Bruce Greene

I believe this describes an older, video style Varicam. FilmRec mode allowed a choice of 4 or 5 different gamma corrections, based upon a gamma 2.2 base. The choices for gamma were given in percentages. 200% through 500 or 600%. The highest number recorded the entire dynamic range of the camera, but not in a log curve. Adding a correction curve during color grading was done to create the look and contrast desired. As it’s not a log recording, 10 bit or higher recording was necessary to avoid banding on color corrected footage. When these cameras were current, they recorded the highest dynamic range of the early digital cinema cameras.

I don’t know the Venice camera, but is it possible that it does multiple sensor read outs to extend dynamic range? if so, it could create this effect, which in most circumstances is not noticeable. This might be a question for the Sony engineers.

A 4x4x4 cube, lifted up high for a night exterior is a fairly hard light source as its small relative to the distances involved. The advantage over a fresnel or other “hard” light source is that the light gently falls off to blackness vs. a focused light that is evenly lit until... it goes to black. ive used balloon lights, that look big on the ground, but once up high and far away create a fairly hard light, with gentle fall off that can look quite natural.

There is... no "secret sauce". Well, except that production design, wardrobe, and movie star good looks make photography look much much better! So, assuming equally good cinematography... these days anyone can color grade a movie at home to look as good as many expensive post houses can produce. There are a few superb colorists out there, a whole bunch of competent ones, and ... lots of guys who know the knobs, but not photography. I'm a cinematographer who has color corrected some of the films I've photographed, at home. So, call me a "semi-pro" colorist ? I'm using Davinci Resolve, an Eizo display I've calibrated myself, and a few thousand dollars worth of computer stuff. If you're interested in what can be done at home, here are some clips of the last theatrical picture I color corrected in my house... It's a "lowish budget" movie, shot on location without a major Hollywood production design, though we did our best!

I had the same issue with this movie. But... I think the issue might have to do with Netflix streaming an HDR version to my non-HDR TV. I've seen similar issues with other streaming shows, once in a while. I'm thinking that it may have to do with my Roku stick. If the stick logs on before the TV is booted up, it doesn't receive the TV state over the HDMI connection, and errors occur. Now, I always boot the TV first, then the Roku Stick and I haven't seen this issue again. But, I haven't gone back to check on "The Vast of Night" again...

https://www.itsupplies.com/Eizo-ColorEdge-Prominence-CG3146-HDR-Monitor-p/cg3146-bk.htm Maybe this one?

There are a couple ways to look at this: Pure return in rentals vs. marketing value. I’ve made some purchases such as my Steadicam and Arri BL camera that paid for themselves many times over. I also invested in an early digital cinema camera system that was quite expensive and only returned about 25% in rentals. But owning the equipment taught me much about digital acquisition and helped me make a couple key relationships which enabled me to transition from operator to DP. And one relationship was built on donating the camera package for free on a short film. I’ve only worked for that producer one day since... but she introduced my daughter to what had become a career as a writer / producer at a major network. So, in the end, it paid off very well. More than what I spent on her university education! lesson: don’t over look the marketing potential of a purchase and.... happy holidays!!!

Yours is a good question. I think if you were making optical prints, the difference between these capture films would be obvious. But, since you're scanning... I'm not so sure... I've posted some links below to some b&w images from my facebook page. Sorry, they are all different images, but I think they might show what's possible. You might need to copy and paste them into a photo app so you can see them big enough. Each link has a photo taken in full frame 35mm still camera format. If you don't feel too much difference, you might want to use the capture medium that affords you the most control after scanning. Color neg film scan to B&W B&W tri-x scan Digital color capture converted to B&W

A couple of things: It's never been easier or more affordable to make some kind of movie. If you have a smart phone, you're good to go! At this level, the idea is way way more important than the technical quality of the camera. And secondly, please forgive me for what I'm about to write... Please use paragraphs when writing long posts. It can be really difficult, at least for me, to read such a giant block of words. So I tend to avoid reading such posts. I suspect that I'm not the only one, or am I? Best wishes to you Josh! Never give up, never surrender!!!

I’ve seen DCPs with the effect you described. It’s caused by exporting full range video into a codec normally associated with video levels. The DCP house then corrected the video levels, crushing the shadows and highlights. Since you’ve graded in sRGB, maybe ( considering it was on a laptop screen), I would set your display to REC709, gamma, 2.2. Then review your grade and make sure it looks correct. Then render your movie to 10 bit dpx sequence, full data range. Bring this to the DCP house and tell them it’s REC709, gamma 2.2, full data range, and they will make the correct conversion to DCI P3 color space for the DCP.

I have a set of mk1 standard speed lenses in Arri Standard Mount. I’ve used them many times for super 35mm film without issue. I’ve never used them with a digital camera though. I expect that their performance is quite similar to the mk2 lenses. The mk1 lenses are very small and do not have gears for follow focus. You would need an adapter to PL mount to use them these days. And you may need a machinist to make focus and iris gears for them.

I doubt you’ll see better results than from the drum scanner...

HDR? That will depend on the range if your display and the HDR standard you are grading to. Suitable HDR displays currently cost about $30,000. Do you have one?

About flicker using a spring powered camera: You may get flicker with any non continuous light source such as HMI or common fluorescent lamps. Light only using tungsten lamps to avoid flicker or use sunlight ?

It would require an entire book to answer your question, and even then, only practice And observation will work. I Suggest you volunteer to help on the lighting crew of some small projects to get started.

In a calibrated display, in a darkened room, white should be 100 nits or 29.2 foot Lamberts.

I shot a long exterior birthday party scene with constantly changing light. We didn’t have time to wait for consistent lighting. The original edit really showed the light changes, but after color correction it played very well and looked rather natural. My suggestion to you, as an editor would be to cut for the story and not worry about the changing sunlight.

I think, that if there will be a color grade applied to the footage, then it’s a little crazy to try to exactly match the exposure. i think you can accomplish a good match, lighting by eye. The direction and lighting ratio should be similar, but that’s all that’s necessary. You could make a good quality paper print of the scene already shot and refer to it as you work if that gives you more confidence. You might even grab still frames and put them up, side by side on your display with the live camera image, but you might need to take a computer with you on set to play back the still frames. For me, in general, I find “false colors” a difficult tool to judge what I’m doing, and I’d rather look at clean image and a waveform.

I have spot and incident meters. I use the incident meter to light the set, and when I used to shoot film, I used the spot meter to set the camera exposure, though I also sometimes use an incident meter to set exposure, depending on the situation. with digital cameras I still use the incident meter to light the set, but I generally use the camera image or waveform to set the camera exposure. Since I also use film cameras for shooting stills (off set), my spot meter is my go to meter for shooting stills, on film ?

I shoot with 6x9 rangefinder cameras. One is wide, one is a little wide, and they have fixed lenses, so not what you’re looking for. My one challenge these days is that 220 film is EOL, so only 8 exposures per 120 roll. if I were looking for an SLR today, I would want one with interchangeable magazines to speed reloading. if you want to consider the rangefinder cameras, my Fuji GW690 cameras sell for about $600, including the fixed lens. The wide GSW model has a 35mm equivalent 28mm lens (65mm) and makes a large 6x9 negative. It is all mechanical and a leaf shutter with very low vibration, so it can be used on a lightweight tripod. The GW model has a 90mm (38mm) lens and is about the same price.

This light flash is so even that I think it’s possible that it’s not on the film negative. find the shot in the original negative and tale a look on a light table. If the edges of the film don’t show a light leak, scan the negative again.

I have both meters and I’ve found that I rarely use the spot meter when shooting digital. i do use it for shooting still photographs on film though. i use the incident meter when shooting digital movies while setting lights, and sometimes for setting the camera exposure, usually on day exteriors. i never measure lighting ratios though. I always done that by eye as I think a perceptual match is better than a technical match.

Just to weigh in here, for perhaps no good reason. I blame the virus for my time to waste... The idea of light “texture” makes no sense to me. Light plus shadow can create a texture (from the shadow), but not an evenly illuminated light. Soft vs. hard light is a function of parallel light waves vs. random. The size of the lamp, and the distance to the subject, relative to the size of the source. Simply put, a “diffuse” one inch diameter lamp, will cast a sharp shadow 20 feet from the lamp. We all know this from experience. And vice versa. We all learn this stuff pretty quickly as cinematographers. So why all these emotional words to describe a light fixture? The emotion is a combination of what’s in front of the lens, plus the lighting/shadowing of the subject. Simple stuff. Color accuracy of particular lamp/camera combinations is a good area for discussion. And, to me, film doesn’t look “organic”. It looks “dithered” ?

Tungsten lamps photograph very well for good color, with no surprises. The biggest issue with tungsten vs LED is speed of working. LED lamps can be adjusted for brightness using a dial or a remote. No need to climb a ladder to drop a scrim in the lamp. They can also be adjusted for color, avoiding time cutting and mounting gels. They are also lighter weight and easier to rig without light stands, as in back lighting interiors. And to add more speed, many can be powered by battery and save the time running and hiding cables. When time is short, speed often trumps color accuracy. Of course, when harder, more controllable light is needed, tungsten and HMI fresnel lamps are still used.

If I recall, Photoshop can import video clips. I did this years ago for some simple vfx. Check the manual to learn how to work with video in Photoshop. I would suggest trying the healing brush to paint out the dust spots. i also once used after effects to clean up scratches and dust in a long piece of stock footage. It took me about 3 hours to learn after effects technique and about 10 hours to repair the entire clip as there were a lot of issues with it.