Aapo Lettinen

yes it varies from country to country and in some countries the copyrights will expire in a specified time but in others they will not. Also the "fair use" can work in some countries but for example in Finland there is no such thing as a "fair use of copyrighted work" and you cannot publish it if you don't have a release or the copyrights are not expired (there is some exceptions if you are doing TV programs or political satire for example but that's about it and you still need to pay even then) on the other hand, we have generally pretty good copyright licensing system here which makes most of the local music easily licensable for most uses because there is national copyright management organizations which represent most of the copyright holders and you can get permission from one or two places and there is fixed prices for most normal uses (not like in some other countries like US where you may need to ask every artist performing on the song and other copyright holders of it separately and pay separately to each and every one... there may be 10 of them or more per single song so it can be an absolute nightmare and any one of them can say no to your use which will ruin everything ) In some cases it may make it easier if you are doing a documentary or similar stuff but you really need to know the local legislation extremely well before using anything. If using the songs only as a background music there is probably tons of alternatives which could be used so it does not matter if someone denies permission to use something...you can as well ask them, would be much easier than trying to do illegal stuff without getting punished ?

general audience does not care what medium the movie or series was shot on unless they have to pay something extra for it... even then they will forget about it after watching the first couple of minutes if the story and characters and themes are interesting. The problem is, most of the films are not as good as they could be so the audience may start to notice the visuals or lazy composing or over the top sound design or bad acting performances and writing at some point (it is like removing all the explosions and car chases and battle scenes from a Michael Bay film, no one would want to watch it anymore no matter what format it is shot on) . then it may benefit a lot to have a bad film which at least looks nice even when it is otherwise horrible. (though it would still need some xplosions to save it in the eyes of the audience ? )

probably they just wanted the same crappy overpriced zoom lens from fs7 to work with it so that they can sell it as a package for prosume users who do videography with it

Is it really cheaper to send ONE 100ft roll of film for overseas processing instead of processing it at home even if you calculate your workhours? the shipping is not cheap either. Additionally labs tend to charge more per ft for b/w processing which is why I always shoot color negative when using labs. Both the film AND the processing is cheaper that way. The only benefit of b/w in that setting is that you can develop at home so that you will save time and money and will get the results almost instantly which is especially handy with camera tests.

probably small amounts will not cause much problems. But they are still hazardous waste, containing toxic chemicals which are especially harmful to aquatic life and which wastewater treatment can't remove effectively. Phenol compounds like metol and hydroquinone, various bromide compounds, silver based metal compounds, unused sulfates and sulfites. Combining developer and fixer in a closed container generates gases and lots of pressure which may rupture the bottle or other container at some point. If one would have the possibility for it, it would be quite useful to slowly evaporate the water contents of the used working solutions so that the solid waste would be much easier to store and send to processing (and much cheaper to process as well). Would need suitable methods to control the dust so that it would not spread around

B/W negative processing at home is actully very economic. It just takes lots of time and you need to handle the chemical waste. The Lomo tanks are pretty easy to load when you are used to them. The angle of feeding the film is very important and you need to be able to check the layers by feel to detects possible errors. I can make a tutorial sometime if you want :) the biggest issue when b/w home processing is to get the film dry. I am planning to do a continuous feed dryer for this because getting more than about 50feet of film dry at a time is pretty challenging without getting lots of dust to it

please don't make typos on chemical names, one letter can make a huge difference in the chemical properties. (for example Sodium Sulfite is relatively harmless antioxidant used in winemaking and film developers. Sodium Sulfide will emit lethal hydrogen sulfide gas if exposed to water so confusing it to Sulfite could have serious consequences. On the other hand, Sodium Sulfate would just not work as an antioxidant on this application but would not be dangerous)

It depends on the shape of the claw and how well it fits the perforations. I believe it would be easy to test it with manual inching. All the labs I know of develop the B/W films separately... can't use the same chemistry for it than for colour negative. B/W negative does not have the mechanically removed black remjet layer like the colour negative has. Some B/W reversal films have silver anti-halation layer (Fomapan for example) which need to be removed by the bleach bath of the reversal process. This means they can't be developed as negative, only as reversal.

seems to be much cheaper in the States than here. but if looking at the inventory of a photo store there is lots of options if using 100ft bulk rolls and pretty much every one of those would work with Konvas as long as it is perforated film https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=39569&fct=fct_number-of-exposures_7032|100ft-roll&

So either you do a very big special order so that you can use the camera you want. OR you use the film you can obtain easily and then choose a camera which can shoot it as is. Much easier that way by my opinion

The easiest way to shoot special stocks is to use a camera which can handle both KS and BH perfs and various pitches without any problems. I regularly shoot 100ft bulk still film rolls with Konvas cameras and it works fine. Agfa apx, foma400, ilford films, etc. You may need to rewind to proper core size first and you may get reflections if the camera has shiny pressure plate. The stills films seem to also generate more film dust in the mags. The image looks very nice though. Tmax is pretty expensive stock for this but could be done very easily with konvas

I handle lots of nature footage shot with F55 in raw in extreme conditions and it grades fine. I have to do a basic "dailies grade" on every clip and it rarely takes more than 50 seconds to one minute to make it look nice first time. then copy-paste to the other clips of the scene and fine tune the brightness differences and fine tune occasional momentary color casts if there is any (greenish reflections from vegetation on a single clip etc). To get the material to render overnight I have to regularly do this to 300 or 400 or 500 clips in a single day so I need to work pretty quickly and have less than a minute to use per clip. Based on this I would say the Sonys grade pretty well like any other camera and the material if fast to work with. Very rarely you need to touch any raw settings, just the basic LUT to all the clips and then fiddle with the Resolve Panel to get it look nice. Take into account that this is nature footage where most of the time the lighting can't be controlled and there may be extreme contrasts at times. By my experience the Reds tend to need a little bit more work to get them look nice quickly, even the newer sensors. they are not bad but there is a difference... they are not "muddy" like some other cameras but the colors need more work to get them pop up nicely. So far the easiest to work with on this project have been the F55 and Varicam LT material. The Inspire2/X7 raw material needs intermediate versions to be first rendered but the material itself is pretty easy to grade after you get from proresraw into some workable format like normal prores

Input may be appreciated if it directly relates to the commenting person's work and it is just them wanting to do their own work better. Like the makeup dept asking to do last minute improvements on the makeup when they see the monitor image even when the director thinks the makeup is already ok. If it is for trying to dictate other department's or HOD's work then it is stepping on someone's toes so to speak (gives an impression that the person thinks he would do the same job better if he would be the Director or Cinematographer on the show and not the runner or PA or grip) . It happens a lot on student and indie sets but by my experience the noise levels lower down considerably as soon as working with a more experienced crew on bigger productions. Not common there anymore that random crew members comment how the scene could be directed or shot better or how the actors should improve their performances to make the scene better...

It is relevant in that Tyler can consider himself extremely lucky for never having had any problem with Blackmagic products. Personally I have had reliability and manufacturing quality problems with ALL of their products I have ever used so I don't trust their stuff more that any other cheap Chinese product :P I have once seen the Alexa Mini to corrupt a card badly and was very difficult to restore the contents. On all the other productions the Minis have worked without issues so they seem to be pretty OK cameras

manufacturing digital gear takes surprisingly large amount of natural resources compared to the size of the equipment. If it's some Alexa body which is used 6 or 8 years then it's fine but if the gear is updated every year then I suspect it may be a big issue. Manufacturing film does not differentiate that much from some special plastic industries. Developing it of course needs chemicals but not that huge amounts, most of it is just water... colour chemicals are more complicated but for example the formula I commonly use for B/W developing contains, in addition of the water, about ONE PERCENT of actual developing chemicals and most of the rest is Sodium Sulphite and Sodium Carbonate. You will have huge amount of water where you add some amount of base to lift the pH up and then add the deoxidizing agent if you need to use the solution multiple times. And just a tiny bit of the actual developing chemicals. If you could dry the water out from used solutions it would fit to very small space and be much more easy and economical to dispose

The "revolution" was really boosted by the 3D boom which necessitated digital capture. The Sony cameras were pretty popular for that before Alexas took over. Some years later the whole 3D rage was just forgotten. Now it is more about large format and special vintage lenses. That has happened many times before, the history just repeating itself.

Fair enough ? The whole point of dreams is to imagine something which is very unlikely to happen so it does not have to be practically doable in real life and one can imagine anything one wants ? I would like to do a scifi movie which is all shot in real space with real actors and only practical effects would be used. It would be nice to fly by some planets as well to get gorgeous footage for couple of window scenes so it would take couple of years to make but who cares when the view would be that good! It would be like a holiday for the whole crew, I would probably not need to even pay them anything! .... IN SPACE, NO ONE CAN HEAR THEM whining about their salary! would still shoot digital though because it would be more practical in that environment XD

the dreams about specific technical processes are irrelevant unless one already has the whole project planned in great detail so that one is absolutely sure the said technical process would work perfectly on it. In the case of this thread one would need to work backwards to try to figure out which kind of project would suit the chosen technical process perfectly. And not the other way around. I would love to shoot film (being one of those film sniffers myself heh) but most of my dream projects would be creating post-apocalyptic fantasy worlds where single-format low-sensitivity mediums would be unpractical for real world production. I think the thread has actually drifted from project-centered to technical-centered very quickly. It is understandable on this kind of forum but it is not very constructive when talking about CINEMATOGRAPHY and not PHOTOGRAPHY. pretty much the same problem like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LddR4UF9q8 (great looking visuals and interesting technical process VS. choosing the process which works best as a storytelling device on the particular project)

"I want to use this blimped 3-stripe camera because it is cool and rare format and difficult to shoot with so I will get lots of attention! but the scene needs to be handheld and we have gimbal and drone shots as well"

it is exactly like having a car, owning or renting a car or talking about cars. Some people just want to drive around. The others want it to be reliable. Some just love it being a certain very rare and old model OR the latest one and expensive looking. Some people just love to fix it and smell the tires after a long drive on fresh asphalt and they couldn't care less how much they paid for it or if it would be reliable enough to get them across the continent if needed. Some people are like, "I want to use my Ferrari to haul this 20 ton pile of rocks from point A to point B." Sometimes it is just great to have right tools for a job. If you are driving for living it might matter more what type of car you use for a task

I love projects where formats can be mixed and every camera system and shooting format and lens set is chosen because it is the best choice for that particular scene. I personally mix film and video in almost all my own projects and encourage others to do that well. Additionally I work on documentary projects where over 15 camera systems per single project is very normal. I actually think that it is a very conservative choice to shoot a whole movie on the same format and single camera system and lenses. It is understandable if one does not want to draw attention to the visuals or benefit from them and just want to make everything slick and boring so that the dialog and music can do all the work and the main goal of the cinematography is just capture what is in front of the camera and nothing more?

I would shoot a feature where every scene is shot with a different camera and every shot in a scene is done with a different lens. In a way that is motivated and benefits of the look and feel and practical limitations every system and combination has. That is a bit challenging to do on a feature (maybe 400 or 500 camera/lens combinations) but I am sure I could get it working perfectly if the story and project would be right

I checked it. the material was 150Mbps long-gop 10bit h264 and 400Mbps All-I 10bit h264 on .mov containers. No HEVC... there was no camera settings on hevc which would suit the project so h264 modes were used instead. I process Mavic2 h265 footage daily and it works fine on Resolve. I have the gh5s here at the moment, no lens but tested the uhd HEVC mode 72Mbps on it and it works fine with my Resolve too. I have High Sierra on this test computer as well. Can it be in any way related to having the FCPX and Compressor installed, I have both on this mac? it sounds weird that hevc would magically stop working without a reason. the hevc files play back fine even on Finder but the 10bit h264 does not. Both work on Resolve without any problems

I have the 16 and full license too and can read the GH5s 10bit files fine. Just processed about 400 clips yesterday. I have seen computers which don't read them despite having the latest software version so it may be some operating system related problem? Have not come by with the EVA1 internal files because the last time they used it, it was recording prores on Atomos and no internal codec was used.

XOCN is pretty great raw codec actually on F55. I have processed a little amount of canon raw lite from c200 as well and it worked OK though needed some experimenting. I don't understand why anyone would want to use Prores RAW on their cameras unless they absolutely have to because it does not record anything else nearly decent codec. Especially if they are using Resolve based workflow. And transcoding proresraw is pretty time consuming if you need to do that. We use it only for drone shots because normal prores is not high enough quality and dng is a total nightmare to backup and post process, even more so than prores raw. The proresraw at least takes much less space than dng which is the whole point of using it on the Inspire drones. Redcode raw, arriraw, blackmagic raw are proprietary as well.