Chance Shirley

Here’s a $19 AfterEffects plug-in that might help you get the look you’re going for...

https://proloststore.com/products/handcrank

Oh wow. This is awesome. Would be a heck of a duplication setup. 

On 12/20/2022 at 9:20 PM, Karim D. Ghantous said:

I might go so far as to say that even Seinfeld looks better than a lot of modern movies or shows. Yes, it's not a cinematic masterpiece, but you can't beat 35mm - at least, you couldn't back then. I've been seeing clips of the show in HD (I don't have the Blu-Ray version yet) and it's amazing how much I like it, given how simply it was lit and shot. Thank God it wasn't shot on video. Thank God.

And Sex & The City also looks terrific, while we're at it.

Classic Sex and the City was 16mm, right?

And good point about Seinfeld. The X-Files is a favorite of mine, but it seems most any show shot on film looks really great these days, especially if they’ve been re-scanned in HD from the original film sources.

I really miss when more movies and TV shows were shot on 35mm/16mm. Most everything these days just looks kind of flat and bland to me. And, of course, more goes into the look of a show than whether it is shot on digital or film. But when I compare any random episode of The X-Files (shot on 35mm) with any random episode of Better Call Saul (shot digitally), the X-Files stuff looks so much better to me.

And Better Call Saul is an excellent show with excellent cinematography! But there's something about the picture on that show that looks flatter than shot-on-film TV shows.

8 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Thanks, yea the grade is very basic, I don't like crazy grades. I did a lot of work to cover up major issues we had with production, but outside of that, the grade is basic. I like the more raw nature of film when I can exploit it. Sadly on the last few 16mm projects, I haven't been able to because the film has been damaged in some way or another. 

Yeah, Tyler, even on Vimeo, this short looks *great*. Excellent work!

This is very cool! Kind of makes me regret selling my Aaton LTR!

Not sure if you're going for the tungsten-film-color-corrected-in-post look, but an alternative is you can throw a filter (an 85B, I think) on the lens and save yourself some time in post. Plus it will reduce exposure by like 2/3 of a stop, which will be helpful for most daylight shooting situations.

This is of course largely a matter of opinion. That said, for S16mm, I lean the most on 12mm and 16mm lenses, so those two are a must. Going out from there, add a 9.5 and a 25. And what the heck, throw in an 8 and a 50, too. 
 

But on my average shoot, I’ll be using the 12 or 16 80+% of the time. 
 

Also, I have nice 25mm and 50mm lenses (Optar Illuminas, Arri B mount) for sale if you’re interested. 

2 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

At this point, I believe you just want the last word so I will give it to you. Have at it!

Whatever, bro.

14 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

That begs the question. I'm not saying anything about the ACLU, I'm just saying that their existence isn't evidence of anything. IOW, it's not an argument. 

I mean, there’s a long list of active civil liberty issues that the ACLU is currently working on, so it’s an argument that not all of our social injustice ills are past us.

17 hours ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

I agree with that "classic centrist argument". Why? Because what else are you going to do? Keep moaning over things that have already been fixed? Like I said, if you have an issue, try to fix it. If it was already fixed, shut up about it.

People aren’t moaning over things that have already been fixed. They’re reminding you that (1) the injustices of the past still affect people today and (2) if we aren’t mindful of the injustices of the past they might return. The past is indeed past, but the present does not exist in a vacuum. And it is foolish to look at current events and not at least consider how they might mirror historical precedents.

16 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

You risk giving the impression that you're expecting the rate of prejudice and bigotry in society to be zero.

I am pretty sure I have mentioned in one of the millions of posts in this thread (you might have missed it, fair enough) that prejudice or bigotry is not my concern. My concern is bigots using the power of the state/legal system to bully people. There is currently a “religious freedom” movement in the U.S. that seems more concerned with harassing gay people than it is with any recognizable tenets of religion. The photographer tried it and lost, some baker won the right to discriminate against gay people at the Supreme Court. So I guess the court decisions are mixed, but they are certainly not decisively striking a blow for gay people's freedoms.

It would seem the next step is maybe a white supremacist restaurant owner can claim “religious freedom” and refuse to serve diners of color, and then we’re back to segregated lunch counters. A slippery slope, as it were.

But I am just a guy tilting at windmills, so what do I know.

1 hour ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

I have misunderstood. I thought you meant today, not the past.

Since things are so great nowadays, somebody should probably let the ACLU know so they can shut down their website.

https://www.aclu.org

48 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

Life is far more complex and intricate than most like to admit.

Or it’s just that people like to make themselves (or their constituents, if they’re a politician) feel better by bullying a marginalized group... immigrants, people of color, women, gay people, trans people, etc. It’s been that way for thousands of years.

But no, you’re probably right, everything is cool now and nobody wants to bully anybody, it is just that life is real complex and intricate and whatnot.

Sigh. But seriously, there are several replies in this thread expressing the classic centrist argument “the past is past, get over it.”

If that’s true, please let us know the date (or at least the year) that justice finally arrived in the U.S. and mistreatment due to gender, race, or sexuality was done away with once and for all.

43 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

Do you care to ask the biological women what they think of biological men using their restroom?

This is actually a good point. It illustrates that a lot of these anti-trans bathroom laws are unenforceable (because who is inspecting genitals in a public restroom?) and are just on the books to bully trans people. The cruelty is the point.

30 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

It may not move as fast as you want but it does work.

Ask your trans friends or your gay friends why they are so impatient about waiting on the courts to deliver justice.

That’s not even snark. I promise you they can answer that question a lot better than I can.

27 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

Nope...it was California. Yes, the liberal paradise twice voted to ban gay marriage. 

Dude, I live in Alabama. You can talk all the shit you want about California. California ain’t got nothing on Alabama when it comes to being awful.

12 minutes ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

I have misunderstood. I thought you meant today, not the past.

Oh that’s what it is. There were problems with social injustice in the past, but that was all cleared up after they started letting gay people get married half a decade ago. Or was it cleared up when the president who pals around with white supremacists lost the 2020 election?

Either way, that’s all in the past and I am sure everything in the U.S. is 100% fair and equitable now.

9 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

The best thing to do is what people have always done here. Vote.

You understand that one of the big drawbacks about being in a marginalized group is that, by definition, marginalized groups don’t have a lot of political power, right?

Like, it was easy to tell Black people in the segregationist south to solve their problems at the ballot box. But systematic oppression is famously resistant to the ballot box.

3 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

What do you mean "take bathrooms away from?" I wasn't aware that trans people were not permitted to use the restroom. I thought the argument was that they use the restroom of the biological sex they were assigned by the Dr. at birth?

So now we’re at “the trans women should just shut up and use the men’s room when they’re at Walmart”?

All I can say about this plan is maybe you should ask a few trans women what they think about this suggestion.

2 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

I know you don't believe it but much of this has far more to do with a person's economic status and the circles they run in as opposed to being a member of a "marginalized group." Like any group, there is always going to be a benefit to being wealthy and well-connected. Conversely, there is always going to be a struggle when you are poor and do not have a strong network.

I don't believe this because nobody is trying to take public bathrooms away from poor non-trans people, but they are trying to take public bathrooms away from rich trans people.

1 minute ago, Phil Rhodes said:

I repeat - she lost. It's exactly the opposite.

And yet the baker won the case so he doesn’t have to bake cakes for gay weddings. And that’s a SCOTUS case, so I expect the photographer can win her case if she wants to appeal it.

1 minute ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

It seems to me that the most effective solution is to try to find common sense solutions to these problems that are acceptable (not optimal) to everyone. For example, the trans-bathroom debate. That one comes down to three options:

You seem to keep missing the point. My pragmatic solutions and your pragmatic solutions don’t matter when elected officials are actively passing laws designed to make trans people’s lives a little more miserable, just because the elected officials are looking for a marginalized group of people to bully.

44 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

Drunk driving has a negative impact for society regardless of emotional motivation. In addition to injuries and potential loss of life,  drunk driving also causes property damage ($$$), instability on the roadways, and accidents cause gridlock which has a windfall effect on the community as a whole. It is the opposite of a "public good".

OK. So let’s see. Advocating against drunk driving = necessary and good. Advocating for women’s right to vote = necessary and good. Advocating that gay people not be bullied by people using specious “religious freedom” laws = hysterical nonsense.

That about sum it up?

27 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

Edit: As for the "trans-bathroom" debate, I admit that this is a stupid thing to fight over. The easy solution to satisfy everyone is to just have businesses invest in single-unit unisex bathrooms. Now everyone gets privacy and no one is disenfranchised. This issue seems more like a non-issue to me.

Fine. We won’t discuss anti-trans sports laws because, sure, that is a complicated issue, and I think there are good faith arguments on both sides of that one.

But your comments on the bathroom debate illustrate exactly what I’m talking about. You and I both agree this should be a non-issue. That’s great! However, I am not concerned about my opinion or your opinion here. I am concerned about the less enlightened people who are passing laws in an attempt to make trans people’s lives more difficult by denying them access to public restrooms.