Filip Plesha

Well Mike, that was my point from the begining Even an outsider like me can say for sure that Film will not be seriously threatened for the next 5 years in movie production, much less gone. It may begin to dissapear in certain parts in the next few years, but if that happens it will be a very slow process. Not to mention that even after probably 10 years of the digital cinema hype, we still haven't seen even the begining of the first conversion wave to digital screens. The current digital screens out there are pretty much improvisations, and every digital theater has a running 35mm projector which it uses for most projections (because not every film is distributed in digital)

"Actions speak louder than words" That saying means that one can talk a lot of stuff, but only if he converts those words to actions can he prove that he was right, and that has nothign to do with this situation It doesn't mean that one can say one thing and do another thing, that's not what this phrase is talking about. When one talks a lot about poor people, and gives money to them, then he has proven that he cares, and this is where this phrase applies. If one says one thing and does the other, the only thing he proves is that he says what people want to hear.

Charles... To stop speculating I'll just quote Perez here: "The movie business is great. Sure it's going to go away, but not in the next two years," "All I care about is that it stays with us for two years. If it stays - which I think it will - it will be gravy. But if it starts to go down, it won't bother me." as for still film: "Soon, I'm not going to be answering questions about film because I won't know. It will be too small for me to get involved.? This was for a newspaper, not on an electronics show

I can imagine that a pin registered film scanner would utilise such technique better than any other kind of scanner because it's so steady. Though it must be a problem with a large number of frames, because the time it takes, right? I assume it might work best on FX scenes where you only have a small number of frames. But without the problem of sharpness (solved by state of the art motors and pin registration on movies scanners), multiple passes can almost compleatly separate grain from noise resulting in a nearly 100% noiseless image. Pretty neat thing

Just wandering, do any of film scanners support multiple passes for more critical work?

This guy sounds like he has the esthetic sensibility of a guy trying to figure out which plasma gives a better picture of a soccer game. Most of the laymen out there have really low esthetic awareness (ability to spot patterns in color, tonality etc.) My father,for example, who used to be a B/W amateur in 70's, can not figure out the difference between simple SD interlaced video and film, you'd expect more from an amateur photographer. When he turns on the TV, and there is some kind of a cheap video soap opera, he has no clue wheather it is that or a movie. It's amazing. And the only image criteria he values is sharpness of the picture and contrast. And all his esthetic problems can be fixed by changing contrast and color on the remote, and getting a good TV signal.

Well, ok maybe mr. Perez was saying these things because those people wanted to hear them, but that's even worse then. It means he was lying intentionally. Either way you put it, this man is NOT a good advertisment for Kodak.

and what is perfection anyway?

yea that's what angry people like to say tell that to the bacteria and fish... life can stagnate and still survive for billions of years, I doubt humans will survive for a fraction of that time with all their fascinating evolution and progress

You see the CEO says that digital camera market is a dinosaur which can't evolve just like film, and that the future of kodak is neither in film nor digital cameras, but in micro CCD's (like the ones used in cellphones) and display technologies. I don't really believe that new CEO guy, with all due respect to everyone at Kodak, I think he is an idiot, and knows little of the realities of what Kodak does. I mean how can a Kodak CEO be so ignorant to the current situation to predict that motion picture film will last for maybe "two years" (that's a quote). What kind of CEO is it that doesn't even know the current situation of the sales of his own company. But anyway, if he IS right, then Kodak is going to become a mockery of what it once was. Well, this is getting out of topic a bit.

Wow, I never realised this..thanks It is so strange that in photography it is sort of reverse, there are anti-Kodak cults like that. There are a lot of people out there among professionals and amateurs that refuse to buy anything Kodak because they believe its inferior. But that's only recently, 10 years ago Kodak was making a lot of products which people would die for, and now that Kodak is acting like they are abandoning film (I'm talking about the still market) and have discontinued almost all of the "cult" products, many people have become Fuji-purists. But I think it more depends on the psychology than the products themselfs, because on one hand you have Kodak CEO saying he doesn't care about film, and saying it is dead in 2 years, and on the other hand you have Fuji who every january promisess to stay loyal to tradition photographic materials as much as they can. So of course that affects people's heads. But anyway, while it is definitvley a myth there is some kind of a general idea among advanced amateurs and professionals, both in US and over here where I live that Kodak products are far inferior to ones made by Fuji. Among consumers the idea is reverse I think, they trust Kodak more. I try to stay objective. While Fuji does set the modern standard for grain, tonality, color etc. Kodak offers products that are often just as good (not always) and sometimes even better (like when comparing 400UC to Fuji 400 negative film) John, well, yea Kodak has sort of invented modern film, but it seems Fuji has stood upon Kodak's shoulders and used these technologies (and added some new) making sometimes even superior products.

Like I said in my post, I mostly prefer Kodak products, but not their technical superiority

I was just wondering... Fuji does such a great job of making negative films and slide films for photography. Fuji slide films have made cults around them (sort of like Kodachrome cult), and they make really good negative films too. Reala 100 is still the finest grain 100ISO negative film out there (if they still make it) plus it comes up 90% times as a recomendation by anyone for its color contrast and skinjob. Of course portra is great family, but a little grainy compared to similar Fuji products. Well my point is, though I don't use them much, I do admit that Fuji still products are always the among the best, sometimes they share the first place with Kodak, but rarely do you find a Kodak product being its Fuji equivalent. Though Kodak makes great products, the fuji equivalent is often one step ahead (astia vs. E100G, EPY vs. 64T etc. ) , though Kodak 400UC is a star without a Fuji match. But that's all technical stuff, and I'm not a very technical man, so just follow my guts and stick to some great Kodak products that I like, though when I seek clarity, realism etc. some Fuji films often have the edge.. Well that's a long intro.. I guess what I was about to ask is: how are Fuji motion picture products? Are they as good as their still products? How would you compare them to their Kodak equivalents (64 vs. 5245/5201 eterna 500 vs. vision2 500 etc.) and what would you think their strengths and weaknesses are compared to Kodak motion picture films? And does the old Fuji blues-greens myth hold any water in motion picture world? This is a post just out of curriosity, and for fun, and of course to learn something new..

I fail to see the significance of trying to cathegorise such action.. It maybe matters if you are trying to justify such an act for yourself to feel better about yourself, or maybe trying to demonize someone for doing it, but in reality, theft is just another cathegory in which you can put whatever people agree to put inside, so for all practical purpuses it comes down to this: whatever it is it's forbidden.. and depending on your character, you can look at it from two angles: 1. It is forbidden by people who have power over you 2. It is forbidden so you might not want to hurt the feelings of people who forbid it, or work behind their back. of course the third way, if you don't feel guilty about not respecting someones wishes, and think you won't be caught by those people with power, then you can "steal"/steal it

It's the kind of printing you see in books (with tiny dots), today it is all digital and almost flawless technically, and all you need is good resolution (200 dpi halftone can look really smooth and good and have increadible detail, almost like a photo print), but back then the plates were prepared by means of analog copying to special preprint films, I don't know the specifics of print industry of 60's and 70's, but needless to say, the process had its own visual signiture. Best visible in old magazines. Also remember those old hyper-saturated postcards from 70's? Well its pretty much the same look only with boosted saturation (it still looks kind of wierd and textural when desaturated) But don't underestimate airbrushing, while old halftoning techniques did leave such an effect on colors and tones (making the transitions more rough and textural, as if on the half way between photography and painting) airbrushing the skin also does something like that to skintones.

There's the "look" and there's lighting and mood of the picture. Some see these things as one and the same things, others concentrate on the lighting and the subjects..I'll try to fill in the gap about the "look" I think what you are looking for is what old halftone printing does to the image tones, it sort of makes the "rough", notice how the skin on the girls doesn't look smooth, as if the colors were somehow simplified into less tones, crushed somehow, like 80's cartoons almost. A part of it is due to airbrushing, and a part of it is due to the effects of halftone film. That's the same look you can see in pictures from old equipment manuals or brochures or cheaper magazines from 70's, it's just low grade halftone printing plus airbrushing on the skin. I really don't have any idea how would one replicate that in motion, you could replicate the lighting, costumes etc. But I don't think that is what you were asking about, it could have been a picture of a flower for all it matters (but maybe I'm mistaking about what you are asking) Though one thing comes to mind... If I wanted to make a photo look like that using photoshop, here is what I'd do: First I'd increase the contrast to lose finer gradations, then I'd compress the contrast back using masking with a small blur offset, the effect of that is increased saturation, and a very compressed cartoonish look, then I'd reduce saturation to match the faded look. If you are working at 8-bit you could get some artefacts though. If you want I can send you an example of what I mean

It seems we are looking this from two compleatly different levels, your being all about sociology and politics, so I won't discuss it anymore

were you trying to say I have no mercy? No, I always give to poeple like that, whenever I can, I really can't pass by and not give money or something if I have in my pocket, I know that it won't help them much, If I found them a job and a place to stay or perhapse some time to talk to them, now that would be help, but I am not heartless about them. What I was saying is from their perspective. I'm not refering to their "technical" existential problems, but the psychological problems of being alone, left out, having no friends and no hopes for the future. That part can be overcome in time. I've had experience with that state of mind, though I never was homeless actually, but I know how it is to be excluded from society in a way. In time you learn to look at life around you as a giant stage game, where everyone is doing their parts, but they don't see it, and it can get funny to see how everyone is struggling not to be what you are, not to be alone, not to be a failure, while you have a feeling of freedom inside brought by the fact that you have lost what you were afraid to lose all the time, and now you have no such fears anymore. Same way, you can ask yourself, how can those monks that live in Tibet be happy with a bowl of rice, sitting there chanting all day in the nature. Well, believe it or not, while normal human life brings all the cusual pleasures, loosing all that and detaching from everything can give you time and reason to turn to yourself, know yourself, and that opens so many doors. When I reclaimed my role in the society, I was stronger than ever, because now I saw every realtive as it is, and once you stop looking at things through the glasses of society, the things that usually cause great pain may not hurt so much, or not at all. All in all, I don't think all these people are happy, I'm just saying that maybe some of them are not feeling bad, perhapse some of us are doing far worse in life, because detachment has hidden advantages. But I'm starting to preach here, so I'll stop

I've seen the trailer for "Akeela and the Bee", the film looks very interesting visually I think, I specially like the scene when Lawrence Bishburn is trying to "pull out" more from the girl in the begining of the trailer by asking her to spell some complicated expression. David, was that natural light or some kind of huge softbox? Also, the trailer looks very "filmic" like it was a duplicate negative or something like that. So how was the trailer put together and transfered? When I look at Lawrence in that film who is a star, It's so hard to imagine one of our old (I mean forum-old, not old old) forum members behind the camera, furthermore creating the visual language of the entire film. Such a honor. If I came to cinema and said out loud that the DP is one of our forum members, I'd probably get laughted at and they'd throw popcorn at me

Maybe he is not sad, maybe you are more sad for him than he is for himself. Being detached from life can have its advantages, as much as it feels freightning to those still tied to it. Of course, I bet he is hungry and cold, but you would be suprized at what people can get used to, and after they get used to it, they really don't care that much. Look at it from a brighter side: he lives without some existential fears that you have. You are all your life afraid to end up like him, he is free from that fear, his days won't change probably, and there is something calming in knowing that. People like that often get this feeling of indiference in time, feeling flat to most human things, that we struggle around. Things are not always so obvious, and sad music in movies is not always "right" about things..

you know what all this reminds me of? something you'd see in an infomercial.. "...products like this normally cost 10 times more in stores, but here you can get them for only $xxxx plus if you call right away you get a free..." It even looks like that

People aren't aware that however individualistic they maybe are feeling, they are what they are and do what they do because someone else "toled" them to, it maybe nature, or parents, or friends, or even enemies, but persons don't fall out of the sky, they are built by something or someone. If you wan't a society with moral people, you have to teach them morality with conditioning, because otherwise they won't even hear about that word. Morality does not come in your drinking water, people made it and shaped it to make the life in community easier, so without passing it to new generations, all you get is a bunch of people following their feelings And as much as it may be romantinc and movie-like to think that morality comes from listening to your heart, that is just not true. Human heart is a dangerous thing. Hitler listened to his heart. His heart was full of hate, that is a real feeling. And great evil has become from that. Feelings can sometimes emulate morality, because sometimes they are oriented toward the good of your friends (which is natural), but other times those same feelings can make you kill, steal, rape, like wild chimps. So morality is a cognitive construct, while feelings are a pretty unstable thing, and can not be relied upon to build society. Another, "cheaper" compromise is building society of fear. It's easier to do, but is also less efficient. But a company selling candy bars will rather sell the idea of being anything you want to be while eating their stuff, and getting profits, and later letting the SWAT dogs deal with the consequences than getting less profit this year. Of course this is a parabole, I'm not implying that food companies and directly responsible for the changes in mentality, that happens on a much larger and longer scale. But hey, as long as wild man eating homo sapiens monsters don't kill all the postmans, and I still am able to get my monthly supply of DVD's from amazon, see if I care if they all kill each other. That and if they don't touch people from Kodak. Kodak makes my life worth living. (John, you can quote me on that if someone there needs material for advertising) But maybe I'm a bit cynical, time will tell

does that mean we should stop raising our kids and let them be in control of their own actions?

In short. Because when you copy one picture with resulution x to a medium of resolution x (same resolution), you get x/2 resolution, same goes for everything, telescopes, camera lenses, film printing, microscopes everything. It's basic phisics of optical resolving power. That's why since the begining of time print film was always a high-resolving slow emulsion, it had to outperform negative film by 2-3 times to get a good print. Really? And why is that? Why would Kodak put cheaper technology in motion picture emulsions when it can put the latest and the best, same goes vice versa. The emulsion technology of still film and motion picture film pretty much goes in step. Ask John if you will.

You can't really talk about reversal while examining one filmstock offfered by Kodak for motion pictures. Contrast on film is higher of course because reversal is in viewing contrast, while contrast of negative has to be increased to be viewable. The relative percieved contrast of a print vs. reversal is not that much different though (exept in case of films like 5285), but reversal has less latitude, which may not make it look contrasty, bur rather make it look like video in terms of dynamic range, in other words cut off on the edges. E6 is only saturated if you chose a saturated emulsion, like E100VS or Velvia. It can be more "normal" if you chose something like E100G or Astia, or compleatly natural if you chose something like Ektachrome 100 (EPN). The saturated E6 is the trend of 90's, from early 90's to the end it seems manufacturers were compeating whose E6 film will have more color saturation. E6 films from 70's and 80's and a little more natural. EPR (1976) is still one of the best E6 films out there in terms of getting natural colors and moderate percieved contrast. In still film world, the only real difference between reversal and negative in prints is that you can see highlights cliping in prints made from reversal. But there are many negative films which have more saturation than the avarage E6 emulsion.