Daniel Porto

yes but at the end of the day film has the same resolution in that the each grain is evenly dispersed over the entire image the same for 35mm and 65mm. its resolution is constant. at the end of the day whatever math you use to get there i guess im just saying im gonna shoot imax sized digital sensor majority, 35mm sized sensor for prime and some zoom shots where less weight is required and then finally with 16mm sized sensor for when i really need to be low weight taking advantage of the lighter super16 glass. ? thats all really im trying to say i guess which is that im a camera nerd and very particular about what i like in that respect, lighting acting and everything else i tend to work with whatever is supplied by the universe ? ? whats your general 'rules' when it comes to creating an image David?

Yes i agree. and yes its all personal preference. that why we have so many different lenses and so many different camera systems. i mean i still like shooting 16mm or 2K on the right project but to me for a 'better' image i will predominately prefer shooting IMAX and this doesn't even need to have any merit meaning that my belief that it is better could in fact be false and im trusting my gut too much ?

a zoom isn't a comparison of format its one long image... im not saying that lenses look sharper when you zoom in with a lens. but i am saying that 70mm to 35mm comparison 70mm is sharper and i believe this is because of being able to get closer and still capture a whole image with a longer lens to boot. this is why 70mm IMAX just looks magical. anyway at the end of the day i hope someone makes a 15perf 70mm sized digital sensor and lenses... RED and Arri seem to be the most likely innovators in this way i believe ?

yes 'better' depends on your taste but what do you think about my long lens theory? i think its true im watching my projector on my couch all good, go up to the wall and i can see all the pixels ?

dont worry i hear ya! I dream sometimes a little too much but thats not enough in my opinion ? yeah im currently getting a quote from fotokem! leave it to the experts i guess Im more creative than technical anyway ?

i disagree david. put both cameras at the exact same position. 35mm camera with a 50mm, 70mm IMAX camera with a 141mm. Same field of view, same perspective, different depth of field. Now chuck a 50mm lens non the 70mm IMAX camera and then you need to move in closer to get the same field of view of the 35mm camera - the image looks sharper, better and clearer then having the 50mm on the 35mm camera... what are your thoughts david?

Hi, Am i wrong or does a the longer a lens the wider the image projection circle? for instance on my komodo a 17-85mm barrels at 17 but 85 seems ok.... I am asking really because Im imaging a future digital camera that is like IMAX sized sensor with longer lenses to cover the obviously large image plane ? thanks

One thing that I always laughed at is that when we shot film we were trying to make it look 'perfect' and when we shot digital we were trying to 'rough it up' a bit.... counter-intuitive really ?

looking to potentially provide film out services here in melb aus given it doesnt send me broke. not finding much information online but maybe im blind... arri has their laser 2 for sale. can ayone point me in the right direction to A find a film printer and B how to do it thanks ?

Beyond VV: The future of digital cinema Firstly forgive my English I haven’t been to school since 2007. How does it look? That’s the important question, that is the question that tells why we choose one image over another. For over a hundred years film negative has been the king of image quality but with digital cinema getting better and better over the years by all intents and purposes film capture by and large is on the decline. Less productions are shooting on film and less theatres are projecting film. But when it comes to the crunch digital produces a ‘better’ image than film can capture… All but with one exception: IMAX 15perf/70mm. This document will explain why I think this is the case. The photo on the previous page was taken from the pfhx.com website created by Phil Holland. This photo illustrates the difference between 35mm 4 perf and 70mm 15 perf. As you can see the field of view of the image plane of 70mm is drastically bigger than 35mm. I remember seeing my first 70mm print when I went to see The Dark Knight at the IMAX Melbourne screen (worlds 3rd largest screen)… it was magical, I sat 3 rows from the front and the image look so crisp and vibrant and sharp and almost 3D without the dual camera. It was simply breathtaking. So why does the image of 70mm look so much better than 35mm? Bigger is better. There is no physical free lunch. A 50mm lens on a 35mm positive print is equivalent to the frame size of a 141mm lens on a 70mm positive. Well Duh! So why is IMAX ‘better’ than 35mm. It is because of the longer lens! The 70mm negative has a larger FOV which in tern requires a longer lens more than used on 35mm. So yes you need a longer lens to get a similar capture on 70mm then what you would use on 35mm so what!?!?! Take a look at object around you and study it. Look for details and even try and read the small writing on say a can of cola. Now go closer and closer. You are getting closer and closer and essentially getting tighter and tighter and more detail resolves and you can see the intricacies of the object. It’s really as simple as that. A longer lens on the wider digital sensor or film plane just resolves and shows more detail. Currently VV seems to be the industry standard all except the Alexa65 which you can’t purchase anyway. I would argue that we should keep expanding our sensor sizes to at least the equivalent of IMAX 15perf 70mm. Better Images for everyone. And I’m sure there is some engineer right now chipping away at this very goal. Written By Jed McKenna randomnessjed@gmail.com

Hi, I shot all the filters I could find at a rental house here in melbourne a while back... grads, soft effects, nets, various colours and even a grease filter. There are lots anyway, view the tests for your reference here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1eG7mhX_pjqn-OBXKnsTdnIXivpMNorK6 regards Daniel

Oh yeah good question. What do you do with all the waste?

Thanks everyone. Yes I was refering to ECN-2 processing for Kodak Negative Film (I have about 7 rolls). But Tyler I think your right if I decide to process this film I will send it a Lab overseas as NegLab in sydney hasn't been responding to emails.. But that being said Ill try shoot and process 100ft bulk rolls of ILFORD stock, just for a bit of fun. Im not looking for a 'perfect' image and scratches and other 'mistakes' will only add to the look I am trying to achieve. Going to use a handcrank camera aswell ? Thanks

Processing film footage at home. I might have to go down the path of shooting 100ft bulk rolls of ILFORD black and white stock - which seems to be easier to process at home.

Hi, There is no lab in Australia anymore but I have some negative film I would like to shoot with. does anyone know of a comprehensive guide in how to process this film? Thanks Daniel

Dont know if this has been mentioned yet but Kodak have said they are releasing a new Vision 3 stock - it was posted as a comment on the Panavision Facebook page under the one where Panavision talk about still remaining to maintain film cameras

There is... Steadi Systems and they are located in SYD http://www.steadisystems.com/ However if you are interested I have various full 400' cans and short ends for 500T, 250D and 50D and will sell cheaper then what steadi systems will offer. I am located in Melb... how much are you looking for? Regards DANIEL

I have seen many DP's (one being Nigel Bluck - I wish I asked him at the time!) use 2 or 3 ND Grads in the one shot - with a mix of both soft and hard grads and the grad lines resting in different positions. Can someone please explain why some DOP's shoot like this? Obviously it is to control the brightness of certain parts of the image but is the thinking to make certain parts of an image stand out ever so slightly?

That's great! I've noticed that with a couple of the low budget films shot here in Australia, you can only buy the Blu-ray version in Europe and not in Australia... I loved this movie by the way. When I first watched it, it was the first movie that made me cry in a long time

I would love to hear your thoughts on this shootout... I assume you will be posting online?

A waste? The DP just wanted to use the right camera to get the shot he wanted... as David already explained there are plenty of reasons why they shot with so many cameras. I've seen plenty of shows where on Main unit they will have two Panaflex's, Second Unit will have one 435 and one 235. Then for daily's they will get an SR3 for some "flashback shots." Just because they used so many cameras doesn't mean they had all of the cameras on standby for the whole shoot collecting dust. Not a waste at all...

I should mention that this is according to Zohn Schwartzman, DP of The Amazing Spiderman

There is nothing worse then when you set it, lock it and then it shifts!!!! However, back to the EPIC... The build that the camera is currently running (at least TED's cameras build) is unable to run time-lapse, playback footage and although the redmote works it isn't fully functional. Yes it allows you to change settings however I was unable to see which particular setting I was adjusting and had to look on the monitor. Nonetheless this will be fixed and I was very impressed by the camera. The ability to shoot "5K" images with such a small body is amazing. However there are some drawbacks... There is only one monitor/eyepiece out on the body meaning that you cannot run both at the same time - its one or the other. Also the battery life of the EPIC when powered by the side handle didn't seem to last long at all... I remember TED mentioning it lasts 30 minutes. So yes there will be some occasions where it will be fine to run the camera brain only but I imagine that the majority of feature shooting will include the addition of both the I/O and battery module. The best thing about this camera is that you can configure exactly the way you want, adding and subtracting modules that you may or may not need. So with 3D gaining popularity and the fact that 2 EPIC's in 3D handheld configuration weigh as much as a single 435 in handheld configuration... I suspect this camera will become the workhorse of the world. But what will Panavision and Sony (with their "4K" camera) bring to the table?

My summarized opinion... 3D is comparable to color in the black and white days EPIC being lightweight, small and able to be used hand-held for 3D will be the dominant camera used by productions for 3D work (even IF the images are inferior... which they may or may not be) Can't wait to see what Panavision bring out... my guess is they will do what the Panaflex did to 35mm film-making. But at the moment EPIC seems to be following that path