Giray Izcan

I would try to find one but the prices of those seem to be on par with pro level s16 cameras so I would go with s16 or 16 even. I love and shoot s8 for its texture and painterly quality but I wouldn't spend thousands for a max 8 camera for a marginal increase in resolution

Don't get me wrong I'm all for film. Maybe i woke up funny I don't know. haha.

More negativity, I apologize but I mean from being pretty much the one of the bigger supplier for the industry to shrinking the list to a number of productions a year that you could say out loud in one big breath just doesn't look promising to me. How many out of how many of the current or even in the last year productions is being or was shot on film? 10 movies a year? How many? Some inserts with some dp's s8 camera in a digital show doesn't count because that is just a goof in a way. Or Johnny with Bolex shooting the streets of whatever city doesn't count either. Hope it gets better really as I only shoot and finish on film.

It would be nice if Kodak made a new stock but it is a convincing producers into shooting on film battle as is - and pretty much always it is a hard no... I doubt Kodak would even go through the trouble of testing a new stock, it is more or less barely used format as is. 1 approved out of 100 is just an exception. Maybe I woke up funny that I am being negative... As much as I would love to, I can't really say that film will be around much longer. I hope Kodak can sustain but I mean I don't personally know one single project being shot on film at the moment - I mean more earthly budgeted projects with no name people. And I'm not talking some silly little film shot in someone's living room either, I mean a professional production with either union or non-union crew. Shame really.

I am a film lover and a shooter but I have to admit the cost of shooting on35 film is a lot more expensive than digital. You can't always rely on recans and short ends. Are you going to be able to find 90k ft of 5219 from the same batch for example? So essentially, you'll still have to go through Kodak. The prices at Kodak are like in the 700's for a 1000ft roll of film, which only runs for 11 mins or more depending on the format choice. Even with the high rentals etc there is no way film will be cheaper. Maybe you can get away with recans etc for some short film but I wouldn't count on these "cheap" deals, recans, etc for a feature film for the sake of consistency amd availability. Especially if you finish photochemically like I do, then the consistency matters even more so. It's sort of like that's the look you want and truly believe in hence will accept to spend significantly more - nothing wrong with this of course. It is what it is....

Funny I have a Minolta xl 84. Lovely camera.

Good suggestions thank you so much. Maybe i should wait a few years.

Hello all, My son is turning 7 soon. I would like to get him a fully automatic s8 camera but I'm not sure which one to get. I'm planning on getting him a projector as well for him to watch the stuff he shoots. Any suggestions?

Hmm I'm not really sure but i would imagine the same stock was used as there isn't really choices anymore. I'll ask them actually.

It wasn't an IP. It was just a low contrast answer print. So the blacks and the colors match exactly to the film projection without% any color correction. I received the scans back in dpx and literally imported it into Davinci to convert the footage to Prores amd exported out right away. I exported it as Prores 422 lt. It was a 4k scan but since im on a MacBook Pro, my system couldn't handle the 4k so I set the resolution to 2k.

Pushed expired stock defintely surprised me in a good way in terms of grain. I like the fact that it looks grainier than most modern stuff due to expired film stock.

The workflow I'll be following is first get a telecine from the neg with edgecodes and then get the neg cut without worrying about sfx shots or titles or sound as I am only doing the color timing of the 35 and s16 material photochemically. I will then get the timed lo-con print scanned at 4k on Scanity. All gets done at Fotokem.

Miguel, Thank you. It was a test I shot for an upcoming project. I'm back to photochemical color timing and scanning prints or ip's as I prefer the film look.

Sure. When you overexpose negative, it yields for higher printer lights to print down or to dial the exposure back to normal from an overexposed image. Overexposure helps tightening up the grain, makes colors pop more with richer blacks as opposed to an underexposed but printed up image which tends to have more muted colors with milkier blacks and heavier grain. The choice of course depends. Since the film stock I shot on was expired, it need to be overexposed by 1 stop as film loses its sensitivity over time and and as the base fog increases with age. Essentially the 500 stock becomes more like 250. I pushed it one stop which technically brought the effective ASA back to 500 from 250 but I rated it as 320 ASA so overexposed the neg by 2/3 of a stop.

Password: low-key sorry