Matthew W. Phillips

I no longer need one of these as I am going for a smaller/lighter camera setup. Thanks anyway.

It is amazing on a PC. Since PCs tend to have more "bang for your buck" than a Mac, you are likely to get better performance per dollar spent on a PC. Most PCs that are priced in the range of Apple products will have far superior graphics cards which will give you great performance.

That second look is beautiful. Why do films not look like this anymore?

For reference...

I wouldn't argue those points. I have personally had issues with Premiere Pro and am not a fan of it. And the BM camera issue is well documented. When you try to order an Ursa Mini from LensRentals, they actually have a disclaimer that says that the camera is not recommended for professional work.

Is it? I have never heard of this, heard of anyone having it, and never had it myself? I have made hundreds of instructional videos editing in resolve (using voice over audio) and never had this problem. I don't doubt that it happens to some but I would find it far fetched to believe that it is all that common.

I have been hearing about this for years. Sure, it is coming. But it isnt here yet and this isnt the only front that has improved. Finding ways to make the chip cooler has also slightly helped clock speed. Cache sizes have increased substantially as well. This is true...or can be. Not every chip on the market is an 8+ core chip. There are still low end chips that have only one or two cores. These chips fit in the same sockets as any other chip. They are less common because there is not much need to purchase these chips when multicore chips are so affordable. If the sell price is any indicator of the manufacturing cost then they are much cheaper. You can find entry level chips for around $60-80. These same chips might have costs several hundred 15 years ago (if they were available at all) and the modern versions run cooler. Also, chip manufactures continue to work on other things too like advanced pipelining techniques and caching algorithms to make the most of the hardware. Yes, there is a point here. I think one could make the argument that there should be able to be a way to make density of the grain larger and increase the quality per frame. But I am not even making that argument. I am only making the argument that due to the sunk cost of the machinery to make film, over time it seems reasonable to decrease cost (or at least not increase it) as you pay for the initial investment of the production equipment. Unless there is some massive ongoing cost that I am not aware of, it seems like Kodak is using the "Toll bridge" approach. The idea of the toll for the bridge is to cover the cost of making the bridge but when the bridge is paid for, the governments never seem to want to remove the toll. This is surely true. My question is why not? I have yet to hear what exactly it is about film creation that makes it have an upward pricing structure forever. The only products that usually have to be that way are 1) labor intensive jobs that cannot be automated or 2) products whose raw materials spike with inflation. Granted, film uses Silver but we have already discussed how, for the time being, silver is not a huge percentage of the cost of film.

My mistake. You wanted me to spend more than a Benjamin just to get the details that you could have told me for free. Thanks for that.

Thank you, Phil. Unlike Frank's post, you actually defend your viewpoint with logic, details, and it doesn't cost any money out of my pocket. Although I still feel that these things fall into the "cost of doing business", it does make a bit more sense where the money goes. I would be interested to know what the margin is on their film stock; say 35mm. Is film a high or low margin business (from Kodak's perspective)? What is the marketing budget like? What is the wholesale cost? I am not asking you this question but I am surely curious if there is a non-manufacturing way to "cut the fat out". Even in the semiconductor world, they keep finding a way to lower the cost and increase performance. It is absolutely amazing how long companies like Intel, AMD, Nvidia, etc have kept up the pace of doing this. That is why I am a bit less forgiving of Kodak but I suppose it isnt completely comparable. Has anyone considered the possibility that maybe film just isnt a worthwhile business at this point? Or is that blasphemy around here? Because it sounds contradictory to say, on one hand, "film cannot be cheaper! It costs so much to make!" but also say "yes, film is thriving and they are making record breaking profits!"

So are you taking your ball and going home? You think I need to spend $48 (price + shipping) to understand what is going on and you refuse to divulge the details of your own viewpoint? I think not. What a ridiculous argument.

I can support it. I cannot say Kodak hasnt done well with producing film but I can say that Kodak has sat on gold mines in patents that they never took proper advantage of. Can we also talk about the elephant in the room which was the digital camera? Oops!

I watched this video. It shows almost nothing, however, it seems interesting that everything in this video is just a bunch of automation going on and there was no talk of any special or difficult work being done. The coating was only momentarily mentioned and the only footage appeared to be machines doing their thing.

I am not saying I have an alternative. But I am not Kodak. Kodak has a reputation for going with the status quo and not taking advantage of advances in technology. It is their business to figure out better/cheaper/etc ways to create their products. Most other industries that still exist have done just that but Kodak is supposed to get a free pass because why? I couldnt care less if they go out of business. If film can become a viable format again, someone will figure out how to make it work.

No need to be testy. I am just asking about what makes it so difficult? You arent giving too many specifics. Are there any videos online that show this process? I don't think you are giving enough respect to how much tech. has advanced as far as automation and robotics. And 2008 was 14 years ago.

I do appreciate the work involved. I was just pointing out that compared to say, creating CPUs or other nano-precise processes that must be done in negative pressure rooms, etc, that it cant be that hard to automate. Kodak isnt (or wasnt, at least) some small time operation that had to rely on manual labor for everything because they couldnt afford machinery. Am I to believe that creating film stock is more precise than creating a modern CPU? I would need some hard data to believe that.

I am not sure of what they are worth as far as a book value, but I wouldnt pay more than $3,500 for one. (I am in US so not exactly sure what that would correlate in Euros). Even at that price, if it had > 7500 hrs on the sensor, I probably wouldnt buy it regardless of the price. That is just me. I probably wont find that gem that is prices in that realm with that low of hours but then I guess I wont buy one.

What I find amazing about this site is that there is no middle ground. People here tend to think gear is either great or junk (or the obnoxious definition of "a toy") Could it be possible that some of this "junk" gear could actually be decent gear for a segment of the population who has different (and lighter) needs than you? Or are you that narrow minded and simple that you can only think in black and white?

Oh boy, we have one of those... Pray tell how you have the skill to detect, while watching footage, what type of dolly it was shot on?

Have you tried out the Fuji X-t line? These arent full frame but, for a stills camera, have a lot of manual controls. Feels very much like an old 35mm stills camera. Menus arent complicated either.

Not sure about this one. Imagine all the beautiful silver bullion that could have been made from the film shot to make an orange and teal Michael Bay film.

Not sure this is an accurate statement from a business perspective. If that were true, how did businesses ever come to exist in the first place? Businesses often fail because they assume "if you build it, they will come." But marketing is perhaps more important than the service or quality thereof in most cases. Cannot tell you how many businesses fail because people don't even know they exist.

Not to pick on you because I know what you are saying. But I had a funny thought about if we hit the last of the silver stockpile in the world and you had people arguing over whether to use the remainder to make antibiotics or motion picture film. 😄

I never thought the film's color accuracy was its selling point. However, from pixel peeping, I found these colors to be much closer to accurate than all of the digital footage I have shot with a color chart. The colors are more saturated and less tainted from those of the electronic variety. Granted, I am not shooting on an Alexa either so I cannot speak to that end of the market. I see you are being cynical today. From one glance, I would guess that you used an eyedrop tool to acquire a pixel from red, green, and blue to make those from the Kodak image. The grain will still make it more interesting though because it has close but different values around it to give it more variation in exact color instead of being a single monolithic color block. I guess I would say that grain variation is more "visually interesting" than that representation? Not much different than a textured wall looks more interesting than a perfectly flat wall.

Wow, you reach for the top shelf with words, don't you? Would I know the difference side-by-side with Dehancer? Yes, likely so Would Filmbox "stomp all over it"? I highly doubt it I am not defending Dehancer and I did not purchase it; I played around with it for over a week and was over it. But even your own screenshots are not that compelling compared to other screenshots I have seen from Dehancer. This doesn't mean it isn't better on a side-by-side comparison but it does mean that Filmbox isnt breathtakingly amazeballs and necessitates me going and begging, borrowing, or stealing a mac to get my hands on it. Although side-by-side comparisons are useful to "isolate for the control variable", I never thought that you should have to critically scrutinize something to see its benefit. It should be apparent from the first glance that "wow, that is something special."

For reference of the beautiful saturation of film, I found this partial color chart from an old Kodak ad: Look at that red, green, and blue. Good lawd, that is beautiful.