishing returns that imo could be afforded to better things. I think streaming benefits from 4K far more than IMAX projection – and yet I'm not sure it was worth it for Netflix to ask for 4K vfx so easy on, the quality of work suffered because of additional render time. The graininess isn't also inherently better looking at 4K, even that is subjective; Bill Pope, for instance, preferred the look for 2K scans to 4K scans because it had a slight "noise reduction" effect, even in S35.

In the abstract, though, I like the idea of a 4K S16 scan.

I do wish I'd bought a set of B speeds back when it was under $20k. ? 

There's a separate discussion I think about taking the "edge" off digital footage. Greig Fraser seems to be all about this – the detuned lenses for Mandalorian, the film out for Dune. And that's despite the Alexa LF having a soft look per-pixel compared with Venice or Red. I don't like how Men or Army of the Dead look and I think the tendency to shoot high res with wide open mushy lenses just makes things look like detailed mush. I prefer the look of Suspiria or Her balancing a softer acquisition format with slightly sharper lenses (still Cookes and K35s, so not ultra-sharp) to any of the above.

Zeiss lenses and film are both known for (whether accurately or not) lower high frequency detail with more acutance. So, as I wrote before, sort of the opposite MTF curve from what you'd expect the system on Men to have.

What I'm shooting with is a bit ridiculous to discuss when I'm just making expensive home movies – although the feedback here has been helpful and I'll probably go with ArriRAW.

The more interesting discussion is what people are doing at the high end to take the "edge" off increasingly sharp digital formats and whether they should have to. I remember I was blown away by the Alexa Classic but underwhelmed by the LF. When I go back and look at the Classic footage, it still feels more "organic" to me. I like Greig Fraser's approach to softening the LF but feel like it's a crutch. And he's softening the image despite the LF having a softer image than Venice or current Red cameras. (Consumer cameras are even sharper.) Dune, Mandalorian, Batman, Men, Army of the Dead, etc. all rely on something very expensive (film out or bespoke detuned/unaffordable lenses) just to take the edge off of something that's also very expensive (a Venice or high end Red or Alexa LF). I can't afford any of this but it begs the question: does it even look better? Or is someone paying a lot of money to hit a spec and then someone else paying a lot more money to tame the aesthetic faults of that spec? 

Thanks – right now it's between 2.8k raw with Mk1 standard speeds and S16.

Why scan S16 at 4K? The only time I worked with a 4K S16 scan it was 500T and it didn't have much more detail than a 1080p scan, however it seemed to have more accutance from the sharper grain structure.

19 minutes ago, Robin Phillips said:

IIRC if you just go 1080p out from the alexa, the alexa will be doing its bayer demozaic calculations on board the camera. the reason for it being a "2.8k" camera was to overcome the loss of color information a 1080p native bayer sensor would suffer. So when it downsamples to 1080 out to prores, you're getting an image that was intended to be the output option for HDTV. 

Doing 2.8k arriraw and demozaicing into a 2.8k image means you're rolling with color interpolation to achieve a 444 2.8k image, vs basically super sampling for a true 444 1080p image.

That being said I think the vast majority of everyone has long since abandoned using these cameras as just 2k or 1080p, so I dont think you can go wrong shooting arriraw 2.8k -> 2.8k proress 4444. just providing some context about the camera and why of all numbers its a 2.8k camera. 

That makes sense. 

I never understood Arri's "pixel math" justifications for what seemed like arbitrary resolutions, but they're actually pretty simple. 

2880 is 1920*1.5 so I'm guessing the sensor is designed foremost for 1080p.

2868 is 2048*1.4 so that's why they crop slightly for 2K.

3.2k is 3840/1.2 so that's why they chose 3.2K for the XT.

3.4k is presumably just the whole sensor (but very close to 4096/1.2)

I still don't like the "over-sharp" digital look and it's a mix of contrast and resolution I think. Why is it that something like the new Doctor Strange (Red), Men (Venice), Tusk (ArriRAW), Army of the Dead (Red), etc. all have a "harsh" look to me whereas something like Her (ArriRAW) or Knives Out or even something like It Follows (shot on 2K ProRes) has a more organic look? I feel like with Army of the Dead or Men the DPs are shooting vintage glass wide open to compensate for an overly sharp sensor but you lack micro contrast and still have a lot of high frequency detail. Whereas 2K early Alexa projects (In Time, etc.) with Master Primes had some built in low frequency sharpening I think (which Alexa 2k ProRes pretty clearly has) but not too much fine detail. But also a lower contrast in general. I feel like if you drew an MTF curve for the entirety of the system it would look very different for these different projects. 

Thanks – I think I'm just going to transcode 2.8K ArriRAW to ProRes and work with that. I'm overthinking this. 

This is amazing. I was speculating on how they achieved this effect and I guessed something entirely different and entirely wrong. Men had some night skies added in post that I wasn't wild about (fantastic vfx overall however) and Northman had night exteriors that had great depth too. But what they did here totally mystified me and I would never have guessed this was how it was achieved.

I think the early generation Alexas output 1080p via SDI. I don't know if the Classic started with the ability to shoot 2K internally, but it was added pretty early on if not. 2K ProRes is downscaled from slightly fewer pixels than 2880X1620, which is what 1080p ProRes is downsampled from. I'm not sure why.

This isn't a very serious project so it doesn't really matter. But I was researching it and kept finding I actually liked the look of 2K acquisition better in many cases. I think I like a balance of soft and sharp that you naturally get from 2K or 1080p ProRes. You can get that with higher res formats but it seems like a balancing act.

There's 2K and 1080p. If you wouldn't recommend 2.8K ArriRAW or 2K ProRes what would you recommend? Some of my lenses don't cover 3.2K so it's one or the other. (Or renting another camera.) The file sizes for ArriRAW are not that large.

Yeah, it was digital IMAX vs a 4K tv. 

I'm mostly trying to justify shooting 2K ProRes rather than 2.8K ArriRAW (I have access to both for the same cost – the only issue is getting the camera up and running and the extra work in post). 

But I noticed along the way I kind of prefer the look of softer images. And it makes me wonder if I'd rather shoot 2K regardless. 

The Alexa is also kind of strange. There must be some internal sharpening with 2K ProRes.

I agree that 4K TVs and LCD panels look sharper than IMAX projection. 

I also agree that the Alexa is susceptible to aliasing, but it’s never been a deal-breaker for me personally.

I think there’s a happy medium for sharpness for each of us that’s subjective. I think for me it’s a bit softer than for most people. My favorite DP growing up was Kaminski and his style is full of diffusion and grain. 

If I had all the resources in the world I think I’d get that softer look with high res acquisition, vintage lenses, grain added in post, maybe selected blurring in post, etc.

Yet to me the Lighthouse has a more compelling look than Mank (yes, I know both are 4K finishes) so the extreme of doing it all in camera looks better to me than the extreme of doing it all in post.

Regardless, I don't think I prefer the look of 2K to 4K after all.... I just prefer a softer look than most do. And a lower acquisition resolution is one path to getting that look. (One I prefer to shooting 6K Venice or whatever with wide open vintage lenses, or emulating that look in posts they did on Mank – but not one I prefer to whatever they did on Suspiria (2018) or the Lighthouse, both 4K finishes. Again, these are subjective aesthetic choices and preferences so I'm not saying one is "better.")

3 hours ago, Leon Brehony said:

Watched the first episode of the Rings of Power series - it's alright. I like the design/costume/general aesthetics - but... When will this obsession with wide lens/shallow DOF die?

I find it so off-putting. Bright day exteriors where the back ground becomes nothing but blur and bokeh... two shots with only one character in focus... Close ups where only an eye is in focus... I feel like it's detracting from the storytelling - surely lighting and composition are enough without this massive 'blur radius'.

I'm also not convinced of the argument that it's a way of making digital capture feel less 'sharp and clinical'. For me a good chunk of depth of field is a thousand times more cinematic.

Just ranting and I know that it's a simple flavour of the month thing but it's distracting me from nearly every modern show/film I see (the DOF shrink between season 1 and 2 of Barry was insane and I had to stop watching).

If anyone has any insights into why this is happening and when it will go away I'd appreciate hearing them 

I read that in Mandalorian they shoot the suit wide open to soften the chrome helmet but shoot the rest a bit more stopped down. Not sure what the story is with Rings of Power but I think it's the same camera.

There have been a lot of "failed" experiments pushing HFR: Showscan, Gemini Man, "motion smoothing" on TVs, the Hobbit, etc. And it's all interesting but inevitably the look feels more like "video." There's a place for this with sports and video games and especially VR (and of course for shooting slow motion to conform to 24fps) but HFR has never caught on with narrative.

Meanwhile, 4K has caught on with TVs and streaming services (and as of this year, Marvel has moved from 2K to 4K masters). It's more inoffensive, and I get why Fincher wants 6K for cropping and stabilization – but I'm not sure I prefer how it looks, either.

"More" doesn't always look "better."

I was watching Steve Yedlin's resolution demo and the clean digital 4K images from Red and Sony looked worse to me than the grainy film scans and 2.8K Alexa footage. 

I remember early Alexa shows looked really nice shot at 1080p with S4s and Master Primes – but once 3.4k raw and 3.2k ProRes took off there was this sudden push for "vintage" lenses and K35s and S2/S3s took off instead. Even Mandalorian has detuned lenses to keep the chrome helmets from looking too harsh in 4K. This despite the Alexa having a very aggressive OLPF with a "soft" look inherent to it. Now the Alexa35 (which looks incredible) has a "textures" pack to add more grain on top of that. The first generation of 4K cameras I think had growing pains that accounted for the earlier generation of 1080p/2K cameras looking better – but today the dynamic range and color is all there on top of the extra resolution. And yet immediately the aesthetic pushback to the technical improvements are to add more grain and a softer image with vintage lenses.

Still images and especially large prints have long benefitted from more resolution (4x5 and 6x7 etc.) – but 3 perf S35 remained the standard for projection despite better formats being available. 

Aesthetically, "soft" cinematography was all the rage in the 70s and 90s. Today, S16 and 2 perf S35 are seeing a renaissance and have a distinctive look to their texture and halation. (Meanwhile I can't tell the difference between Alexa65 and IMAX.) 

I've been in situations where extra resolution was great for cropping. And granted, I think it depends on the DP (I never liked Kaminski's digital work as much as his work on film, but I think Deakins has made the transition really well because his look is so clean and polished to start with). But does anyone else prefer the look of softer images and find this extends even into digital? Does anyone else feel that sharpness isn't "the more the better" but that, like with frame rate, there's a happy medium?

I'm slipping into OCD/nerdy curiosity territory here.

But years ago I was trying to complete a "vintage" set of AI/AI-S Nikkors that were f2.0 or faster for S35. There's no 18mm or 16mm f2.0, so I tried finding a wide angle converter for the 24mm f2.0, which already isn't a very good lens. Needless to say I had results using wide angle adapters designed for still cameras. A lot of them are really bad, but in different ways. Are any of these particularly good?

Some of the adapters that are bespoke to a certain lens or system seem pretty good. Like the Ricoh ones. But I assume they're designed for specific cameras or lenses.

And on the other hand, there appear to be high quality aspherons out there – and the 18mm K35 is likely a 24mm K35 with an aspheron (so I've read). These seem like really high quality options, but they require the lens being in "macro" mode. Which not all still lenses have.

I guess I'm wondering if there's any good option for my 24mm f2.0 Nikkor to get a 17mm f2.0 with a wide angle converter or something.

Also if the ultra-rare Scoopic wide converter might combine with a 24mm FD L and a macro tube to form a makeshift 18mm K35. Or the less-rare 67mm C-8 adapter might work with the 24mm f2.0 Nikkor similarly.

Also if the Century 6.8mm adapter for the Tegea works on the non-rehoused version of the Tegea.... and if so, where to get one.... I can't find "WA-7X45" but I can find the adapter tube, I think.

https://pacificrimcamera.com/rl/01017/01017.pdf

Lastly, Kubrick used a wide angle adapter designed for a projector with his 50mm f0.7 Zeiss lens. I figure projectors need better corner sharpness than cheap wide angle converters offer and projector adapters are $20-50 on the secondary market despite being $800+ new. Is this worth a try?

Mostly just bored but I've already wasted too much time researching this.

22 minutes ago, Al Amin said:

I was recently listening Team Deakins podcast with Robert Eggers & Jarin Blaschke - LINK and at 56:30 Roger asks Jarin "What stop were you lighting to" to which Jarin replies "I rated that whole movie at 80"

Does this mean he exposed the skintones (or main subjects) in the frame at 80IRE or does it mean something completely different. Any explanation would be helpful, thanks ?

80 ISO

Edit: He's shooting on 5222, which is 250 ISO under daylight and 200 ISO under tungsten light. And pulling the negative by a half stop. On top of that there's an orthochromatic film-emulating filter that eats another half stop of light (roughly), but more under tungsten light because tungsten is closer to red.

So that translates to around 125 ISO and 100 ISO with the half stop pull and the filter, but he's rating at 80 ISO and 50 ISO under tungsten (he later adds, so he doesn't rate everything at 80 ISO, just daylight, if I'm not mistaken) to preserve a bit more shadow detail and account for the filter blocking more tungsten light.

So, all told, with the half stop pull in the lab and the custom filter from Schneider, he's rating the stock at 80 ISO under daylight and 50 ISO under tungsten light despite the stock being a nominal 250 ISO under daylight and 200 ISO under tungsten. 

Then the old baltars flare quite a bit so he's stopping the lens down to get a sharper image and I think basically long story short he just needed a lot of light for the night scenes. 

16 minutes ago, Joel Hanson Li said:

If I'm using a 32mm Speed Panchro on A-CAM, will the Kinetal 50mm behave (FOV wise) the same as a 50mm Speed Panchro, or will it be more like a 100mm Speed Panchro (because Kinetals are Super 16 lenses)?

It'll behave like a 50mm. It feels like 100mm on S16 because the film back is half the size. Since it covers S35 (or at least it really should based on what I've read – I would try it first) and you don't have to crop, the 50mm on S35 will feel like a 50mm on S35.

From what I understand these are worth quite a bit but they are a bit niche and hard to sell potentially. Check eBay for prices, look up what things are selling for and what they have sold for recently.

All these lenses can convert to PL mount easily and affordably with an adapter. All except the kinetal should have helicals inside the lens, meaning you can use a cheap Arri Standard to PL adapter so long as it’s machined well. The Kinetal needs a more expensive adapter to focus I think?

The 8mm is a West German Zeiss Distagon for 16mm (doesn’t cover S16) rebranded for the East German/Soviet Bloc market as Opton. Maybe worth $400?

The Angeniuex I believe is a 16mm lens that does cover S16 and has a great look with good performance and a beautiful "vintage" look to the bokeh and coatings – it just doesn’t go that wide. Maybe worth $1000?

The planar should color S35 or even full frame. I think it’s the same design as on the Contarex SLR lenses. I own one and actually don't like the look as much as much cheaper SLR lenses. Flat field but harsh bokeh. This design may have remained the same optically until the Ultra Primes though? And is the same as the later standard speeds, very commonly used lenses in major movies maybe? Anyway, worth maybe $800?

The Kinetal is a 16mm lens that covers S16 I believe. Maybe worth $500?

The Varokinetal is a 16mm lens that covers 16mm but it’s really nice. You can convert this to S16 (not sure this is still possible) and the S16 version is very desirable. Could be worth $2000 or more already? Not sure.

Could be worth a bit more on eBay but then you have seller’s fees. But check eBay prices and what things have sold for. 

20 hours ago, Gregory Irwin said:

In my opinion, there are no rules. Look at my lens package from JOKER. we had a total Frankenstein set and we earned an Oscar nomination for Cinematography!

G

When (and why) did you use CP2s? Was the 35mm Canon a K35? Why no 24mm K35 or lenses wider than 28mm? 

The movie looked great btw.

Thanks, Dom. Pretty clearly clean on the viewfinder eyepiece and hazy on the ground glass unfortunately, but it also definitely appears to be the piece of glass covering the ground glass (or the ground glass itself?) that has the issue with haze/dirt/dust.

So fingers crossed. 

Will this be an issue with the film getting hazed or just make it hard for me to judge what's in focus?

It looks like a big promist is on the viewfinder. 

The lens looks clean. Haven't tried cleaning (or know where it is) the ground glass. I can live with this so long as the footage is okay. Thanks.

Thanks, for loading spools for exteriors can I go to my car and load them in subdued light or would I want something darker than that? I don't mind the look of light leaks for this project if they're not overwhelming. 

Thanks, I'm shooting at 4x3 so it sounds like I won't need to.

When I was shooting tri-x I would load in subdued light. 

The label here says complete darkness. 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1482789-REG/kodak_8469421_eastman_double_x_negative_film.html

Please let me know what's appropriate. Thanks.