Sam Wells

Unfortunately I think it's become the least viable. Too bad (wouldn't life have been simpler if 1.66 had been the primary standard from "day one" ?) I guess we'll live with a lot of 1.33/1.37 pillarboxed. I dread the thought of 100 years of cinema history cropped. As it stands I'm shooting my own work 1.78:1/16x9 --- and liking it - so much of my career both was in 1.33 - my own films, Indie films, whole buncha EFP --- I like playing with the balance / unbalance of a wider AR. Plus there's too much boring architecture around for 1.33 ;) -Sam

Well me too, more or less on bot counts. On the second -- what do you do, though ? David Gordon Greene (for example) has to make "Pineapple Express" (I haven't seen it - so no opinion) in order to have a film that plays more than 5 or 6 movie theater for a week or two at most --- -Sam

Yes, get something you can actually afford to use, shoot with, learn stuff. -Sam

Fair enough, I felt that way for 30 years, now I absolutely do paint with both. -Sam

Rhetorically I would ask, then "how is 'improving' reality by secondary color grading (let's say) any different than choosing a filter to put on a lens ? By extension how is 'painting' shadows on a digital canvas different than setting a flag ? I think we all accepted, sometimes without deep questioning, certain truisms about the ontology of the photographic image, regarded it as a kind sign of truth in the photochemical world (and separated the deliberately created illusion or trick as an "effect" - as an exception...) because the image was manufactured so to speak (it's working parts catalogued) but in the world of digital imaging we know that the image does not need to be partly - or wholly - manufactured - it can be *described* mathematically and in that light (since a computational language is used to make the description) it as fluid as a text can be - which is to say it can be articulate, truthful, deceptive, incoherent etc. -Sam Wells

You guys are plying fast and loose with the term "reality" If we were talking about available light, street photography etc - OK I *might* agree -- But I still think you're privileging one system of artifice over others. -Sam

Funny I never see 18K HMI's, grip stands, butterflies when I walk around, the peope I see on the street don't have makeup artists trailing them. If you're talking about narrative/dramatic "Production" filmmaking I think you're arguing one school of artifice over another. -Sam

Limited edition silver gelatin print will take it out of the porn category no matter what :rolleyes: I always heard Levittown but that could be (sub)urban legend -Sam

Maybe in the sense that he shot when loosing full exp on the ground & the sky was still pretty hot (so really it's the non-grad approach) ? Don't know, I wasn't there... That's a very small window of time for east coast - here in NJ magic hour is more like 30 minutes sometimes.... -Sam

Nikon D3 dslr (and now D700 w/ same chip) is CMOS and better in low light than just about anything else at the moment...... -Sam

I think Chunking Express was shot on AGFA XT320 in fact. Pushed quite likely. -Sam

I'll make a counter offer to pay $ 8.33 for 100 pixels compressed ......... -Sam

This is in no way a true statement. =Sam

An 85 will be quite weak compared to # 15 yellow IMO. -Sam

And you're sure of this.... ? Offer a proof of this and you can start developing your foveal camera with the Nobel Prize money :) The point is we SEE the world as 'resolved' so to speak even if it is not in the quantum sense. Our imaging systems naturally follow. You simply can't invoke quantum mechanics in your defense because there is no good way to visualize quantum states; it's inherently a contradiction. You can invoke metaphors if you like and perhaps even create visual material that works metaphorically but I think that's the limit. -Sam

This is what the P&S converter was originally. A directors finder you could videotape the image w/ a DV camera. PL mount, I don't know if anything else.... I don't see anything like it on their site tho -- but maybe ask them ---- -Sam

Sorry Tim I have no idea. IIRC = "If I ReCall" - disclaimer I use more often these days as I cannot ReCell my memory at current state of technology :( I'm pretty sure DuArt's was an Angenieux..... -Sam

The ones I've seen were made by Angenieux IIRC -Sam

Not sure why you couldn't do this with CMOS. (Anyway Fuji seems to be doing some serious playing with CMOS as I linked previously...) -Sam

I've occasionally suffered from jitteriness in all film and many video formats. Gotta cut back on that coffee or espresso :blink: -Sam

The Kinotons (including 16mm models) I've seen all had a switchable 25 fps option. -Sam

You can shoot color RAW and then work with luminosity values. Digital B&W can have another texture, the textures and contrasts of things you photograph and how you digitally process and work with them. -Sam

Given sensitivity, s/n , DR, I can't either. Beyond that it's all about what you do with the image in post. If I had one available it's one of the first things I'd try. I love shooting for B&W w/ my Nikon dslr - I prefer it to film in many respects. -Sam

Can't I like all (plus Ashes Of Time) ? To me In The Mood takes wat they did in a more subtle - but beautifully rendered direction... that said I bet more than half of the final version is Li Ping-bin's work, no ? -Sam

Agree and the scene at the end with the Grandmother and Granddaughter was worthy of Dreyer. -Sam