Stuart Brereton

Where on earth did you find some 7296? That was discontinued about 25 years ago!

Manu, you're a self confessed film purist, so you have a vested interest in being able to tell the difference. Are you sure you could still tell if you didn't already know in advance?

You're right that there are big differences in quality between 480p, 720p and 1080p. However, continued increases in resolution yield diminishing returns. Many people find it hard to tell the difference between 2k and 4k. In fact, 4k seems to be the sweet spot for human perception. Higher resolutions than this are visually indistinguishable. Have a look at these videos from Steve Yedlin, ASC, where he compares identical footage, film and digital, shot at different resolutions. http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/

Daniel, Kodak's own technical literature states that their motion picture stocks can resolve 80 lp/mm. That translates to a maximum of about 4k of information. If you oversample, say to 6k, you should be able to capture all the available information in that negative.

Your argument here seems to be about the need for higher resolution capture devices, not scanners. Audio engineers use 96kHz to capture sound from the original source, to try to preserve all of its subtleties. With film, that initial capture of information was done when the film was exposed, and is limited by the resolving power of the film. Once you’ve scanned it at a high enough resolution to capture that information, there’s nothing more to be had. You can’t create information where there is none. Ok, an 8k scan means you won’t have to upsample it in the future, but in a sense, you’ve already done that by stretching 4K of information to fill an 8k file. You’re right that technology will quickly become fast enough and cheap enough that there will be no reason not to scan at higher resolutions, but that doesn’t mean it will be necessary.

I believe that 4k is capable of capturing all the information up to the 80 lp/mm MTF that Kodak publishes for its neg stocks. Throw in some over-sampling to be safe, and you've got 6k. As you say, you can continue to scan at ever higher resolutions, but whether you are gaining any useful information is open to question.

Because there's no point in scanning 35mm at 8 or 12k. After about 6k, there's no more information to be had.

It's fascinating work that he's doing, but also a little frustrating for those of us that don't have his skills with coding.

I remember being warned specifically about S4s by a rental house. We didn’t use them in the end, so I don’t know if the warning was justified.

One likely explanation for this is that statistically, 80% of women will leave the workforce at some point to have children, and according to a couple of studies I found, as few as 20% will return to work at all, much less in the field they originally worked. This would certainly help to explain why there are increasing numbers of female ACs, but fewer operators, and fewer still DPs. At some point, probably just as their careers are taking off, they have to make a choice between having children and having a career. That said, I do know several women who have come back to the camera dept after having children, and managed to pick up pretty much where they left off. Anyone, male or female, who works freelance knows just how hard this can be.

Yes, I believe some newer 35mm glass like S4/5s and Master primes can cause issues with the VF on the SR3. The OP is hoping to use Speed Panchros, so size shouldn't be an problem

All lenses have an image circle bigger than the format they are designed for, obviously. With long lenses, the circle can be considerably bigger, in some cases being large to cover much bigger formats. That’s why the inside of the lens port is painted matte black. As long as there are no reflective surfaces in there, it shouldn’t matter that your lenses were designed for 35mm coverage.

Albion, that is absolutely not what Phil said or meant. I suggest you go back and read his comments in this thread. I think you will find them to be fair and intelligently argued, unlike your own.

Does anyone have any info on the lenses used to shoot this show? Some very interesting bokeh in some of the shots. Thanks.

I think that's a little harsh, David. No one here is trying to discourage women from joining this site and posting. It seems we're forced to discuss these issues without female input, but at least they are being discussed and not ignored.

Oh, I'm not suggesting that they sat down, researched the topic, and crunched the numbers. I'm pretty sure they just said it should be 50%. Or rather 51% Just to be clear, my issue is not with women DPs getting their rightful recognition, but rather with the lazy argument put forward in the article, where the apparent lack of any real research allows the writer to draw any conclusion she wants, regardless of the underlying facts.

The ASC membership is comprised of cinematographers working at the top end of the industry. If female DPs only represent 5% of the DPs working in that rarified world, then the membership is what you would expect. Clearly the author of this article has already decided what a fair percentage of women members would be, regardless of how many women are: 1. working as DPs, and 2. qualified for membership.

Jon, I'm not criticizing people who shoot those formats per se. They have their own aesthetic, and are no more or less valid a choice than any other format. My comments are directed at those filmmakers who are desperate to shoot film above all other considerations. As an example, let's say there is a filmmaker who insists that he shoot 4 perf anamorphic, but for budget reasons can only afford to shoot super 16 cropped to 2.39:1. Are we seriously going to pretend that those two formats look like each other? They share an aspect ratio, but that's about it. One is probably the highest resolution and detail you're going to get out of 35mm, and the other is sub 2k and comparatively soft. It's a huge difference. Straight away there's been a massive compromise in the quality of the images. Why would you do that, when you could shoot digitally? Now, you could say that digital is a compromise as well, and in a sense that's true, but I'd argue that it's a much less noticeable compromise visually, and it's almost certainly cheaper. I can't see a rational reason for choosing film no matter what, when there are plenty of other options. To me it's just another version of photographer's Gear Acquisition Syndrome, that belief that having the very latest gear will somehow make them a better photographer.

There's probably a lot of truth to that. A producer will instantly see roughly a $200,000 expense for film, as opposed to the comparative cheapness of digital. They'll also know that every single roll over the budgeted amount is going to cost about $1500 by the time it's processed and telecine'd, and that will make them nervous, as today's directors are used to shooting digitally, and often don't have the discipline to refrain from shooting rehearsals and multiple takes. So, I can understand why some, or even most producers would be disinclined to agree to shoot film unless it was with an experienced director. I don't understand the argument for 16mm or 2 perf. Both of them are lesser formats, and 2 perf locks you into a 2.39:1 aspect ratio unless you want to crop it even further. They're fine if you want a slightly lo-fi look, but to choose them because you can't afford 3 or 4 perf 35mm, but you're so desperate to shoot film that you'll take any compromise makes no sense to me. It's the tail wagging the dog. Again, do they want to make a good movie, or do they just want to tell people they shot on film?

Of course it's possible, but what other things did he have to sacrifice in order to do so? Shooting on film is a choice, not an imperative.

I agree. No one looks at the Mona Lisa and says "you know what, that would have been better in watercolor".

Honey Boy was a Tier One union movie. Whatever you might have heard, Tier One movies do not have a lot of money to throw around. Choosing film origination on their budget, particularly with a shooting style that I believe was fairly unstructured and improvisational, would have been difficult to afford. Everyone quotes the directors saying that they wanted to shoot film but weren't allowed to, as if Film was the only thing that director was asking for. Every director tries to stretch the budget in every department. They want technocranes and cable rigs, they want huge locations or elaborate sets and hundreds of extras. Ultimately, they have to make a decision what's important to them, and some of them decide that shooting film is not priority one. It's not some vast conspiracy to prevent people using film, it's just the reality of working within a budget.

I think young directors have different motives for wanting to shoot film. For some, it's a 'new' technology, and they are keen to try it out. Some believe it's the magic ingredient that will somehow elevate their film above the competition. Others have fallen victim to the film snobs who tell them that they aren't 'real' filmmakers unless they are shooting film. I think most people find out fairly quickly that it's not a panacea for poor filmmaking, and that as a technology it comes with its own unique set of issues. I remember being told years ago that when budgeting, the total costs of film origination should be no more than 5% of budget. That's obviously not a problem when you have a large budget to work with, as do all the names that Manu lists above. I'm glad that these directors are choosing to use film, so that it remains a viable technology for years to come. It's when film costs start take over the budget that I find the whole argument ridiculous. When you hear of directors demanding to shoot film and having to slash the budgets of every other department, you start to wonder if they care more about calling themselves a "Filmmaker" than they do about actually making a film.

Those 24 year old DPs fresh out of film school tend to be the outliers, and I'd put money on them all either coming from the AFI or similar school, or somehow owning their own Alexa package. In my experience, a lot of them tend to end up shooting themselves in the foot because people find out very quickly that they don't actually have the ability and the experience to do the job. You mention looking for work on "medium-high level productions". I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but I think that even when looking for work on something like lower budget TV movies, you're going to find that a nice demo reel isn't enough. It may impress the director, but the producers are going to be more concerned about your experience. Can you help the director with blocking ensemble casts? Can you manage both the camera and G&E teams effectively? Can you light quickly without having all the latest gear? Can you get through 8-10 pages a day, every day? Producers are often willing to take a risk on an inexperienced director, but almost never on an inexperienced DP. I'd say the best approach is to find work as an AC, or perhaps in G&E, so that you have a steady income, and then to shoot as many short films, passion projects or whatever as you can on the side. Working on professional sets will teach you a lot about how other DPs work, not just in lighting and camera, but in how they manage their crews, and how they deal with other departments. You'll be learning more every day, and at the same time practicing your skills on your own projects. Throwing yourself in the deep end as a DP with no other income will put you under a lot of pressure to say yes to every job. It's easy to find yourself stuck in a rut, doing work you don't enjoy, just to pay the rent.

It seems like the Fox call sheet is taken word for word from the Contract Services bulletin, with the difference being that Mineral Oil is banned rather than allowed. The CS bulletin does specify "highly refined only", which DF50 is, according to the FDA, whereas Fox merely says Mineral Oil. Obviously, they've taken it upon themselves to implement rules that go beyond generally accepted safety guidelines. I would imagine that they've done that because of some possible legal exposure or financial implication, rather than any concern for human wellbeing ?