Aapo Lettinen

"Substances: Food/High Grade glycols: Monopropylene Glycol: CAS Registry Number: 57‐55‐6 Triethylene Glycol: CAS Registry Number: 112‐27‐6 " Their conservator-restorers will probably know if it is safe to use in the presence of their collection, they know all the materials and chemicals used in their collection. It's very dilute vapor anyway but it can fixate to things for days, thus the smell on clothes etc. I've never heard that it could damage artwork in any way but who knows....

there is all kinds of cool stuff in stage lighting :) here is an example of the gobo filtering https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ6VP8zL8Ac

the light effect has regular pattern so it is definitely dmx fixtures. I'm not a expert of stage lighting but multiple gobos could do the job I think. It's lots of rotating light patterns moving around

I can't see photos either. seems to be quite expensive, especially with shipping. you can get two rolls of fresh wittnerchrome at that price and don't have to pay customs. without photos, very few purchases and zero seller reputation and no other items on sale, looks a lot of like a scam. I mean, come on, even I have lots of feedback on my eBay account without never even selling anything, just buying stuff :blink: eBay sellers tend to list the amount of items if they have more than one on sale so that you can buy more than one at a time and they don't have to relist all the time. if he can't send you photos or add them to the listing I would advise against buying those although you will probably get your money back after a while with buyer protection if it's a scam :mellow: Just don't wait more than 25 days for it to arrive, even with that slow 'Global Shipping' option which goes via multiple carriers and is difficult to track because it changes tracking codes multiple times... I would not be worried about the seller's reputation, one can get that kind of feedback in 5 minutes so not a problem for him to create a new account if necessary ;)

have you tried switching the hdmi output format, the gh4 can output different signals and probably a monitor can show at least one of them. progressive/interlaced etc. and that "smart hdmi" function also did something, don't remember what it's called but it is meant to communicate with Panasonic televisions

looks like M42 mount Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180mm. the shutter tab of the M42 mount is visible on the rear image. but the lens rear cap is on in side images so can't be absolutely sure because the mount is not visible on those. you can just measure the mount diameter, if it's 42mm then it's the M42 (no T2 mount on those lenses as far as I know)

it's no big deal to spool down the film from 400ft loads to 200ft, you just need a rewinder and a changing bag or darkroom. if having bigger order the stock seller may arrange the spooling for you

yeah the sweeping leads to thinking that it is definitely external and most possibly x-ray. the red layer is the most sensitive in film (least energetic photons) so it is logical that my issue is concentrated on that layer. that exr also had very green image but that is separate issue...

you can use dummy loads on rehearsals so that the actors get used to the camera noise. if it's rental camera you can use somewhat similar sounding other camera or machine (if renting a Konvas for example you can use a power drill in rehearsals :lol: )

some of it still looks more like x ray damage, at 00.27 or so

eBay short ends would be the worst: both unknown history and age AND short length, each roll have to be tested, usually not economical unless the rolls are almost full. like 380ft for 16mm or over 800ft for 35 for example

I have have exactly the same kind of problem with old unknown history 50D EXR except it was pumping red layer, not blue. for example inconstant temperature on one side of the roll or pressure sensitization can do this. the problem faded a little after about half of the roll but was there all the time at some extent. I would not buy second hand films unless in very big factory sealed rolls so one can have a good test of each roll and depend on that the rest is in proper condition then. in case of 16mm, factory sealed 400ft rolls and then winding it down to 100ft loads

thorium oxide was used in the glass elements of some lenses, most notoriously on Super Takumars. Especially the rear elements of those Takumars are very radioactive, my Geiger counter goes mad near them B) it is not dangerous unless you grind the glass to dust and inhale or eat it but the radiation can yellow the glass slowly

Oh, and of course the French New Wave films. And those Robert Bresson movies shot with single focal length are also great

I would definitely watch Tarkovsky movies, all of them are great cinematography wise and have stunning images. Watch at least: The Mirror (especially the dream sequences and colours) Andrei Rublev (some stunning b/w scenes) Ivan's Childhood (great b/w scenes) Stalker (especially the dream sequences, railway "border" scenes and interiors) Solaris The Sacrifice I would watch also other Soviet and Eastern Block films, for example Emil Loteanu's films have some good scenes. Lautarii and Gypsies Are Found Near Heaven have some good old school shots. Kurosawa films are great and also some of the old anamorphic Japanese movies (can't remember titles right now) . I liked also the Dersu Uzala movie's nature shots, it is also shot in the Soviet Union. Kieslowski films are great also.

Hugo

frame rates, needs less mag adapters in that use, a bit more sturdy... if shooting EXACTLY the same way (including couple of cameras on steadicam at the same time) then it would probably be better to choose LT if not needing to use larger mags very often. Probably they would make it a bit differently on film but who knows

people have made good and bad movies throughout the history, I think the main reason you think that way is because people only remember the classics and other "good stuff". Haven't seen the Jurassic World, the trailer's been enough :rolleyes: maybe the screenwriters and directors have got a little bit more lazy nowadays though, or the producers and investors demand simpler and "dumber" films because they sell better :lol: that's not technological issue, just creative one and can't be corrected even if all the digital gear is destroyed so that we would be technologically back in the "old times"

"only the look is important" is mainly film critics point of view and that's because they only see the final product and don't know how much and what kind of work was needed to make the movie. a film critic might for example think that only real movies are those shot with a mithchell bnc non-reflex without blimp but still completely handheld with zoom lenses. or using 3-strip technicolor cameras on steadicam :lol:

you really should also shoot a lot with both film and digital to understand the practical decisions the crew has made when making the film. For example, if you simply watch the Fury Road movie in a theatre you will probably whine that "this would have been so much better if shot on film!!" but if you even somewhat know the equipment they used (mostly Alexas) and the alternatives for that job which they could have used if shooting film ( Arricam ST + 235 +435 combo OR Millennium XL2 +235+435 combo probably) and watch couple of behind the scenes shots and read some articles, THEN you can probably understand why they chose digital on that movie. Same thing with The Revenant or any other movie. It is easy for film critics to invent great theories how the movies should be done but without actually being there and doing that you can't really know what are the best choices, nor can criticise those people about their decisions and equipment/workflow choices

camera on a tripod, and a good turntable for the jewellery. if you want to replicate the light in the video you can use fresnel or par light from top but you could maybe experiment with large shaped soft reflection made with softer sources and flags and then add some fill and edge light if necessary. I would maybe use more backlight than directly from top to get nicer reflections depending on how much highlights your camera can handle. if the shadows need to be small and therefore you have to key light from top, then you can try to add some very tightly controlled edge or side light which is flagged off of the surface but highlights the jewellery nicely. that way you have single shadows on the surface but much nicer light on jewellery. you can use kino flo:s , led panels, tungsten lights for this. small dedolight type controllable fixtures are great for sharp edge light and sidelight. relatively small lights depending on the size of the subject, if using tungsten you can use for example 100-300w range lights

crosstalk in color channels. it's the same with Kodak vs. Fuji: Fuji has more crosstalk and therefore can usually handle colour temperature changes better but does not have as accurate colours. for example, Fuji shadows of a daylight scene are usually bit more towards cyan than blue, Kodak renders them more towards pale blue. Earlier Red sensors had quite a lot of crosstalk intentionally added probably to fight colour channel noise (Art Adams tests). They haven't been towards colour imaging from the start, they concentrated more on resolution and frame rates and maybe a bit on dynamic range. With the Dragon they have started to notice that most of the stuff shot on their cameras is in colour and therefore one might need better colour response too :rolleyes:

I don't understand what is wrong with shooting both the formats and to decide based on project and not only on personal opinions. You don't need to light all your movies with only 4k hmi:s either, you can use whatever fixture suits your needs :blink: Anyway, I myself choose the shooting format scene by scene basis, for example in the current short we are mixing 4k xavc shot with Sony FS7 and 35mm 4perf 5207 shot with Cameflex Standard, both cropped to 2:1 aspect ratio. (oh that 2:1 ratio is also unconventional, sorry about choosing it project by project basis and not based on public opinions :lol: we don't use instagram filters either B) )

cinematography is half practical decisions and half artistic choices, you can't ignore either one of them when choosing tools and shooting style for a project. your opinion seems to be that film is always better than digital for movies in all cases which is absolutely wrong, you have to consider the pros and cons case by case basis to know which one is better for your project. a film project may also benefit from digital cameras in certain scenes. and if it helps making the movie better who cares? one does not have to always follow some kind of dogma and set up artificial boundaries and rules for oneself when making movies

I was talking about technical differences, film usually has something like 3.5 - 4 stops of dynamic range below middle gray which is not much for low light work